A History of Equestrian Drama in the United States: Hippodrama’s Pure Air and Fire 9781138503021, 9781315145532

Citation preview

A History of Equestrian Drama in the United States

A History of Equestrian Drama in the United States documents the history of equestrian drama in the United States and clarifies the multi-faceted significance of the form and of the related stage machinery developed to produce equestrian dramas. The development of equestrian drama is traced from its origins and influences beginning in the sixteenth century, through the height of the form’s popularity at the turn of the twentieth century. Analysis of the historical significance of the genre within the larger context of U.S. theatre, the elucidation of the importance of the horse to theatre, and an evaluation of the lasting impact production of the plays has had on theatre technology are also included. Kimberly Poppiti, PhD, MFA, has been studying and writing about horses and theatre for years. She has published numerous related articles and is a twotime winner of the USITT’s Herbert D. Greggs Award (2017 and 2013) for her writing about theatre design and technology. For over 20 years, she was a full-time professor at Dowling College, where she chaired the Department of Communication and Performing Arts. She still works as a professor, and as a writer, living on Long Island with her family.

A History of Equestrian Drama in the United States Hippodrama’s Pure Air and Fire Kimberly Poppiti

First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Kimberly Poppiti to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-1-138-50302-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-14553-2 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

For Esmé - with love.

Contents

List of figuresviii Prefaceix Acknowledgmentsxii Introduction

1

1 Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

4

2 Early Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America (1771–1812)23 3 Early Productions of Equestrian Drama in England and the United States

42

4 The Plays: Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

66

5 The Plays: Military Equestrian Drama

97

6 The Plays: Frontier Equestrian Drama

116

7 The Plays: Stage Machinery in Racing and Related Equestrian Drama

135

8 Epilogue and Conclusions

179

Bibliography182 Index191

Figures

1.1 Maroccus Extaticus 5 1.2 Exterior Astley’s Amphitheatre, 1777 14 1.3 Interior of Astley’s Amphitheatre, circa 1808 14 1.4 Image From Astley’s System of Equestrian Education16 2.1 Ricketts and Cornplanter 32 5.1 Poster: The Battle of the Alma, 1854 107 5.2 Putnam110 5.3 The New York Hippodrome, 1905 112 6.1 Poster: Jesse James, the Bandit King124 6.2 Poster: Buffalo Bill’s Wild West127 7.1 Neil Burgess 141 7.2 Neil Burgess in Character 142 7.3 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 256,007 143 7.4 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 277,137 145 7.5 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 286,709 147 7.6 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 418,372 149 7.7 Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 418,372 150 7.8 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 423,171 151 7.9 Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 423,171 152 7.10 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 423,372 153 7.11 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 471,126 155 7.12 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 924,632 158 7.13 Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 924,632 159 7.14 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 996,452 161 7.15 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 653,997 163 7.16 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 656,969 164 7.17 Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 656,969 165 7.18 Poster: New York Production of Ben-Hur, 1899 167 7.19 Poster: Touring Production of Ben-Hur, 1901 168 7.20 Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 666,714 171 7.21 Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 666,714 172

Preface

The process of researching and writing this book began years ago, developing originally out of my love for horses and my studies in theatre, and subsequently growing as my curiosity about the combination of the two increased. My early research included Arthur Saxon’s 1968 study on “Hippodrama in England and France.”When I read this for the first time, I was motivated to seek out a similar record of horses onstage in the United States; finding that none existed, I began to research and chronicle the development of the form myself. The first formal study I made on this subject was presented in my doctoral dissertation at New York University; after that was completed, my interest and my research continued, and eventually led me to write this book. I had four main goals in writing this book: (1) to create a record of the plays that were produced with horses in theatres within the United States during the nineteenth century (2) to identify the origins and trace the development of “equestrian drama” in the United States through the study of significantly related earlier forms (3) to elucidate the significance of the horse in American theatre, and (4) to clarify the current state of equestrian drama in the United States. The initial challenge posed by my research was identifying and locating the “equestrian dramas” themselves. Since no organized record of equestrian drama in the United States existed prior to this study, I began by searching for (and eventually finding) scripts for as many of the plays as possible. I then researched when, where, and (whenever possible) how they were first performed. Finding that the equestrian dramas had developed out of earlier forms of theatre and equestrian entertainments, it became necessary to research those forms as well, in order to contextualize and better understand the plays themselves. Through the process of gathering and organizing that information, I was able to trace a representative history of equestrian entertainments through early performers and performances in both England and colonial America. I then progressed to identifying the early performances of actual equestrian dramas in theatres and, from there, to organizing the plays into various subtypes of equestrian drama in order to best draw conclusions about the form. As this is the first book dedicated to the study of equestrian drama in the United States, the path of my research was not always clear, but emerged through searching for information in various places. Detailed announcements

x  Preface

published mainly in newspapers from various cities provide the earliest information on displays of horsemanship and developing equestrian circuses. These forms required little beyond a horse and rider in a ring or field for their production and were produced throughout a fairly wide area. These early displays of horsemanship were unscripted, but some written accounts of performances exist, as do a few training manuals and some visual depictions of the equestrians and horses in action. Written texts of scripts for equestrian drama are found for plays produced in the United States beginning in 1812, and these are referenced throughout this book and supported by secondary sources as needed and whenever available. Although the written scripts for equestrian drama are essential to the study of the form, the accounts of the plays in performance are nearly as critical because the nature of equestrian drama is that it thrived and was most fully realized in production, rather than on the page. This is true to some degree for almost all plays, but it is exceptionally important in regard to equestrian dramas.The written scripts leave out essential details of performance simply because these details could vary greatly from production to production based on the limitations of individual theatres, as well as of the horses and equestrians performing the show. Stage directions regarding equestrian action tend to be vague and often details are not even included in the scripts; therefore, memoirs and related accounts of performance are essential to understanding how the plays looked in production. These plays were not written with the expectation that they would be read; they were designed to be experienced live in theatres. Since it is impossible to transport readers back in time to experience the actual productions, I have utilized a variety of additional sources to communicate as effectively as possible the experience of seeing the plays. The published autobiographies, biographies, recollections, and memoirs of equestrians and equestrian managers provided firsthand accounts of the performance and production of equestrian drama. Newspapers and other periodicals from both England and the United States provided a wealth of information, mainly in the form of announcements for upcoming performances, but also occasionally with reviews or descriptions of performances and venues. These publications came from various cities, but the most information was found in the publications of New York and Philadelphia (and to a lesser degree from those of cities in Rhode Island and Massachusetts). London periodicals were also extremely helpful in researching early chapters. Chronicles of theatre in New York City during the nineteenth century by Odell, Brown, and I­reland were extremely useful resources that often provided the most information regarding the dates, titles, locations, and cast lists for the production of equestrian drama. These details were not only useful on their own but also indispensable in directing me to related resources. Likewise, chronicles of the theatre in various other cities were useful in providing details on the local performance of equestrian drama in their areas. They also helped in illustrating that the most detailed records of equestrian drama in regular performance over an extended period of time are found for New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. This is not unexpected, since these were the major theatre cities in the United

Preface xi

States during the nineteenth century. Ultimately, New York emerged as the central home of equestrian drama in the United States, with Philadelphia as the secondary home and Boston significant as well. Outside of these major theatre centers, productions of the plays toured successfully, but were not produced with much regularity. The major reasons for this are likely to include insufficient audiences in smaller cities to sustain equestrian troops in residence or in extended production runs, and theatrical venues that may not have easily or effectively accommodated horses. These factors may have made equestrian troupes less likely to travel to untested cities, especially if they were still drawing audiences in another location. Just as certain cities emerged as the major homes of equestrian drama, so too specific theatres within those cities emerged as the most significant venues for equestrian drama. These include the Park Theatre, Bowery Theatre, and Lafayette Theatre in New York and the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia. The availability of research material on all of these components and aspects of equestrian drama have shaped this study.

Acknowledgments

I am extremely grateful for the help, support, and love I received from my family while working on this project; thank you to Glenn and Esmé Warmuth, and to Lawrence and Patricia Poppiti, each of whom made vital contributions. I am also grateful to the friends and colleagues who supported this project: Bill Bruehl (Stony Brook University), Anne Moyer (Stony Brook University), Vincent Novara (University of Maryland), and David Rogers (Broadway Press, who first suggested I contact Routledge about this project). Thanks are due to archivists at various research facilities, these include Kaitlyn Pettengill ­(Historical Society of Pennsylvania), Karen Roles and Sean Campbell (Buffalo Bill Center of the West), and Peter Shrake (Circus World Museum). Beyond this, the research community has provided indispensable support online, and I am grateful to those who maintain the collections at Archive.org, Hathitrust. org, Google Patents, Wikimedia Commons, Project Gutenberg, and the U.S. Trademark and Patent Office (all of which enabled me to find numerous essential documents and images). Thank you as well to the staff at the many libraries and research facilities I worked with, especially those at Stony Brook University Library, New York Public Library, NYPL Billy Rose Theatre Collection, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library, Harvard Theatre Collection, Patchogue-Medford Public Library, Circus World Museum, and both Five Towns and St. Joseph’s College Libraries. Thanks also to Eileen Curley, Janice Kelly, Joseph Kuhl, and Julie Raplee, as well as to Paula and Greg Warmuth, Tomas, and Peaseblossom. Finally, thank you to my most missed friends: Ronald Armanini, Benilde Montgomery, and Rose Zimbardo.

Introduction

This book is about “equestrian drama,” which is also known as “hippodrama,” and occasionally as “horse drama.” These are all acceptable descriptive terms that can be used to name the type of theatre examined in this book. I use equestrian drama because it is the term used in most of the extant written scripts from these plays, as well as most of the contemporary announcements, advertisements, written accounts, reviews, and reports of performance from the time period in which they were produced. Earlier scholars have used both hippodrama and equestrian drama, and have defined these plays in their own words.The most significant usages and definitions of each term come from Clet Anthony Giraud and Arthur H. Saxon, both of whom wrote about the form in Europe. Giraud wrote about “equestrian drama” in his 1939 dissertation, “The Equestrian Drama of the Nineteenth Century.” He defines equestrian drama by saying, “Drama is not equestrian merely by reason of the presence of horses; the drama, the result of conscious effort—either original or adapted—must be principally designed for the exploitation of horsemanship, trick riding, and equine sagacity.” Saxon wrote about “hippodrama” in 1968 in Enter Foot and Horse: A History of Hippodrama in England and France. He defines the form by saying, “The true hippodrama, as the name implies, is literally a play in which trained horses are considered as actors, with business, often leading actions, of their own to perform.” I define “equestrian drama” as plays written or performed to include a live horse or horses enacting significant action or characters as a necessary part of the plot or production. In this book, I trace the development of equestrian drama in the United States from its mainly English origins (including performing horses, displays of horsemanship, and equestrian circus acts) in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries, through the nineteenth century (when the popularity of equestrian drama reached its peak and the form thrived as a type of spectacular theatre), and through to the present day (in which traditional equestrian dramas are rarely performed, but wherein the form continues to exist in various contemporary iterations). Throughout this book, the various subtypes of equestrian drama are defined and described.The significance of the horse and of equestrian drama to American theatre history, including contributions to contemporary theatre and stagecraft, are also evaluated, as are the factors contributing to the development,

2  Introduction

growth, and popular success of equestrian drama and the horse onstage. The reasons for the demise of equestrian drama as a popular mainstream entertainment are also explored and clarified, as is the current state of the form. The material in this book (beyond the preface and this introduction) has been organized into eight chapters. The first three chapters provide information about the development of equestrian drama from its earliest known roots to the time of its emergence as a distinct theatrical genre in the United States in the early years of the nineteenth century. Chapters 1 and 2 are devoted to the study of early equestrian entertainments that predate the emergence of equestrian drama as a distinct form. Chapter 3 identifies the earliest productions of equestrian drama in legitimate theatres in England and the United States, as well as the reaction of audiences and critics to these productions.The next four chapters present studies of the equestrian dramas themselves, grouping the plays into four subtypes. Chapter 4 focuses on equestrian melodrama, Chapter 5 on equestrian military plays, Chapter 6 on equestrian frontier drama, and Chapter 7 on equestrian dramas produced with specialized machinery designed to allow a spectacularly realistic appearance of forward motion by horses, mainly but not exclusively “racing plays.” Chapter 8 is the final chapter; in it, the evolution of the horse in theatre and of equestrian drama after the nineteenth century are considered and conclusions are drawn. Before moving on to the main study, which begins in Chapter 1, and in order to understand equestrian drama better, a brief overview of the historical development of theatre in the area that became known as the United States will provide some necessary context.

Developing Theatre in North America Although earlier theatrical activities existed in North America, including ceremonies of various indigenous peoples and ceremonies by early missionaries and settlers, it is not until the mid-seventeenth century that detailed records of theatrical productions in the area that became known as the United States first appear. The influence of English forms on these productions, especially with respect to formal theatre, permanent theatres, and organized theatre companies, are apparent and documented. Early theatrical productions reflecting English forms of theatre were produced by European colonists, who began to arrive in the early years of the seventeenth century.The first of these is documented to have occurred in 1665, with an amateur production of Ye Bare and Ye Cubb performed in Virginia. The producers of this play appear to have been arrested as a result of the performance, and it was not until around 1700 that the governor of New York granted the first known license allowing the legal production of theatrical plays in the colonies.1 This license went to Richard Hunter, who is also remembered as the first playwright in what would become the United States, for his play Androboros, which was published in 1714 (but probably never performed). Although there is some debate about the earliest theatres and theatrical productions in the

Introduction 3

United States, records indicate that the first theatre was built in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1716, followed by another in New York in 1732, and another in South Carolina in 1736. In 1750, Thomas Kean performed Richard III in New York, and two years later in 1752, Lewis Hallam arrived with an acting troupe from England and performed The Merchant of Venice in Williamsburg, Virginia, becoming the first professional acting company in the American colonies. In 1767, they produced The Prince of Parthia, a tragedy written by Thomas Godfrey. The play was produced at the New Theater in Southwark, near Philadelphia and is recalled as the first play written by an American playwright to be professionally produced in the colonies.2 In 1771, the first public display of horsemanship occurring in the colonies is recorded. From this beginning, equestrian entertainments became increasingly common and popular, with the first equestrian circuses appearing between 1785 and 1792, and the first production of an equestrian drama occurring in New York City in 1803. Equestrian dramas would continue to develop and enjoy popular success throughout the nineteenth century in both England and the United States. But the story of how the form emerged and developed begins much earlier and in England.

Notes 1. Numerous sources report the details of the charges against the producers.The basic charge was that play production was illegal, but some reports cite the content and/or quality of the play as the main offense. The charges appear to have been dismissed after the judge reviewed the material, as Vaughn (7) reports, On August 27, 1665, one William Darby and two confederates were called into a Virginia court to answer charges of having performed (and presumably written) a play called “Ye Bare and Ye Cubb.” The judge required them to appear in costume and recite portions of the work.Their command performance must have been persuavasive, for His Honor acquitted the trio and ordered the plaintiff, one Edward Martin, to pay the court costs. 2. Various accounts of this production exist, including that by George Oberkirsh Seilhamer, who devotes Chapter 18 of History of the American Theatre: Before the Revolution to the details of this production, pp. 185–195.

1 Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

The roots of equestrian drama in the United States are firmly planted in England, where equestrian drama developed gradually from earlier forms of entertainment involving horses. The earliest documented instance of a horse performing for the entertainment of an audience (in something other than an athletic contest) comes from the late sixteenth century in England, with the public displays of equine sagacity by a “learned horse.” Learned horses perform acts of seeming intelligence and intuition. Another early type of performing horse is found in the “equestrian ballet,” which is a type of choreographed equestrian entertainment featuring cavalry maneuvers performed for entertainment rather than defense or training. Early forms of equestrian ballet began to emerge in the sixteenth century. Another early step forward in the development of equestrian entertainments is documented in the illustrated manual on vaulting, a type of acrobatic equestrianism, written in the mid-seventeenth century by the vaulting master William Stokes. Stokes’ text set down in writing for the first time the identifying characteristics of this acrobatic style of equestrian entertainment. “Horsemanship,” or expert acrobatic riding, which often accompanied displays of learned horses and/or exhibitions of vaulting, became popular in England during the middle to late years of the eighteenth century. It was presented mainly at outdoor locations at or adjacent to resorts, spas, and pleasure gardens.These early displays of horsemanship and other equestrian acts developed into the “equestrian circus,” which combined multiple equestrian acts and/or performers, often at a dedicated location and on an established schedule, and led to the later development of equestrian drama. In this chapter, early precursors to equestrian drama are discussed so that readers may best understand their relevance to the development of equestrian drama. The chapter is concluded with an explanation of the emergence and progression of relevant theatrical legislation in England, during the late seventeenth through the late eighteenth centuries, as it relates to the development of modern theatre in general and to equestrian drama in particular.

Learned Horses The first detailed records of a live equestrian entertainment performed by a specifically identified individual performing horse are of the learned horse

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 5

Morocco, who was known by various spellings, including Maracco and Maraccus, and as “Banks’ horse” and “Bankes’ horse.” Records indicate that he first performed in England during the late sixteenth century. Among the skills Morocco demonstrated were: coin counting, finding and returning hidden items, identifying and counting cards, and seeking out and identifying individual members of the audience on command. He was also able to demonstrate a variety of more physical acts, including dancing, prancing, falling down, lying down, and playing dead for extended periods of time.1 In 1595, a pamphlet featuring dialogue between Morocco and Bankes was published. This pamphlet, Maroccus Extaticus, or Bankes’ Bay Horse in a Trance (Figure 1.1), is the only known surviving primary document solely dedicated to the act.2 Morocco captivated the attention and imagination of the public to a great degree and references to him are found in numerous other contemporary and later writings by various authors, including William Shakespeare, Sir Walter Raleigh,Thomas Dekker, and Ben Jonson.The public’s captivation with Morocco’s ability to perform seemingly unnatural acts of intuition and understanding reached such a fever pitch in some instances that legend has it he was

Figure 1.1  Maroccus Extaticus

6  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

at least twice accused of and tried for witchcraft. Thankfully, Morocco is documented in various accounts to have exonerated himself before his inquisitors by identifying a crucifix-bearing member of the assembly, kneeling before him, and then rising to kiss the crucifix before the astounded crowd. While learned horses, including Morocco, are promoted as possessing unusual intuition and intelligence that allows them to answer the questions based on an innate understanding of them, it is more likely that these horses work off cues from their human partners, in Morocco’s case, Bankes. These cues must be subtle enough to elude notice by audience members and critics, and the fact that such nuanced communication is possible between people and horses is nearly as amazing as the illusion the act presents. Philip Butterworth explains, in his book, Magic on the Early English Stage, the most popular theory on the learned horse act, which is that the horse pays strict attention to the human and thus is capable of reading subtle clues. This theory, which attempts to explain the illusion of equine sagacity, relies primarily upon the maintenance of active eye contact or focus, which is reinforced with the pointing rod or stick. Butterworth references numerous accounts that make note of the close eye contact between Bankes and Morocco, including Gervase Markham’s 1607 text, Calvarice; Or, the English Horseman, in which Markham says, Looke to what place you point your rode, to that place you must also most constantly place your eye, not removing it to any object, till your will be perform’d, for it is your eye and countenance, as well as your words, by which the Horse is guided, and whosoever did not Bankes’ Curtall, might see that his eye did never part from the eye of his Master. Numerous other learned horses followed Morocco. Many of these horses performed with circuses and others in equestrian dramas; in both settings, they enacted various feats of intuition and understanding, as they had done in earlier independent performances. This form endures to the present day, with learned horses still performing in circuses and at fairs. Two significant later learned horses, both of whom lived and worked at the turn of the twentieth century, are the American horse Beautiful Jim Key and the German horse Clever Hans.3 These horses illustrate the longevity of the learned horses’ popularity, which stems from the audiences’ delight in demonstrations of apparent equine intelligence and is the main focus of such acts, even though the human/s involved are also essential to the act. Other types of equestrian entertainments focus more on the work of the equestrians/riders than that of the horse (although in most cases, both are essential to success).

Equestrian Ballet Around the time of Morocco, another equestrian form began to emerge: the equestrian ballet. Little is known of the early development of this type of choreographed equestrian entertainment, which was based on earlier mounted

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 7

military training and cavalry combat maneuvers and became popular in Europe during the seventeenth century. Equestrian ballet was mainly a court entertainment, often presented on special occasions. Forms related to the equestrian ballet include mounted quadrilles (which are related to military formations designed for four people on horseback) and equestrian carousels (also related to cavalry exercises).4 Another form of equestrianism with military roots is vaulting, which became a popular entertainment in the seventeenth century.

Vaulting A noteworthy early equestrian performer is the vaulting equestrian William Stokes. Stokes, who performed during the seventeenth century, is the first known vaulting equestrian entertainer. The art of vaulting (sometimes known as voltige) involves variations on two basic acrobatic skills: leaping on and over a moving horse, and performing acrobatic acts on or over the back of the moving horse.Vaulting relies on the steady and dependable forward progress of a reliable horse and the acrobatic and athletic abilities of the vaulter. In 1652 Stokes published The Vaulting-Master, or, The Art of Vaulting Reduced to a Method, Comprized Under Certaine Rules, Illustrated by Examples, and Now Primarily Set Forth by Will. Stokes.This book features various illustrations depicting Stokes in action, executing daring vaulting maneuvers such as “The Hercules Leap,” “The Pegasus,” “Over the Head of the Horse,” and “Over Three Horses.”5 In The Vaulting Master, Stokes elucidates the execution of these and other exercises and proclaims them to comprise “the chiefe, if not all that can be done from the ground, either on the horse or otherwise, which I have handled plainly and methodically.”6 From its known beginnings, with early individual performers such as Morocco and Stokes, through the performance of advanced equestrian exercises for the aristocracy in ballets, carrousels, and quadrilles, equestrian entertainments expanded and diversified. Beginning in the 1750s, equestrian entertainments began to gain widespread popularity with audiences in England, with various cultural factors facilitating their popular success. As theatre and related legislation developed throughout the eighteenth century in England, equestrian entertainments became popular at English pleasure gardens and in other outdoor settings.

Early Displays of Horsemanship Public displays of horsemanship were presented by riding masters, many of whom were expert horsemen who had enjoyed personal wealth and professional success in England during the early eighteenth century when attendance and study at riding academies were popular and typical activities for members of the English aristocracy. As a new market economy and a consequently rising middle-class emerged in England, the culture evolved, and members of the upper classes were forced to make some concessions to the shifting economic

8  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

structure. As a result, many riding masters lost their jobs and subsequently found it necessary to find other means of generating income. One method that some of these riding masters devised to earn money was the public presentation of their riding skills. As the earlier examples of performing horses and equestrians illustrate, this was not the first time that expert equestrians had performed entertainments for audiences, but it was only now that the forms gained widespread popularity. Such entertainments were appreciated by audience members who, while perhaps lacking in the aristocratic background of the riding masters’ former clientele, were in possession of sufficient surpluses of both money and time to allow attendance at entertaining performances originally given in open fields and other public spaces, usually located near gathering places such as pubs, health spas, or, most often, pleasure gardens. Pleasure gardens were public meeting places that originated as additions or adjuncts to medicinal springs or wells and spas. Certainly, public gardens existed prior to the eighteenth century, and Warwick Wroth explains in his historical study, The Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century, “Several London pleasure gardens were in existence before the Restoration.”7 But it is not until the mideighteenth century that equestrian entertainments became popular at pleasure gardens, perhaps because the quality of entertainment became more important when, as Wroth reports, in “about 1730–1740” the managers of pleasure gardens joined in the emerging market economy and began to charge admission fees to their establishments.8 This may have encouraged the development of the form into one which audiences would pay to see. English pleasure gardens were not the only locations at which equestrians performed, but they were the main such locations and, although not all English pleasure gardens included equestrian entertainments in their performance schedules, by the 1760s, the form was well established there (and growing in popularity). Pleasure gardens became locations at which performers could build a following and debut increasingly spectacular acts (which led to spectacular rivalries). Equestrian presentations delighted pleasure garden audiences that were typically comprised of a cross section of society, who came to pleasure gardens for the wide variety of entertainments available there. The equestrian performers did not disappoint these audiences. They offered demonstrations of expert riding that included astounding feats of horsemanship combined with expert tricks of general athleticism and acrobatics. These acts built and expanded upon the athletic vaulting of earlier performing equestrians, such as Stokes. In the eighteenth century, popular equestrian entertainers performed various feats of horsemanship that mainly fall under the headings of vaulting (or what might today be referred to as trick riding). These included “riding” in a variety of unexpected positions and attitudes. It was not unusual to see performing equestrians standing, leaping, and tumbling astride their swiftly moving horse (or horses); riding backward; or balancing in other precarious positions on the backs or sides of their mounts. Also popular was the

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 9

display of other skills, including shooting and juggling while aboard the moving horse. As demand grew, competition also increased, and the equestrian acts became increasingly daring. A series of announcements found in the London Public Advertiser and Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser beginning in 1758 provide evidence of some early equestrian performers in England. The first of these dates from Wednesday, 20 September 1758 and appeared in the Public Advertiser. This announcement references a prior performance of horsemanship, stating, “The gentleman who advertised to perform the surprising feats of activity in HORSEMANSHIP, on Monday last at Caroon Hall, near Vaux-Hall, performed the same with the utmost Dexterity.”9 The name of the performer is not included, but it seems most likely that it was Mr. Johnson, for he is advertised again in the Public Advertiser, about one month later on 28 October, and by name this time, to perform “the last day of performance this season [. . .] near Vauxhall.”10 In July 1762, Johnson announced in the Public Advertiser a performance of feats of horsemanship “before the CHEROKEE KING and his Chiefs” at the Star and Garter in Chelsea. Performances before “Kings” and other dignitaries were bragging points for many equestrian entertainers, but Johnson appears to be unique in advertising performances for members of the Cherokee Nation. The announcement promised a variety of equestrian feats, including Johnson riding on: a single horse [while] standing on one Leg on his Back [. . .] two Horses with a Foot in each inside Stirrup when the horses are at the greatest rate; he extends himself between them at full Length; then rises himself up and vaults from one to the other, and stands upon the saddles upright, and gallops three Times round the Green. [. . .] He rides a single Horse, and mounts and dismounts while the Horse is on full Speed; and, to the great Surprize of the Spectators, leaps over the Horse when at his greatest Rate: What is here mentioned is allowed by all Judges to be the greatest Thing of the Kind ever done in England.11 Later that month, another announcement also proclaimed that his next horsemanship act would include “The greatest thing ever attempted.”12 This sort of braggadocios, yet non-specific, claim is typical of the increasingly competitive world of early English equestrian entertainments, where professional rivalries were commonplace, and each performer energetically sought to outdo his competitors. In June 1766, an announcement for a display of horsemanship by Johnson’s rival, Mr. Price, to perform in a field adjacent to a garden near Islington appeared in The St. James Chronicle or British Evening Post.13 Here Price’s act is described to include him riding “on full gallop” and in various attitudes, including while standing “on his Head on the Saddle, with his feet upright.” The announcement also promises that Price “stoops from his Horse, takes his

10  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

[horse’s] Fore Foot in his Right Hand, and canters the Horse on three Legs as he sits on the Saddle.” The act, on the whole, is described as being “different from what was ever attempted by any man in England.” Mr. Price is next found advertised to perform at Dobney’s Bowling Green, a pleasure garden near the Three Hats, in 1767. Announcements for the acts of both Sampson and Price are found in the Public Advertiser of 22 April 1767, with the announcement for the act by the Sampsons’ being followed directly in the vertical column of the newspaper by that of Price. The Sampsons’ act is described simply and as including “various feats of horsemanship, this day, at a commodious place built for that purpose, in a field adjoining the Three Hats.” Price’s act, to be presented at Dobney’s Bowling Green, is described in more detail in his announcement as follows: MR. PRICE’S Original Feats of HORSEMANSHIP (which he exhibited before their Majesties) [. . .] I. He makes his Horse go through several extraordinary Performances. II. He rides on full Gallop, standing with one Foot on the Saddle. III. He then rides fu’l Speed, takes up anything from the Ground, or will ride for a considerable Time, with his hand sweeping the Ground all the while. IV. Whilst the Horse is on fu’l Speed, he leaps from his Saddle, and springs over his Horse backward and forward several different Times, discharging his Pistol at the same Instant. V. He gallops his Horse on three Legs as he sits on the Saddle, holding the Right Foot in his Right Hand. VI. He rides two Horses, one Foot in each horse’s inside Stirrup; likewise, standing upright on the Saddle, or lying across them, his head on one Horse and his Feet on the other; and in any of those Positions he will take a Flying Leap over any Height they are capable of clearing. VII. He rides three Horses on full Speed in many different Positions. LASTLY, He concludes his Performances with riding a single Horse on full Gallop, standing on his head on the saddle, his Feet upright in the Air, and discharging a Brace of Pistols at the same Time.14 These performances and rivalry persisted throughout the summer months and can be traced in the published announcements. A few seasons later, in 1771, Price is rumored to have finally bested Sampson once and for all by somehow persuading him to sell his horses to an equestrian known as “Coningham,” who apparently used the horses in his act when he succeeded the Sampsons as the headlining equestrian at the Three Hats beginning as early as 1771 and certainly by September 1772, when an announcement for “Coningham’s unparallel’d Horsemanship” appeared in the Public Advertiser. In the announcement, an offer is made of, “Five Hundred Guineas to any one in this Kingdom

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 11

to equal Coningham’s Activity.”15 The details of how Coningham came to possess the horses and usurp the act are unclear. Price’s announcement (like Johnson’s before him and many equestrians after him), illustrates a style of enthusiastic self-promotion and one-upmanship in performance that would continue for over a century. This trend in advertising and performance both accelerated and encouraged the development of increasingly spectacular productions of (first) equestrian entertainments and (later) equestrian dramas. The earliest known equestrians were men, but it was not long before women (and soon after that children) also began performing. This speaks to both the family-friendly nature of the acts and the desire for innovation in their presentation. In the summer of 1767, the equestrian couple of Mr. and Mrs. Sampson were added to the performance schedule at the Three Hats Pleasure Garden in Islington. Mrs. Sampson’s debut was announced under the heading of “HORSEMANSHIP” in the Public Advertiser on 21 July 1767.16 With this performance, Mrs. Sampson becomes the first “equestrienne” found advertised to perform professionally; others soon followed (and may have performed earlier). The next year, horsemanship by Mrs. Patty Astley and another, unnamed,“young lady” was announced.The “young lady” appeared in an announcement for horsemanship by Mr. Wolton, who had been performing individually since at least 1767 and was announced to perform riding “two horses on full speed, standing upright with one foot on each saddle,” as well as to demonstrate a dismount from his horse “on full speed, and leaps on and over the horse several different times,” and to conclude by making “the horse follow him around the ring, to return thanks to the company for their kind encouragement and recommendations.”17 The “young lady” with whom he performed was announced in the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser to debut at “St. George’s Spaw, the Dog and Duck, St. George’s fields, Southwark” on 19 May 1768: A young Lady will begin to perform several feats of horsemanship on Whit Monday: She rides two horses on full speed, standing upright, with one foot on each saddle: She rides between two horses at full speed, with one foot in each stirrup: She takes several flying leaps, with two horses, over the bar.18 Just two weeks later, another announcement appeared, also in the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser. It is significant as the introduction of Mr.Astley, who proved essential to the development of equestrian entertainments (and who is discussed below): Mr. and Mrs. ASTLEY ride two horses both together at one time, and yet they have only two to ride on; she leaps the bar between two horses on full speed; she rides two horses with one foot on each sadle [sic], and fires a pistol; she leaps the bar on a single horse; and she exhibits on full speed the different guards made use of by [. . .] Hussars; also the manner Elliot’s charged the French troops in Germany.19 As various equestrians battled to be the best and most daring, equestrian performances at pleasure gardens grew increasingly diverse.This diversity is illustrated

12  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

by an announcement for an unusual “feat” performed by Daniel (sometimes listed as David) Wildman during the summer of 1772. The announcement that follows, from the Public Advertiser, for an upcoming performance at the Jubilee Gardens at Islington (at the location formerly known as “Dobney’s”) by Wildman, captures the essence of the performance: He rides standing upright, one foot on the saddle, the o’her on the horse’s neck, with a curious mask of bees on his head and face. He also rides standing upright on the saddle, with the bridle in his mouth; and, by firing a pistol, makes one part of the bees march over a table and the other part swarm in the air, and return to their proper hive again.20 Such a performance, while unusual in its inclusion of swarming, performing bees, is not unusual in its strikingly innovative nature. In fact, even the use of bees was not limited to Wildman; Mrs. Astley is known to have performed a similar act and to sometimes have done so on the same bill as Wildman, for example, on 19 August 1772, an announcement first appeared in the Public Advertiser for an act to appear: Every evening ‘till further notice, [. . .] Mrs. Astley and Mr. Wildman, between the several Acts of Horsemanship, will ride with a Swarm of Bees in the following Manner: Mrs. Astley with a Swarm on her Arm, imitating and lady’s Muff; then Mr. Wildman will move them to his Head and Face in a most extraordinary Manner.21 Clearly, the equestrian performer of this age was appreciated not only for excellence in horsemanship or acrobatics but also for ingenuity of performance. Live equestrian performance was becoming increasingly popular, and industrious equestrians seized on the moment, delighting audiences and accelerating the development of the form by organizing and presenting more original and spectacular performances. Pleasure gardens had provided an early home for equestrian entertainments in England. From here, a related form evolved: the equestrian circus, which first appeared in England in 1768.

Equestrian Circus Although the origins of the modern circus can be traced back to the “Circus Maximus” of Ancient Rome where popular entertainments featuring humans and animals thrilled large crowds, the foundations of the modern circus were laid in England throughout the mid to late years of the eighteenth century.The traditional circus as it exists today, with three rings featuring a variety of acts that typically include clowns, acrobats, and animals, was born in England, where it emerged directly from earlier “equestrian circuses.” The equestrian circus is the most direct and prominent precursor of (and most significant influence on) both the modern circus and the equestrian drama. It combined for the first

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 13

time a variety of equestrians and equestrian acts into a single, multi-act, circuslike production that was typically offered at a set location on a regular schedule. Like equestrian drama, the equestrian circus originated in England before moving to America and featured performing horses as its primary attraction. This early equestrian circus, of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, is of primary interest with regard to the roots of equestrian drama, both in Europe and the United States. The circus continued to develop through later periods in Europe, up to the emergence of the modern circus, which originated with Philip Astley, a British cavalry veteran and early equestrian performer.

Philip Astley Astley is widely recognized as the originator of the modern circus (although he did not call it a “circus”). He earned this distinction in 1768 when he first publicly exhibited his expertise in trick riding and horse training at his riding school in Lambeth, England. Astley’s announcements for “Activity on ­Horseback” are found beginning in April 1768 when he was advertised in the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser to perform “upwards of twenty attitudes on one, two, and three horses,” first at the New Spring Gardens and then at his riding school.22 The early acts performed by Astley are not markedly different from those performed by other early equestrians at Pleasure Gardens and similar venues.23 It is logical to assume that Astley was influenced by others; certainly, he was not the first equestrian to perform acts in public.The originality of Astley’s early acts aside, his true innovation and contributions to the field lie mainly in the diversity of his equestrian entertainments, the longevity of his career, and the ring at his amphitheatre (Figures 1.2 and 1.3), where he made his presentations of equestrian entertainments on a regular schedule in a single location of which he was both owner and operator. Astley’s success was facilitated by his skill as an equestrian performer, teacher, and director, as well as by persistent hard work. By 1770, he was hosting what would today be considered a full-blown circus at his riding school, including not only acts of equestrianism but also non-mounted clowns, acrobats, and balancing ropewalkers. By 1779 (but perhaps earlier), the ring was enclosed and more diverse acts were added to the bill of fare. The equestrian acts, however, remained the central focus of the performances and, judging from advertisements, were the primary draw for audiences.24 Astley originated not only the modern circus but also the circus “ring.” He and his horses performed in a ring because its dimensions best suited their performance needs and facilitated the finest performance possible by both horse and rider (an added bonus of the ring is that it concentrated the full attention of the audience who were able to gather around the ring for viewing). Astley went on to add seating and a roof to his venue.25 The circus ring remains a fixture of circuses, even in the present day. Additional rings were added later by necessity as circus audiences grew and more performance space became necessary in order to accommodate the additional

Figure 1.2  Exterior Astley’s Amphitheatre, 1777

Figure 1.3  Interior of Astley’s Amphitheatre, circa 1808

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 15

spectators; the resulting multiple rings led to the now familiar “three-ring circus.” The need for additional rings, rather than a single larger ring, results directly from the nature of equestrian performance, particularly the sort of horsemanship that Astley was famous for presenting in his early years. A circular ring encourages the uninterrupted forward motion of the horse/s. A circular ring, more specifically one measuring 42 feet in diameter, also creates the optimum balance of centrifugal forces (which move away from the center point) and centripetal forces (which move toward the center point) for keeping an acrobatic rider balanced atop the forward moving horse. For this reason, the single ring could not be enlarged as the audience grew (without negatively affecting performance) and, therefore, extra rings were added. Also for this reason, 42 feet was the most common size for such a ring and remains the size of most contemporary circus rings, particularly those used for equestrian acts. Astley was not only an expert horseman but also a practicing riding teacher and writer. The original designation of his establishment was as a riding school. This was not uncommon for performing equestrians. Operating a riding school provided additional income while also enhancing an equestrian’s credentials. Astley’s teaching work was not limited to those students with whom he worked at his school; he also published his methods for training horses and riders. His book is titled Astley’s System of Equestrian Education: Exhibiting the Beauties and Defects of the Horse, with Serious and Important Observations on His General Excellence, Preserving Him in Health, Grooming, &c. and was published in 1802.26 In it, Astley covers practical matters such as, “necessary precautions in purchasing horses” and “feeding, grooming, &c.” He also offers advice on the acquisition of more specialized skills, such as “training horses to leap.” Figure 1.4, “Sketch of M. Astley’s System,” is included by Astley and depicts a “Professor in the act of working a horse; circle to the left.” Following the illustration, Astley provides an accompanying “EXPLANATION of the General Apparatus in the adjoining Page.” This explanation clarifies the labeled details as follows: A. B.

Cavesson and cord. Snaffle-reins, intended to adjust the given point, or exact position of the horse’s head. The breast-plate, belonging to the buckle-surcingle, bearing rein, C, D.  crupper, and so on, and intended to keep the whole secure.   1. Professor in the act of working the horse; circle to the left.   2. His assistant, in each hand a pistol, waiting for the signal from the professor.   3. The position of the horse’s head.   4. The cavesson cord; two small rings thereon.   5. A small hand-line (passed through two small rings to keep it steady), occasionally used to refresh the horse’s mouth, and to render it sensible to the motion of the hand, when the professor judges proper to ease him and reward his labor.

16  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

Figure 1.4  Image From Astley’s System of Equestrian Education

  6. The leather buckle-surcingle, communicating with the breast-plate, crupper, bridle-reins, bearing-reins, and so on.   7. The chambriere.   8. A basket, containing (the supposed) rewards, namely, corn, carrots, apples, and pears.   9. A drum, for the familiarizing a horse to it, when wanted. 10. A flag, used for the like purpose. 11. A trumpet to sound on similar occasions. 12. Fire-works of different explosions, intended to be let off at the will and pleasure of the professor, either by the assistance of a ropematch, lighted, or by the leader of such fire-works being conducted by the pan of a pistol, primed only – for the like purpose – the pistol being previously made fast to the pillar, etc. – according to art. 13. Sketch of a bag to be filled with any given weight of sand, the more effectually to habituate the horse to bear his rider; and which the author buckles round the horse for such purpose. 14. Sketch of a spur-stick, six feet long, used on various occasions; also to accustom the horse to the use of the spur, previously to his being mounted. 15. The assistant’s dog, which he occasionally causes to bark, at the pleasure of the professor. 16. A small hand-whip, hung on the pillar, for the use of the professor.27 Astley was also the teacher of some of the circus’s greatest early equestrian stars; foremost among these is Charles Hughes, who trained and performed with Astley

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 17

before opening his own equestrian circus and becoming the professional rival of his former employer.The first public mention of Hughes is found in the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser in an announcement for an upcoming performance at Astley’s in June 1771 in which Hughes “informs” readers that “horsemanship has been his chief study for many years” and is announced to perform an act “that far surpasses every thing of the kind ever yet attempted by any other performer.”28 (Such a boast seems brazen, given that Hughes was performing at Astley’s while Astley himself was also performing.)29 A month later, on 10 July 1771, the trio of “Mr. and Mrs. ASTLEY, with Mr. HUGHES,” was announced in the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser to “exhibit several surprising feats of activity on HORSEBACK, not to be equaled in Europe.”30 By February 1772, Hughes seems to have parted ways with Astley, as he announced his intention to be working with his wife and “performing their activity on horseback the ensuing summer.” By April of that year, Hughes is advertised (directly below an ad for Astley’s act) in the Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser to display, along with Mrs. Hughes,“Their unparalleled feats on one, two, three, and four horses” at “HUGHES’s RIDING SCHOOL.”31

The Royal Circus and Philharmonic Academy Following the origination of the circus by Astley in 1768, the next major step forward in the ongoing development of equestrian entertainments, and an extremely significant step in the journey toward the emergence of independent equestrian drama, came from Hughes. On 4 November 1782, the Royal ­Circus and Philharmonic Academy, a joint venture between Charles Hughes and Charles Dibdin the Elder, unified the business of the circus ring and the theatrical stage, and became the first venue to be described by its proprietors as a “circus.”32 In his memoirs, Dibdin explains the reasoning behind the unification: Horsemanship was at that time very much admired; and I conceived that, if I could divest it of its blackguardism, it might be made an object of public consequence. I proposed, therefore, that it should embrace all the dexterity and reputations of ancient chivalry; that tournaments, running at the ring, and other feats of equestrian celebrity, should be performed, and that a classical and elegant turn should be given to exercises of this description, which might there be practiced to such a degree of novelty and credit as to create a lively interest in the public. These exhibitions, I knew, would require not only an appropriate, but also a powerful introduction. I therefore proposed to have a stage on which might be represented spectacles, each to terminate with a just [sic], or a tilting-match, or some other grand object, so managed as to form a novel, and striking coup-de-theatre, and that the business of the stage and the ring might be united.33 The addition of a stage to the equestrian circus accelerated the evolution of equestrian drama by taking some elements of performance out of the ring and putting them on the stage. This was an essential advance in the development

18  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England

of equestrian drama as a distinct form and the inherent dramatic potential is clear. Recognizing this, and probably seeking to keep step with Hughes, Astley quickly added a stage to his own amphitheatre and by 1784 was presenting theatrical equestrian pantomimes and ballets utilizing that stage along with the ring, although it must be noted that no evidence is found of the horses actually moving out of the ring and unto the stage until the turn of the nineteenth century. This appears to have happened in England in 1800, a few years before it occurred in the United States. Saxon cites various announcements appearing in the London Times, Morning Herald, and Monthly Mirror on 2 June 1800 for a production of Quixote and Sancho; or, Harlequin Warrior at Astley’s that included horses “for the first time” on the stage.34 The idea quickly caught on and, later that month, the Royal Circus announced that its stage had been renovated to accommodate horses in their production of The Magic Flute; or, Harlequin Champion.35 As horses moved from the ring onto the stage, scripted dramatic dialogue was increasingly added to the performances. This was another significant step in the emergence of equestrian drama as a distinct theatrical genre. The addition of dialogue expanded the scope of equestrian performance from acrobatic, circus-type entertainments that included displays by learned horses and were performed by individuals or, sometimes, small troupes, to a more literary performance that incorporated the equestrian acts with the theatrical elements of the narrative progression of a story, presented onstage and through both dialogue and action. This innovation is widely attributed to Charles Dibdin, the Younger.

Andrew Ducrow Another significant figure in the development of equestrian drama is Andrew Ducrow, whose work in England, and specifically at Astley’s Amphitheatre, throughout much of the first half of the nineteenth century was popular and influential.36 Ducrow’s equestrian skill (and fame) rivaled that of Astley and Hughes, and his influence on later equestrians has proved greater than Hughes. Ducrow appeared in many equestrian dramas, excelled at scenic riding, equestrian pantomimes, and Roman riding (in which the “rider” stands on the back of one or more moving horses). He also originated numerous acts in this fashion, including a series of Roman riding scenic pantomimes: The Indian Hunter, which featured him astride two horses; The Chinese Enchanter, which had him astride three; and The Courier of St. Petersburg, which had him straddling four or more.37 These acts were depicted by various artists and the resulting images provide numerous enduring images of Ducrow’s Roman riding. Ducrow worked at Astley’s for many years, serving as manager of the amphitheatre and producing and directing many equestrian entertainments, including equestrian dramas. Saxon reports that, when the third iteration of Astley’s Amphitheatre was destroyed by fire in 1841, Ducrow lost his mind, suffering “mental aberrations

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 19

and physical paralysis and was committed to a madhouse. He died on 27 January 1842.”38 After Ducrow’s death, it was recalled in the Sunday Times of ­London, “He found theatrical equestrianism a knack [. . .] He made it an art; he brought to it grace and meaning; he told histories on horseback.”39 As equestrian entertainments developed and thrived throughout England, the form also spread to and continued to develop in the American colonies. While equestrian entertainments were evolving as described in this chapter, there were legislative developments taking place in England that would have a profound effect on the development of theatre and which would accelerate the development of equestrian entertainments into equestrian drama.40

Notes 1. Morocco’s acts are detailed in various sources, including by Philip Butterworth in Magic on the Early English Stage, pp. 60–73. 2. Maroccus extaticus. Or, Bankes Bay Horse in a Trance a Discourse Set Downe in a Merry Dialogue, betweene Bankes and His Beast: Anatomizing Some Abuses and Bad Trickes of This Age. Written and Intituled to Mine Host of the Belsuage, and All His Honest Quests. By Iohn Dando the wierdrawer of Hadley, and Harrie Runt, head ostler of Bosomes Inne. Early English Books Online. 3. Beautiful Jim Key worked with William “Doc” Key, a former slave and self-taught veterinarian, who proclaimed “kindness” and “patience” to be his main training tools. Kindness was also central to the message presented to audiences by Beautiful Jim and Doc Key, who implored audiences to “Be Kind to Animals.” Jim Key, it was claimed, could read, spell and calculate and is said to have demonstrated both his intelligence and his sense of humor in performance. Jim Key first performed in 1897 and retired in 1906, after having traveled the country and given successful performances at large venues including the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair and at Madison Square Garden. Beautiful Jim Key’s history is presented in a pamphlet/program commemorating the induction of William “Doc” Key and Beautiful Jim Key as “Honorary Members of the Parent American Band of Mercy” on 22 October 1901, in Boston, The Story of Beautiful Jim Key. Archive.org More information is found in Rivas and in The Beautiful Jim Key Collection of the Tennessee Virtual Archive, at the Tennessee State Library and Archives. Clever Hans was slightly younger than Beautiful Jim Key and worked mainly with Wilhelm von Osten; starting in 1904, the pair presented an act in which Clever Hans appeared to demonstrate an understanding of both arithmetic and the written word. Researchers concluded that the pair was utilizing a complex language consisting of unspoken cues or signals so nuanced that they were possibly unknowable and/or uncontrollable, perhaps even by von Osten. Using this language, the human (capable of solving the equations posed to the horse) is able to communicate (either intentionally or unintentionally, consciously or subconsciously) the information needed to correctly answer the question to the horse through subtle non-verbal cues that are imperceptible to the audience and may even be delivered subconsciously by the human. This phenomenon, termed “observer-expectancy effect” or the “Clever Hans Effect” has had significant applications in animal cognition studies, as well as in general research methodology. The Clever Hans Effect can be used to discredit the notion of the “learned” or “sagacious” horse; however, it is worth noting that an alternative interpretation of the learned horse phenomenon leads to the possibility that a horse able to discern cues so subtle that they go unrecognized by popular audiences and trained observers alike, possesses (and demonstrates in such an act) both highly sensitized powers of observation and extremely effective communication with the human delivering the signals in order to read them so accurately and respond accordingly.

20  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 4. These forms are not widely researched or written about, but Helen Watanabe-O’Kelley examines the equestrian ballet in her article, “The Equestrian Ballet in SeventeenthCentury Europe—Origin, Description, Development,” as do Paul Nettle and Theodore Baker in “Equestrian Ballets of the Baroque Period.” 5. Stokes’ book includes numerous illustrations of his trademark vaults that are well worth viewing if access is available. Early English Books Online. 6. William Stokes. The Vaulting-Master, or,The Art of Vaulting Reduced to a Method, Comprized Under Certaine Rules, Illustrated by Examples, and Now Primarily Set Forth by Will: Stokes. Printed for Richard Davis in Oxon, 1652, p. 35. 7. Warwick Wroth. The Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd, 1896, p. 1. Google Books. 8. Wroth, p. 2. 9. Public Advertiser. 20 September 1758. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 10. Public Advertiser. 10 October 1758. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 11. Public Advertiser. Monday, 5 July 1762. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 12. Public Advertiser. 27 July 1762. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 13. St. James Chronicle or British Evening Post. 7–10 June 1766. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 14. Public Advertiser (London, England). Wednesday, 22 April 1767; Issue 10132. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 15. Public Advertiser (London, England). Monday, September 14, 1772. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 16. Public Advertiser (London, England).Tuesday, 21 July 1767; Issue 10199. In the announcement, Mr. Sampson “begs Leave to inform the Public, that besides the usual Feats which he exhibits, Mrs. SAMPSON, to diversify the Entertainment and prove that the Fair Sex are by no Means inferior to the Male, either in Courage or Agility [. . .]” would also perform. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 17. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser (London, England). Wednesday, 23 September 1767; Issue 12029. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 18. Gazetteer & New Daily Advertiser (London, England). 19 May 1768. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 19. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser (London, England). Tuesday, 31 May 1768; Issue 12244. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 20. Public Advertiser. 15 June 1772. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 21. Public Advertiser. Wednesday, 19 August 1772. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 22. Gazetter and New Daily Advertiser (London, England). Wednesday, 6 April 1768; Issue 12197 and Thursday, 28 April 1768; Issue 12216. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 23. Tyrwhitt-Drake, in The English Circus and Fairground, suggests that Astley was influenced by a specific performer or performance at Belvedere Tea Gardens in Pentonville. 14. 24. As Astley developed the equestrian circus in England, Antonio Franconi founded the Cirque Olimpique and developed the form in France (where Astley would later perform and even live for a time). Equestrian drama never held the legitimate stages of France as it did those of England and the United States, but it was still a significant form performed in dedicated settings, with some military equestrian dramas achieving great popular success. Franconi’s work at the Cirque Olimpique and throughout France is detailed in Saxon’s Enter Foot and Horse. It is not discussed in detail here because, although “Franconi’s Hippodrome” opened in New York in May 1853 and operated until November 1855, the influence of Franconi on equestrian entertainments and drama in the United States was far enough removed for me to defer to Saxon. Likewise, I defer to Fotheringham and his Sport in Australian Drama on the history of equestrian drama in Australia. 25. Saxon provides an overview of the development of Astley’s Circus/Amphitheatre in Enter Foot and Horse, pp. 205–213.

Early Equestrian Entertainments in England 21 26. Philip Astley. Astley’s System of Equestrian Education: Exhibiting the Beauties and Defects of the Horse, with Serious and Important Observations on His General Excellence, Preserving Him in Health, Grooming, &c. T. Burnside: Dublin, 1802. Archive.org. 27. Astley, pp. 185–186. 28. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser (London). 18 June 1771. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 29. The rivalry between Hughes and Astley would continue, perhaps reaching its greatest height when Hughes opened his Royal Circus in 1782, but continuing to fester thereafter. 30. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser (London, England). Wednesday, 10 July 1771; Issue 13216. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 31. Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser (London, England). Wednesday, 26 February 1772; Issue 13, 414 and Tuesday, 21 April 1772; Issue 13 461. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. 32. The Royal Circus was located on Blackfriars Road near Westminster Bridge Road and was later renamed the Surrey. The venue has a long history, during which it burned down and was rebuilt numerous times. A detailed history of the venue and its offerings is traced by Daum. A detailed account of the opening of the Royal Circus and Philharmonic Academy from an unidentified, but apparently newspaper source, is also found at Wikicommons. 33. Charles Dibdin the elder. The Professional Life of Mr. Dibdin, Written by Himself, 2:105– 106. Fahrner also provides a detailed look at the venture, and describes various acts, in his Chapter 6, “Manager at the Royal Circus (1781–1785).” A description of the Royal Circus was published in the London Chronicle of 10–12 October 1782 and is reprinted in Fahrner, who also notes that the opening of the venue occurred without a license and therefore “illegally.” Hughes was later (in December 1782) imprisoned for operating the establishment without a license. Performances resumed a few months later, but it took longer for the license to be officially granted. 34. Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, 39–40. Of the rivalry between Hughes and Astley, DeCastro (48) writes, “Mr. Astley’s jealousy at the success of the Royal Circus (which had ever kept him in ferment from its first opening) increasing, he determined to keep secret the bringing out of all new pieces, and therefore mum was the order of the day with the people engaged with the theatre at his request.” 35. Saxon cites (40) the Morning Chronicle from 25 June 1800 and the Times 23 June 1800. He also cites DiCastro (136) on the production. Saxon goes on to explain that Antonio Franconi and his company were engaged to perform with horses on stage in French theatres as early as 1792 and certainly by the 1798–1799 season, when he says (in a note, p. 42) that they performed in numerous plays at the Cité Variétiés and that the first performance was advertised in Courrier des spectacles, 28 frimaire VII on 18 December 1798. 36. Saxon’s biography on Andrew Ducrow. The Life and Art of Andrew Ducrow and the Romantic Age of the English Circus, provides a detailed examination of his life and professional career. 37. Saxon, The Life and Art of Andrew Ducrow and the Romantic Age of the English Circus, p. 142. Ducrow’s influence is still viable, and some of the acts he originated are still performed. The influence of Ducrow on contemporary circus equestrianism is exemplified by the 1985 offerings of the Big Apple Circus, which included Katcha Schumann performing The Courier of St. Petersburg while wearing a costume modeled on that worn by Ducrow when he first enacted the act at Astley’s in 1827. This performance is detailed in Burnstine, p. 61. 38. Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, p. 111. 39. “The Late Mr. Ducrow.” Sunday Times. 30 January 1842, cited in Saxon, Ducrow, p. 199. 40. The relevant legislation can be concisely summarized as follows: In 1662, Charles II gave patents to Thomas Killigrew and William Davenant. These patents gave Killigrew and Davenant the exclusive right to stage tragedies, comedies, plays, operas, music, scenes, and all other entertainments of the stage at the Drury Lane

22  Early Equestrian Entertainments in England and ­Covent Garden Theatres. Because of this, Drury Lane and Covent Garden became known as patent theatres. Plays that were put on in patent theatres were considered “legitimate.” ­“Illegitimate” theatre took place elsewhere and included melodrama, pantomimes, and spectacle. Attempts were made to control illegitimate theatre. Legislation included the failed attempt by Sir John Barnard in 1735 to pass a bill (Barnard’s Bill) that on its face claimed to be aimed at beggars, vagrancy, and public safety, but was in fact an attempt to control the content of productions in illegitimate play houses. Two years later, the Licensing Act of 1737 was passed. This granted the Lord Chamberlain, the most senior officer of the Royal Household, the unfettered right to review and reject the production of plays.The act also limited the performance of spoken dramas to the Patent Theaters. In 1752, Parliament passed “an act for the better preventing Thefts and Robberies, and for regulating Places of publick Entertainment, and punishing Persons keeping disorderly Houses.” This required unlicensed playhouses and places of plebeian immorality to obtain annual licenses. The immediate impact was the suppression of performances at illegitimate theatres. The Theatrical Representations Act of 1788 eased the restrictions slightly by granting some licensing power to local magistrates, but their power was still limited, and restrictions on the presentation of traditional spoken drama outside the patent theatres remained in place until 1843, when they were abolished by Parliament’s passage of the Theatre Regulation Act, which restricted the rights given to the Lord Chamberlain by the Licensing Act of 1743. Licensing restrictions were broadened with licenses becoming available from local government. This was the end of the monopoly held by the Patent Theatres. The overall effect of this legislation was encouraging for the development equestrian entertainments because these were less tightly overseen than more traditional plays. The Licensing Act of 1737 applied to only “legitimate” theatre and, although the term “legitimate” can be interpreted to refer specifically to five act comedies and tragedies, the working eighteenth century English concept of “legitimate” drama actually utilized during this period was broader and encompassed most traditionally structured plays with spoken dialogue excluding, primarily, pantomimes and spectacles. Under this legislation, Drury Lane and Covent Garden became the only two “legitimate” venues for the theatrical performance of plays in the city and other theatres were permitted to perform only a limited variety of other entertainments, which included displays of horsemanship but excluded “legitimate” spoken dramas. One way in which “non-legitimate,” or minor, theatres within the city limits could avoid the ban on the production of legitimate traditional dramas, such as the very popular plays of Shakespeare, was by advertising them as something other than a legitimate play, for example, by “equestrianizing” or adding horses to them. In this way, the plays could still be produced, but only if they were billed as equestrian displays.The alternative genre of equestrianized plays became popular in the “non-legitimate” theatres where it had originally developed partially as a means of evading censorship and was later (during the 1811–1812 season) adopted by the “legitimate” theatres, which had, perhaps indirectly, created the need for the form in the first place. By the time these various restrictions were abolished, equestrian drama had already moved to the legitimate stages and was already sufficiently popular and well established to endure. From England, the various forms of early equestrian performance and equestrian drama spread to the colonies, where such formal, legislative distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate theatrical forms were not made, but where legislative trends restricting theatrical activity developed over time, albeit on a smaller scale and in a less cohesive fashion, as individual states passed their own legislation.The legislation enacted in the colonies had less of an effect on equestrian drama, which thrived in the new world as it had in Europe.

2 Early Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America (1771–1812)

Performances by significant equestrian performers are documented to have appeared in the American colonies beginning in 1771. The earliest of these performers presented demonstrations of horsemanship, meaning expert riding, including acrobatics. These were similar to those performances given around this time and slightly earlier in England. Early equestrians originated feats of horsemanship and complete equestrian acts that would continue to entertain audiences for hundreds of years, some of which are still performed today.These performances unfolded as follows.

Faulks Mr. Faulks is the first rider advertised to perform equestrian feats publicly as a formal entertainment in the American colonies. His announcement appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette on 26 September 1771: Mr. FAULKS INTENDS performing his Feats in HORSEMANSHIP, for the benefit of the Prisoners confined in the Gaol of this City,Tomorrow, at 3 o’ clock in the Afternoon, on the Commons. He also proposes performing at the following Places, viz. at Newtown, Bucks County, on Tuesday, the 1st of October; at Trenton, on Thursday, the 3d; at Princetown, the 5th; at Bordentown, on Monday, the 7th; and at Burlington, on Wednesday, the 9th; to begin at 3 o’ clock each Day. First. He mounts a single Horse, standing upon the Saddle, and rides him, playing on the French Horn. Second. He mounts two Horses, with one Foot in each Horse Stirrup, putting them into full Speed, and mounts out of them to the Tops of the Saddle at the same Pace. Third. He mounts two Horses upon the Saddles, and will, in full Speed, throw himself upon his Back, managing them in the same Manner as though he had the Advantage of the common Seat, and rises again, all on the same Speed. Fourth. He mounts three Horses upon the Saddles, and rides them in full Speed, vaulting from one to the other.

24  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

Fifth. He concludes his performances by riding a single Horse in full Speed, dismounting and mounting many Times, and will on that Stretch dismount fairly, with both Feet on the Ground, vault clear over the Horse, back again, and mount on the near Side.1 Faulks’ act is next found announced in the New York Mercury and the Gazette, both from 16 December 1771.2 George Clinton Densmore Odell, in his detailed multi-volume chronicle of New York Theatre, Annals of the New York Stage, cites Faulks as the “first equestrian” to enter the New York entertainment scene. Odell’s inclusion of equestrian acts, and later of circuses, in his chronicle of the “New York Stage” illustrates the theatrical nature of horsemanship and the circus at this time. Both forms typically included elements of what we now consider traditional “theatre” and “circus,” with the circus performing pantomimes and the theatre including non-dramatic, circus-style entertainments before or between acts of more traditional plays. The two forms would diverge more definitively, while retaining some similar elements, in the early decades of the nineteenth century. For now, displays of horsemanship in the American Colonies remained a form that was primarily performed by traveling individuals.

J. Sharp An equestrian referred to variously as John and Jacob Sharp/e is the next advertised to perform in Colonial America. He is first found referenced in an announcement in the Massachusetts Essex Gazette to present horsemanship on 19 November 1771. This announcement describes Sharp’s performance and indicates that Sharp performed in Boston prior to this date, but no record of an earlier performance is found: Horsemanship. JOHN SHARP, High-Rider and Performer in Horsemanship, late from England, but last from BOSTON, where he has been performing for some time past, intends to ride for the Entertainment of the People of SALEM &c., in the Street by the upper Burying Ground, near the Alms-House, THIS DAY, if the Weather will permit; if not, he will perform To-Morrow.—He rides two Horses, standing upon the Tops of the Saddles, with one Foot upon each, in full Speed:—Also three Horses standing with one Foot upon each of the outside ones, and in full Speed:— Likewise one Horse, and dismounts and mounts many Times when in full Speed. To begin precisely at Three o’ clock, Afternoon. Nov. 19, 1771.3 Sharp, like Faulks, was an excellent rider and acrobat. As these two early equestrians (and those examples of even earlier performers in England) make clear, acrobatic skill was a necessary component of early equestrianism and had been since at least the time of Stokes. As this acrobatic equestrianism developed,

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 25

an element of clowning was added to it, and equestrians appeared who were aptly described as “equestrian clowns” and performed in comedic equestrian pantomimes.

Jacob Bates Jacob Bates, the next equestrian known to perform in colonial America, is also credited as the first performer of an equestrian pantomime in America. Bates, who may have presented equestrian displays prior to this, is first found announced to perform in the colonies in an announcement in the Pennsylvania Gazette on 21 October 1772. Also noteworthy in this announcement, as in Sharp’s, is the requirement of suitable weather for the performance to occur. Early equestrians relied upon favorable weather conditions to present their acts: On WEDNESDAY, and SATURDAY, the 21st and 24th of October (Weather permitting) WILL BE PERFORMED, Near the Upper End of Market street, DIFFERENT FEATS In HORSEMANSHIP, By Mr. BATES, On ONE, TWO and THREE HORSES. To which will be added, several New Performances. The Doors will be opened at Three o’ Clock, and he mounts precisely at Four.— TICKETS to be had at the BARS of the London Coffee House and Indian King, at the Place of Performance, and at the Center House; for the First Place Five Shillings, and for the Second Two Shillings and ­Sixpence.— No Money to be taken at the Doors, nor Admittance without a Ticket.4 Less than two weeks later, on 4 November 1772, Bates announced additional performances, with the proceeds apparently donated to charity, which was not unusual at this time: MR. BATES, intending in a short Time to leave the Province, and being desirous of manifesting his Gratitude to this City, proposes to exhibit, on THURSDAY next (if the Weather is good) other on the succeeding SATURDAY, at the Upper End of MARKET STREET, All his various Feats in HORSEMANSHIP, having Confidence in the generous Attendance of the Citizens; as the Sum, which may be then collected, shall be deposited in the Hands of three Gentlemen of Reputation, who will apply it, in the advancing inclement Season, to the Relief of such modest Poor, as have experienced better Days.5 It is probable that Bates performed earlier, but no specific written record is found, only an etching by G. P. Nusbeigel, which is dated 1766 and titled, “Jacob Bates. The Famous English Horse Rider.”6 This etching depicts Bates standing in the foreground at the fence line with a single horse while also showing him in the background performing a variety of equestrian feats.

26  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

In 1773, Bates announced a performance given at the Bull’s Head, in the Bowery-Lane, in New York, in both the Mercury and Gazette to include “Feats of horsemanship” on one, two, and three horses.7 In his Gazette advertisement, Bates requested, “As a particular Favour, if Gentlemen will not suffer any Dogs to come with them.” This request was not unusual and likely reflects a concern that dogs might startle or distract the horses, which would not only disrupt the act but also possibly endanger the performers. As the summer progressed, Bates continued to perform and became the first equestrian known to enact the equestrian pantomime, The Taylor Riding to Brentford in colonial America.This piece went on to become extremely popular. Thayer, in Annals of the American Circus, 1793–1860, reports that Bates debuted the act in New York on 28 May 1773.8 The Taylor is the best and earliest known equestrian pantomime. Charles Dickens, in Hard Times, refers to it as “the highly comic and laughable hippo-comedietta of The Tailor’s Journey to Brentford.”9 Saxon describes it as “possibly the oldest of all hippodramas.” As such, it bears some further description. In this pantomime, the equestrian portraying the “Taylor” (Bates in this case) plays the fool to his horse.To do so, he portrays an inept rider who is attempting to make the title journey on horseback but is being thwarted at every turn by his extremely clever horse. The actions of the horse typically range from mild resistance, such as moving away from the Taylor as he tries to mount, to sitting or lying down, to bucking, to eventually chasing the Taylor away/out of the ring. The equestrian in The Taylor performs as an “equestrian clown” presenting a stock character who is a forerunner of the more general clown and an essential element of the equestrian circus. This clown is a man who claims to know nothing of horses and supports this claim with attempts at riding that, at first, appear comically inept. As the act progresses, the clown is revealed to actually be an expert equestrian. This is why the equestrian clown is known primarily an equestrian, not a clown. His job is to ride well, but to do so comically, and in a way that fools the audience into thinking he is unskilled at riding. This is a task that requires him to actually be exceedingly skillful at riding. The equestrian clown is an essential component of the equestrian pantomime. His performance combines with that of the horse to facilitate the requisite irony of the character who initially seems inept and then reveals him/herself to be not only capable, but exceedingly so. The humor is enhanced by the perceived role reversal wherein the horse effectively becomes the “master” of the man, and the audience delights in the results. The occasional subtitle of The Taylor Riding to Brentford is “the unaccountable sagacity of the Taylor’s horse.” It is this sagacity that delights the audience, as it enables the horse to “best” the man. The equestrian displays his true ability only at the end of the act, when the comic effect and the action of the plot have been completed. The Taylor’s horse is, in the tradition of Morocco, Jim Keys, and Clever Hans, a learned horse. Such horses have been popular for centuries and remain perhaps the most enduring “type” of performing horse, even in the present

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 27

day. Astley, Hughes, and many other later equestrians have exhibited “learned horses” as part of their acts over the centuries. This positive and anthropomorphic interpretation of wise equine characters is played for laughs in The Taylor and other pantomimes, but also carries through into melodramatic equestrian dramas (and later plays featuring intelligent and sympathetic equine characters) where it has more seriously dramatic applications. In performance, The Taylor requires a horse who is capable of enacting a number of behaviors that, while scripted and rehearsed, should appear to the audience to originate spontaneously in the mind of the horse, which enables the required impression of the horse’s “sagacity.” The equestrian clown must also play his part, clowning and riding effectively enough to present the illusion of ineptitude that makes the performance both believable and humorous. Such a clown and horse are described by Huck in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Huck sets up his recounting of the performance by explaining that it began when a drunk and unruly audience member demanded to ride one of the circus horses. After trying to reason with the man, Huck explains, the ringmaster decided that perhaps by humoring the man a short ride, order could be restored and the circus allowed to proceed. Huck explains that the audience agreed and the drunken man was allowed to mount. Part of the fun of the act relies on the complicity of the audience, who, by agreeing that the man be allowed to ride, are acknowledging their complicity with the illusion that sets the act in motion. Huck describes it as follows: The minute he was on, the horse begun to rip and tear and jump and cavort around with two circus men holding onto his bridle trying to hold him, and the drunk man hanging on to his neck, and his heels flying in the air every jump, and the whole crowd of people standing up shouting and laughing till the tears rolled down. And at last, sure enough, all the circus men could do, the horse broke loose, and away he went like the very nation, round and round the ring, with that sot laying down on him and hanging to his neck, with first one leg hanging most to the ground on one side, and then t’other one on t’other side, and the people just crazy. It warn’t funny to me, though; I was all of a tremble to see his danger. But pretty soon he struggle up astraddle and grabbed the bridle, a-reeling this way and that; and the next minute he sprung up and dropped the bridle and stood! And the horse agoing like a house afire too. He just stood up there, a-sailing around as easy and comfortable as if he warn’t ever drunk in his life—and then he begun to pull off his clothes and sling them. He shed them so thick they kind of clogged up the air, and altogether he shed seventeen suits. And then, there he was, slim and handsome, and dressed the gaudiest and prettiest you ever saw, and he lit onto that horse with his whip and made him fairly hum—and finally skipped off, and made his bow and danced off to the dressing-room, and everybody just a-howling with pleasure and astonishment.10

28  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

In this scene, the actions of the horse (who at first seems to be wild and uncontrolled, but later reveals otherwise through his performance) parallel those of the human character.The artistry, of both the equine and human performances, lies in the ability of both the horse and man to fool the audience into thinking that they are out of control. The description given is accurate, and Huck’s reactions to the act ring true. All in all, the scene realistically depicts a typical early American circus experience. The narrative of this and other equestrian pantomimes are a significant departure from the displays of pure equestrianism that preceded them and illustrate the movement of the form toward a more completely developed dramatic performance. The popularity of The Taylor and similar acts performed by early equestrians is essential to the evolution of equestrian drama, for the simpler comic pantomimes slowly evolved into more complex theatrical entertainments.

Christopher H. Gardner Not all equestrians performed characters, and the emerging popularity of equestrian pantomimes did not detract from the ongoing popularity of displays of horsemanship. Equestrians continued to draw and entertain audiences with displays of horsemanship comprised mainly of acrobatic equestrianism. The next significant such equestrian to appear in colonial America is Christopher H. Gardner. Gardner announced himself as “The Original American Rider.” He is the first known “native-born” equestrian to perform his act professionally in the American colonies, which he did in Rhode Island in late May 1774, if not earlier. A published account of his early performances includes support for Gardner’s claim as being the “first” American rider. It appeared in the Newport, Rhode Island, Mercury on 20 May 1774 and begins as follows, On Friday last, the manly art of HORSEMANSHIP was performed, to admiration, before a great number of spectators, in the manage at the north-east part of this town by Christopher H. Gardner, son of Capt. Henry Gardner of this place.11 The announcement proceeds to reference the English Equestrian Jacob Bates (with whom Gardner may have trained) and to illustrate the nationalist pride taken and promoted by Gardner: It was allowed by the best judges present, that he excelled the celebrated Mr. Bates, in several parts of the performance. It is surprising that this youth should, in a little time, arise to such perfection in this art, as has [t]ook some of the best performers in England years to acquire. As he is the first American that has exhibited in this way, he certainly merits encouragement from his countrymen who are sons of that ancient flock of Britons, whom they have never disgraced by want of genius, learning, courage, and manly accomplishments.

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 29

Thomas Pool The next significant leap forward by an equestrian in the public display of horsemanship in the American colonies came from Thomas Pool (aka Poole), who also described himself as “American.” Some historians believe that the first American circus can be said to have arrived with Pool, debuting in Philadelphia in August of 1785.12 This is uncertain though because, although some secondary sources report that Pool featured a non-equestrian clown as part of his production, no direct evidence of this is found. In published announcements, Pool introduced himself as “Mr. Pool, The first American that ever following EQUESTRIAN FEATS OF HORSEMANSHIP exhibited the ­ ON THE CONTINENT.” His “equestrian feats” included acrobatic equestrianism and vaulting, along with related actions including firing guns and drinking on horseback, in the style that equestrians before him had presented. He also promised a liberty act, featuring three horses working “at liberty,” meaning with no riders or overt external control by a human. This is the first time such an act is found announced for performance in America. Pool’s act is detailed in the announcement first published in the Pennsylvania Packet on 15 August 1785 and then two days later in the Pennsylvania Gazette to announce his upcoming performances: MR. POOL, The first American that ever exhibited the following Equestrian Feats of Horsemanship on the Continent. INTENDS performing on SATURDAY the 20th instant, near the Center House, where he has erected a MENAGE, at a very considerable expence, with Seats convenient for those Ladies and Gentlemen who may please to honor him with their Company. 1. Mounts a single horse in half speed, dismounting and mounting many times, and will, on that stretch, vault clear over the horse. 2. Mounts a single horse in full speed, standing on the top of the saddle, and in that position carries a glass of wine in his hand, drinks it off, and falls to his seat on the saddle. 3. Mounts two horses in full speed, standing on the saddles, and fires a pistol. 4. Mounts two horses in full speed, with a foot in the stirrup of each saddle, from thence to the ground, and from thence to the tops of the saddles, at the same speed. 5. Mounts two horses in full speed, standing on the saddles, and in that position leaps a bar. 6. Mounts a single horse in full speed, fires a pistol, falls backward, with his head to the ground, hanging by his right leg, and rises again to his seat on the saddle. 7. Mounts three horses in full speed, standing on the saddles, vaulting from one to the other.

30  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

At the conclusion of the performance, Mr. POOL will introduce three horses, who will lay themselves down, as if dead: one will groan apparently through extreme sickness and pain; afterward rise, and make his manners to the ladies and gentlemen: another having laid down for a considerable time, will rise and set up like a lady’s lap dog. Every time of performance there will be new seats. Mr. POOL flatters himself the ladies and gentlemen who may be pleased to honor him with their company, will have no reason to go away dissatisfied; he even hopes to merit their approbation. The performance will begin at 5 o’clock in the Afternoon precisely. TICKETS, for the first seats, at 5s. and for the second 59 each, may be had at the two Coffee-Houses, and at Major Nicholas’s, at the Conestogoe Waggon.— No tickets to be given out at the door. ***Mr. POOL beseeches the ladies and gentlemen who honor him with their presence, to bring no dogs with them to the place of performance.13 As the announcement illustrates, Pool’s performance was advertised as a demonstration of “equestrian feats,” including vaulting and horses at liberty. It may also have included non-equestrian clown acts between the equestrian acts; in this case, it can be said that Pool was the first to truly present a “circus” (albeit a small-scale circus) as opposed to a display of pure equestrianism.14 Those who do not consider Pool’s performance/s to constitute a circus, generally consider the first circus in the United States to be that of John Bill Ricketts, which is indisputably a circus.

John Bill Ricketts Ricketts’ circus was larger and longer lasting than Pool’s. It was also the first permanent circus in the United States and the first to be billed as a “circus.” For all of these reasons, it is generally accepted as the first true circus in America and is, in any case, a more developed example of the form than that of Pool’s. Ricketts’ circus, like Astley’s, was announced as a riding “school” and, like Pool’s, seems to have first performed in Philadelphia. The first notice of Ricketts’ arrival in the United States is found in the 23 October 1792 edition of the Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser: Mr. Ricketts lately from London respectfully acquaints the public, that he has erected at considerable expense a circus, situated at the corner of Market and Twelft Streets where he proposes instructing Ladies and Gentlemen, in the elegant accomplishments of riding.—The Circus will be opened on Thursday Next, the 25th October, 1792.15 The event was also announced (without a specific opening date specified) the next week in the National Gazette. The announcement focuses on the venue at which the performance is presented, with the comfort of the audience

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 31

foregrounded: “The circus is fitted up in a commodious style so as to be capable of containing a large company of spectators and it is presumed the citizens will experience considerable gratification of this new field of rational amusement.”16 Thayer also describes the physical attributes of Ricketts’ circus, albeit in less flowery language “an open-air wooden structure that sat eight hundred spectators [. . .] divided into boxes and a pit, with benches for seating.”17 These descriptions, while not extremely detailed, still provide some important details of an early circus venue in the United States. Some of the richest sources of information about the circus during this period come from the diaries of performers, most notably, John Durang and J. DeCastro. Both provide firsthand accounts of circus equestrianism during the last decade of the eighteenth century, and both comment on Ricketts’ experience in London prior to arriving in America. It is clear that Ricketts worked in the United Kingdom before coming to America, although unclear exactly with whom he worked. John Durang records in his memoirs that Ricketts had “served his time to Mr. Hughes the equestrian near Black friar Bridge, London,” before arriving in America from Scotland.18 J. DeCastro reports in his Memoirs that Ricketts worked with a circus run by James and George Jones before coming to America.19 Once in the United States, Ricketts performed with his circus in various cities, including Philadelphia, Boston, and New York.20 Ricketts’ first verifiable performance in the United States was with his circus in Philadelphia in April 1793.21 Here Ricketts and his horse, Cornplanter were the main attraction of the production and performed equestrian acts including vaulting, Roman riding, and ribbon leaping (Figure 2.1). New acts were added to the circus throughout the following months, and on 9 July, Ricketts announced, in the Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser, his upcoming performance of an equestrian pantomime called, Johnny Gilpin, in Stile.22 This was almost certainly inspired by William Cowper’s The Diverting History of Johnny Gilpin, a comic ballad/poem about the title character’s difficulties when he loses control of his horse while on vacation with his family, and is carried long past his intended destination. This pantomime was presented under various names and bears great similarity to The Taylor. Again, as with The Taylor, the pantomime focuses on the inherent comedy of the horse outwitting the man, exploiting the humor in the comical results; both deal with a man who wants to ride a horse to a particular destination, but struggles to do so. After a successful run in Philadelphia, Ricketts and his company moved to New York City, where they arrived in late July (probably on 26 July). The following announcement began, in the English tradition, with a traditionally respectful introduction of Ricketts to his new audience and then described the acts. It ran on 5 August 1793 in The Daily Advertiser: Mr. RICKETTS,  resents his most respectful compliments to the Ladies and Gentlemen P of New-York, and informs them that his

Figure 2.1  Ricketts and Cornplanter Credit: “HEW 14.4.1, Houghton Library, Harvard University”

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 33

CIRCUS at the North-River Will be ready for their reception, On WEDNESDAY the 7th of August— When he hopes to be honored with a respectable Company. HE will not at present enumerate the particular kind of Performances that may take place on this occasion, but assures the Public, that he will endeavor to merit its patronage to the utmost of his abilities. [. . .] The first performance will conclude with the representation of a Young Flying Mercury who takes his station on Mr. Rickets’ [sic] shoulder whist the horses are in full speed.23 On 9 September 1793, Ricketts announced upcoming performances of both the Metamorphosis and the Flying Mercury. This is the first mention found of the Metamorphosis and may have been the first performance of the act. The announcement ran in the New York Daily Advertiser: CIRCUS, GREENWHICH-STREET. THIS EVENING, the ninth of Sept. IN addition to Mr. Ricketts’ Equestrian feats, and the rest of his ­Company— he will, for this night only, introduce METAMORPHOSIS; Or the Peasants’ Frolic on Horseback—in which Mr. Ricketts will dance a COMIC DANCE; afterward he will change his cloths [sic] from head to feet and dance a serious HORNPIPE, the horse being at the same time in full gallop. Mr. Ricketts will likewise leap from his knees over a garter 12 feet high. The two FLYING MERCURIES and the Taylors Journey to Brentford, and a variety of other wonderful feats, too tedious to mention. DOORS will open at half an hour after four o’clock—the entertainment to begin at half past five o’clock, precisely. No money received by Door Keepers.24 The Metamorphosis and Flying Mercury both became popular staples of circus equestrianism and were performed for many years, continuing to the present. The “Flying Mercury” features a person standing atop a galloping horse while balancing another person (or persons) on his shoulders in the aspect of flight, and “Metamorphosis” features a rider repeatedly changing costumes while on horseback (usually while under cover of a sack, which is raised or lowered from the standing position as needed to display the different looks).25 Next, the circus moved to Charleston, South Carolina. They opened on 18 December and then, after only a short run, moved to a new location and lowered ticket prices, presumably in response to the opening of the Charleston theatrical season.26 If this assumption is accurate, this indicates that Ricketts was competing with early theatres in America (although neither form was yet

34  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

thriving). Ricketts continued to perform throughout the year, touring as other equestrian troops and circuses would continue to do for many years, as needed to meet the demand for audiences. He subsequently performed in both Virginia and Maryland before apparently returning to Philadelphia in September 1794. By this time, Ricketts had fine-tuned his equestrian performances and was successfully competing with the dramatic offerings of the Southwark Theatre in Philadelphia.27 Ricketts next moved back to New York, where he “erected at great expense to render it commodious for the season” a covered amphitheatre, which was described in the New York, Diary or Evening Register, as being “remarkably well furnished” and including lights and stoves throughout.28 T. Allston Brown, in his A History of the New York Stage: From the First Performance in 1732 to 1901, says Ricketts’ circus opened in New York in 1795, but other sources indicate a 1794 opening. Regardless of the exact date of opening, the aspect of this new amphitheatre that is most significant to this study was announced to the public on 27 November 1794. Ricketts had “erected at a very great expense, a stage in his new Amphitheatre in Broadway—and on Saturday the 29th Inst. He will bring forward an exhibition on the stage.”29 The “exhibition” was entitled The Cannibal’s Farce. Details of this production are not found, and it is therefore unclear if Ricketts included horses in it. What can be assumed is that the production was successful or at least encouraging, because Ricketts proceeded to add stages to his circuses in other cities, strengthening the early connections between theatrical performance and the circus. In the summer of 1795, the American actor, dancer, clown, and horseman, John Durang joined Ricketts’ circus tour. More importantly, Durang later wrote of the experience in a memoir that has since been published as The Memoir of John Durang, American Actor: 1785–1816. Durang says that the idea of his circus career began in 1793 with an offer from John Ricketts “to do the clown to the horsemanship.”30 Durang says he declined, citing lack of confidence in his riding ability but, perhaps inspired by the offer, Durang began practicing his horsemanship in earnest and, in 1795, when he reports Ricketts again offered him a position, he accepted.31 Durang reports that he stayed with the circus until Ricketts left the United States in the spring of 1800. During his five years with Ricketts’ circus, Durang performed a wide variety of equestrian acts. He also performed other acts and provided additional service, which was not unusual for circus performers. Durang describes his workload as follows: My business was the Clown on foot and horseback, and obliged to furnish all the jokes for the ring, and to ride the Tailor to Brentford, with the dialogue which I was obliged to speak in French, German, and English (the principle inhabitant are French, a great many Germans, a few merchants, and British soldiers English). I rode the foxhunter, leaping over the bar with the mounting and dismounting while in full speed, taking a flying leap on horseback through a paper sun, in character of a drunken man on horsback, tied in a sack

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 35

standing on two horses while I changed to woman’s clothes; rode in full speed standing on two horses, Mr. Ricketts at the same time standing on my shoulders, with master Hutchins at the same time standing in the attitude of Mercury on Mr. Ricketts’ shoulders forming a pyramid. I performed the drunken soldier on horsback, still vaulted, I dancet on the stage, I was the Harlequin in the pantomimes, occasionelly I sung a comic song. I tumbled on the slack rope and performed on the slack wire. I introduced mechanical exhibitions in machinery and transparencies. I produced exhibitions of fireworks. In short, I was performer, machinist, painter, designer, music compiler, the bill maker, and treasurer.32 In September 1795, Ricketts announced that his soon to open “Circus in Broadway” would include a stage area. Ricketts then returned to Philadelphia, where he opened in October and, by late November or December 1795, was offering distinct stage productions at his Philadelphia amphitheatre, in addition to circus entertainments presented in the ring. Ricketts also presented stage entertainments when he returned to New York, opening on 7 May 1796.33 Odell reports (and illustrations in published announcements confirm) that Ricketts continued to perform diverse equestrian acts including the Flying Mercury during this time.34 Ricketts’ traveled to Boston next, where reports indicate that he found that the Lailson Circus (from France) had been performing since August in the amphitheatre he had built. It remains unclear how or why this occurred. Undeterred, Ricketts built a new facility and commenced performances. He did not stay long before returning to New York and then back to Philadelphia, where he opened on 10 October 1796.35 Here Ricketts competed with Wignell’s New Theatre for audiences until returning to New York at the end of the Philadelphia season. Ricketts soon announced the New York opening of his new Circus, planned for 8 March 1797.36 The opening was moved back to 16 March (apparently either in response to public pressure from the management at the John Street Theatre or, as Ricketts’ contended, because his horses were not arriving in time for the original date). On 29 April 1797, the New York Gazette announced that George Washington had sold his horse to Ricketts, reporting, “The celebrated horse Jack, who was in the American War with General Washington, and presented to Mr. Ricketts, will make his first appearance in the circus this evening.”37 The novelty of seeing Washington’s horse perform in the circus seems to have been used as a way of attracting audiences. Details about the acts in which Jack performed are not found; it is possible he simply appeared as himself. In December 1797, Odell reports that Philip Lailson arrived in New York, with Lailson and Jaymond’s Circus, and constructed a new building in which to present a “grand display of horsemanship” among other entertainments. The circus opened on 5 December, on the opposite side of Greenwich Street from Ricketts’ Amphitheatre and, on 12 December, presented numerous acts of horsemanship, including one in which, “Miss Venice, a female rider—the first

36  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

in the country—will ride standing on a single horse, with all the gracefulness of her sex.”38 On 5 of January 1798, Lailson and Jaymond’s Circus announced in The Commercial Advertiser that they would continue to present female equestrians, along with other acts: LAILSON AND JAYMOND’s CIRCUS, GREENWHICH STREET. Saturday, Jan. 6—The performances of the evening will commence with a Grand parade of Equestrian Performers of both sexes, in Superb uniforms. A Grand display of HORSEMANSHIP, [. . .] Maneuveres upon two horses, [. . .] the So much admired Equestrian STATUE upon a PEDASTAL. In a Picturesque attitude, by his favorite Horse. The whole to conclude (for the third time the season) with the comic scene on horseback, of the FOUR TRAVELING BROTHERS, followed with a first representation of DOROTHEA, Or, The Strength of Maternal Love, A Heroic Pantomime in 3 acts.39 Odell reports that for reasons unknown, Lailson’s Circus (including the stables) was then offered for sale in the Commercial Advertiser in February and again in July 1798. Odell reports that, after this season, “Lailson never came back to New York.”40 Ricketts persevered and continued to draw audiences. Durang reports, however, that in 1797, Ricketts made the decision to cut the dramatic equestrian acts from the show after observing that audiences desiring serious equestrian drama would seek it at the legitimate theatre rather than at the circus. As Durang explains, Mr. Ricketts was convincet, by experience, that a [sic] equestrian performance blended with dramatic performance would never agree or turn out to advantage, but must evidently fall to ruin.The public’s taste is only to be gratify’d to see dramatic performance at a regular theatre where the manager’s whole study and labour is devoted to bring it to perfection, where only an actor’s merit is distinguished and rewarded.41 Durang says it is for these reasons that his later performances of equestrianism in pantomime acts were strictly for comic effect, performed with clowning and clown riding, as opposed to serious acting. There are no records, nor even any indication of “equestrian performance blended with dramatic performance” being performed during this time (although they would soon begin). It is unclear whether Ricketts had attempted such productions earlier—the records have not yet been found—or if his observations were hypothetical; in either case, the comment is noteworthy. In December 1799, George Washington died, and “all amusements were suspended throughout the country.” Ricketts’ Philadelphia circus also burned down this month.42 Ricketts left New York soon after, and Durang, seemingly displeased, reports,

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 37

Mr. Ricketts began to get out of heart with doing business in this bodge way. [. . .] He reconciled to leave America. [. . .] His entreaty could not persuade me to go with him; I was settled in a home with my family and would not leave that to seek a living in a foreign country and trust to chance [. . .] Mr. Ricketts chartered a small vessel, constructed stalls on deck and each horse secured in slings, laid in hay and oats, and took lumber enough to build a circus. He set off from Philad’a with himself and brother, the groom and a stable boy.43 Durang goes on to report that, while sailing to the West Indies, Ricketts was seized by a “French privateer” and his “effects, horses and lumber were sold” (although some sources report that the horses and lumber were recovered, and Ricketts regained his fortune). Soon after, Ricketts again set off by sea, this time sailing for England when “the vessel foundered and he was lost with all his money at sea.”44 The loss of Ricketts, and the subsequent loss of his circus, mark the beginning of a seven-year relatively dry spell in the history of the circus in the United States. Some members of Ricketts’ Circus rejoined to form a new troupe, and other circuses and individual equestrian entertainers continued to perform, sometimes presenting equestrian pantomimes as well as circus acts, but there were no new significant landmarks achieved in the area of circus equestrianism, and circus activity declined overall during this period.45

Transitions As the circus in America continued without major innovation during the years 1800–1807, the development of equestrian drama took a leap forward in the early years of the nineteenth century with the first production of an equestrian drama in the United States occurring in 1803 (discussed in Chapters 3 and 4). After this, no other major events occurred in the development of equestrian drama until the circus in the United States was revitalized with the emergence of Victor Pepin and Jean Baptiste Casmiere Breschard, who arrived in ­Massachusetts in November 1807.The circus of Pepin and Breschard presented traditional circus acts, including circus equestrianism. More significant were the advances they made in the development of equestrian pantomime and drama in the United States.

Pepin and Breschard Victor Pepin and Jean Baptiste Casmiere Breschard collaborated to form Pepin and Breschard’s Circus during the first decade of the nineteenth century and arrived in the United States from Europe in 1807.46 They docked in Massachusetts and reportedly intended to perform in Boston but were denied a license there (most likely due to opposition to theatre and related entertainments in the city) and so opened instead in nearby Charlestown. An announcement for

38  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America

this performance included a description fitting a traditional circus, with a strong focus on equestrianism. Similar performances were announced for Charlestown, Massachusetts, in December 1807 and in New York for June 1808. On 11 October 1808, the New York Daily Advertiser announced additional New York performances by Pepin and Breschard. These notably included a dramatic pantomime, The Battle and Death of General Malbrook, which was announced to include horses, and to feature the equestrians Cayetano, Codet, Menial, and Grain on horseback. This is the first time such a production is found advertised in the United States. Additional performances of this piece are mentioned by Odell as having been performed in New York on the 15th and 18th of August 1809.47 Details of these performances remain elusive, but The Battle and Death of General Malbrook remains significant for its combination of the horses with a dramatic story line. Pepin and Breschard moved from New York to Philadelphia opening on 2 February 1809 at the “The New Circus” (later, the Walnut Street Theatre). This permanent structure was built for Pepin and Breschard at the northeast corner of Ninth Street and Walnut Street, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The brick building stood three stories high and had no stage; its central feature was a sawdust ring surrounded by three levels of tiered box seats. It was intended to serve specifically to house equestrian entertainments and included a stabling area for resident equine performers. Admission costs ranged from $0.50 (for the gallery), to $0.75 (for the pit), to $1.00 (for the boxes).48 Andrew Davis, in his America’s Longest Run: A History of the Walnut Street Theatre, provides details of various performances held here. He reports that the circus originally featured eight equestrians, including both Pepin and Breschard, and a band. The move of Pepin and Breschard’s circus to a dedicated permanent building is a significant step toward theatricality for the circus. Another significant step in the development of equestrian drama followed when they presented a dramatic equestrian pantomime entitled, Don Quixote de la Mancha, on 26 April 1809.49 The pantomime was a highly equestrianized interpretation of Don Quixote’s story that focused mainly on the battles and comic elements of the plot. Another equestrian pantomime, Tartarian Princess, followed.50 After this, the circus continued to advertise a variety of equestrian acts, but no announcements for the performance of equestrian pantomimes are found until 2 July 1811, when Pepin and Breschard announced in The Columbian that a stage with scenery and related machinery was ready for that evening’s performance of the pantomime of Don Juan. More equestrian pantomimes and farces followed.51 In the fall of 1811, Pepin and Breschard’s New Circus building at Walnut Street in Philadelphia was remodeled. It reopened on 1 January 1812 as the Olympic Theatre.52 The renovations were encouraging both for the continuation of equestrian entertainments in general and for the production of plays that might include horses.The riding ring was unchanged by the renovation, but the building’s overall size was increased and a large (over 50-feet wide) raised stage that was level with the renovated audience boxes was added. An orchestra pit

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 39

was inserted between the riding ring and the new stage, with a doorway under the stage for riders entering the ring. The Olympic Theatre offered traditional dramas, most notably spectacular melodramas, on the stage. These plays were presented by an acting company headed by John Dwyer and Donald McKenzie, with whom Pepin and Breschard collaborated. The theatre also continued to offer non-dramatic equestrian entertainments and displays of horsemanship by Pepin and Breschard’s Circus company (these were presented before, between the acts of, and/or after, the plays). Most significantly for our purposes, the theatre offered pantomimes and melodramatic spectacles that included horses. On 20 January 1812, the first of these, The Escape of Adelina, or The Robbers of the Pyrenees, premiered at the Olympic Theatre. A script is not found and details on this production are scarce, but it is said to have included horses in the scenes of battle. It was not long after this that the United States saw the emergence of distinct plays designed and advertised as equestrian drama; these became a distinct and popular form. Many of the earliest performances of these plays were presented by members, or former members, of equestrian circuses. Details of the most significant of these early performances are detailed in Chapter 3, along with an overview of significant early equestrian drama in England, which provides some necessary context for the plays in the United States.

Notes 1. Pennsylvania Gazette. 26 September 1771. Accessible.com 2. The announcement from the Mercury of 16 December 1771 is quoted in Odell, 1:157. Greenwood quotes (48–49) a nearly identical announcement for which he indirectly cites the New York Gazette as his source. 3. Essex Gazette. 12–19 November 1771, p. 67. Accessed on Microform. (Irregular spelling, grammar, and capitalization for this and later quotations remain intact.) Thayer confirms that “Jacob Sharpe” presented an equestrian performance in Essex, Massachusetts in 1771. 4. Pennsylvania Gazette. 21 October 1772. Accessible.com 5. The Pennsylvania Gazette. 4 November 1772. Accessible.com 6. Nusbiegel. Jacob Bates/The Famous English Horse Rider.Yale Center for British Art, 1766. 7. Gazette. Monday 31 May 1773, reprinted in Greenwood, 49–50 and the Mercury. 24 May 1773, quoted in Odell, 1:176. 8. Thayer does not provide a source for this information and none is found. 9. Dickens, 1:3, 12. Project Gutenberg. 10. Mark Twain. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 163–164. 11. Newport, Rhode Island. Mercury. 20 May 1774. Circus Historical Society. Announcements for Gardner are also found in the Newport History: Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society. Google Play Books.Thayer reports that Gardner’s performances were held on the 24th and 27th of May 1774, but the account from the Mercury on 20 May indicates they were at least slightly earlier. Announcements for performances by Gardner are found in the Newport, RI Mercury from 20 and 23 May 1774 and the Providence, Rhode Island, Gazette from 16 July 1774. 12. There is debate on this point. Greenwood reports that this is the first circus, saying (53–54) in reference to Pool’s performance, “Not until the summer of 1785 did the United Colonies rise to the dignity of a full-blown Circus, an announcement for the

40  Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America first performance of which in Philadelphia on Saturday August 20th appears in the Pennsylvania “Packet” of the 15th.” Thayer confirms (4) Pool’s inclusion of the clown but implies that the performance does not constitute a “circus” and that instead the origin of the American circus is John Bill Ricketts’ 1793 Philadelphia performance. Swortzell (Here Come the Clowns, 105) seems to agree, stating, “In 1792 Hughes’s pupil John Bill Ricketts brought the circus, complete with clowns and tightrope artistes, to his riding academy in Philadelphia.” Swortzell acknowledges (104) Pool as the first clown, but doubts Pool’s claims of originality in his equestrian displays, citing “John Sharp” as having performed “a similar [equestrian] entertainment fifteen years earlier in Salem, Massachusetts.” Brown tells us (1:79) that “the First circus performance given in this city was at what was then called “The Collect,” located in Broome Street, just on the outskirts of the city, in 1811. Clearly, earlier performances preceded this. 13. The Pennsylvania Gazette. 17 August 1785. Accessible.com 14. Although I find this reported in various places, I find no supporting evidence of a clown beyond the horsemanship acts. 15. Moy, 8. Also accessible through Early American Newspapers. 16. National Gazette. 31 October 1792. Chronicling America.Vail (24) reports that Ricketts’ circus “opened in NY on 16 March 1797” give later dates of Ricketts’ opening performance, but none is found earlier than this announcement. 17. This is quoted from Davis, who is citing Thayer 1:5. 18. Durang, 35. 19. Moy, 8 citing DeCastro. 20. James S. Moy presents a detailed study of Ricketts’ career in his dissertation, John B. Ricketts’ Circus, 1793–1800.Vail presents a more concise overview of Ricketts’ career. 21. Moy (10) cites the Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser from 3 April 1793 in regard to this first performance and reports, “The particulars of this first performance were ‘expressed in hand-bills,’ none of which survive.” Davis cites 22 April 1793 as the definitive first date of a “public performance” by Ricketts and further states that both George and Martha Washington attended this premiere. 22. Moy, 32, citing the Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser. 9 September 1793. 23. The Daily Advertiser. New York, Monday, 5 August 1793. No. 2643. 24. Daily Advertiser. New York, Monday, 9 September 1793. No. 2671. 25. Odell describes these ads in 1:337.Vail also does so, p. 63. 26. Columbian Herald (South Carolina). 17 December 1793. 27. The Southwark is one of the earliest new theatres in the American colonies, built in 1766. Moy includes in his “Appendix A” a list and comparison of performance dates. 28. Moy, p. 13, citing Diary or Evening Register 18 November 1794. 29. Moy, p. 13, citing the American Minerva (New York). 27 and 29 November 1794. 30. Durang, p. 35. 31. Durang, p. 43. Moy claims that Durang’s recollection of the date is wrong and says that Durang did not begin riding for Ricketts until 1796, seemingly based on the inclusion of Durang among the company of the John Street Theatre for the 1795–1796 season, for which he cites Odell, 1:400–414. No definitive proof is found for either date and I, therefore, see no reason to doubt Durang’s memoir. 32. Durang, pp. 68–69. 33. Moy, p. 15. 34. Announcements for such acts were published in various sources including the New York Advertiser (on 19 November 1794) and Gazette (on 9 March 1797). 35. Moy, p. 15. Moy gives a detailed chronology. 36. Moy, p. 16 and New York Gazette and Daily Advertiser, 3 March 1797. 37. Vail cites not only Washington’s connection to Ricketts’s circus but also a visit to the same by President Adams, for which Vail cites a playbill in the Harvard Theatre Collection.Vail, p. 65. 38. Odell, 2:31, citing ad from the New York Daily Advertiser, 1 December 1797.

Equestrian Entertainments in Colonial America 41 39. Commercial Advertiser (New York). Friday Evening, 5 January 1798, No. 83. 40. Odell, 2:32 and 65. 41. Durang, p. 45. 42. James, Old Drury 1, citing “Durang.” 43. Durang, pp. 102–103. 44. Durang, p. 103. 45. Ricketts’s Circus was the leading circus of the last decade of the eighteenth century; ­circuses that coexisted with Ricketts’ include Thomas Swann’s Circus, which performed in New York in 1794 featuring a company that Vail (p. 66) describes as including “two men and a woman rider, trick monkeys, fireworks, and a band of music,” and Lailson and Jaymond’s Circus, which performed in Philadelphia, in a newly built Amphitheatre on the corner of Fifth and Prune Streets, and in New York where on 8 December 1797, Lailson opened a new amphitheatre on Greenwich Street (Daily Advertiser, 1 December 1797 and Vail, p. 66). 46. Although Pepin was born in New York, he had moved with his family to France as a young child and grew up there, returning to the United States in 1807 when he arrived with his newly formed circus. 47. Odell, 2:325. 48. This building later became known as “The Walnut Street Theatre,” which is still in operation today. Andrew Davis presents a more detailed description of the physical building (pp. 25–26) as well as a history of this theatre building in his America’s Longest Run: A History of the Walnut Street Theatre, 2010. See also the Baltimore United States Gazette from 2 February 1809 for a related advertisement. 49. Davis, p. 28. 50. Davis, pp. 28–29. The Tartarian Princess did not remain in the circus’s repertoire as Don Quixote did. 51. The original announcements are found in The Columbian from these dates and a concise (but fairly detailed overview) is found in Odell 2:346, and 2:374–337. 52. This opening came just days after the tragic Richmond Theatre fire, which occurred in Richmond,Virginia, on the evening of 26 December. The fire started when a lit chandelier being raised while lit became entangled and adjacent scenic elements caught fire; 72 lives were lost.

3 Early Productions of Equestrian Drama in England and the United States

During the early years of the nineteenth century, venues and companies called “circuses” were differentiated from theatres mainly by their focus on more traditionally “circus” style acts, including acrobats, clowns, and equestrians (although they might also produce more traditional plays). Circuses in the United States presented equestrian pantomimes of various types in the early years of the nineteenth century. These included simple, older, comic pantomimes such as The Taylor or Johnny Gilpin, and some newer and more complex, dramatic, and/ or large-scale pantomimes. Pepin and Breschard’s circus presented dramatic pantomimes at this time; these focused more on action than dialogue, as was typical of pantomime. The main difference between equestrian pantomimes and equestrian drama is that equestrian drama was produced based on a written script that contained both action and dialogue, whereas equestrian pantomime tended to be enacted mainly through a series of action-based scenes without scripted dialogue. The equestrian pantomime derives from the English comic form of pantomime that featured easy to follow comic story lines and physical humor. From these basics, the equestrian pantomime evolved to include dramatic, and sometimes military, scenes, as well as comic ones. While these acts did tell a story, they did so mainly through action rather than through the presentation of detailed scenes of dialogue. Also, early equestrian pantomimes took place in the circus ring rather than onstage, where the equestrian dramas were completely or partially set. The development of equestrian drama was accelerated by the theatrical aspects of the circus at this time, as it was complimented by those elements of circus that were included in the offerings at theatres while equestrian drama was evolving. The circuses and theatres of this period typically included elements of both traditional “theatre” and “circus,” and, with the circus performing pantomimes and the theatre including non-dramatic entertainments before or between acts of more traditional plays, the line between the two forms was sometimes difficult to draw. As Andrew Davis puts it in America’s Longest Run: A History of the Walnut Street Theatre, There was no sharp distinction between circus and theatre at this time. Both forms of entertainment competed for the same audiences and borrowed

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 43

freely from each other. Circus troupes staged farces and pantomimes as part of the evening’s entertainment. Theatrical productions incorporated variety acts, acrobatics, and feats of strength between the acts of a play.1 The two forms diverged more definitively in the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Circuses continued to incorporate performances by daring equestrians as equestrian pantomimes and drama developed, but the two forms (of circus equestrianism and equestrian drama) also separated, developing into related, but distinct and separate, equestrian art forms. Both continued to thrive, but each did so in its own way, within its own venue.2 With the formalization of equestrian drama and the movement of the form from the circus ring to the theatrical stage in the early decades of the nineteenth century, equestrian drama took on an increasingly significant role in American popular culture and became a distinct form of theatrical entertainment. The plays were most effective when produced in a spectacular style of production. This suited the public taste and quickly gained popularity in the United States during the nineteenth century. Up until 1812, circuses remained the main home of entertainments featuring horses in the United States, with the Park Theatre’s 1803 production of the equestrian drama La Fille Hussard being the only notable equestrian drama produced prior to that. Manfredi’s production, as Odell observes, is extremely significant. Odell describes Signor Manfredi’s performance as “The Wonder” and “an astonishing beginning of equestrian drama” that was “never before attempted in America.” This was a military equestrian drama that included numerous scenes with horses, and it is discussed in Chapter 5, along with other military equestrian dramas. This production was not immediately followed by other equestrian dramas. Instead, over the next approximately nine years, the form slowly developed, mainly through the production of equestrian pantomimes at circuses where they were enacted in the ring by circus equestrians until moving emphatically onto the theatrical stage in 1812.This shift occurred just slightly later than when equestrian drama debuted on the legitimate stages of London. A look at those early English productions is worthwhile at this point, because they seem to have paved the way for the form to take hold in America.

Early Equestrian Drama in England When equestrian dramas gained popularity with theatre audiences in the United States, the form came to us, as public displays of horsemanship had, and circuses had, directly from Europe and, most often, from England. A brief history of the earliest productions of equestrian drama in England, as well as a concise overview of the theatre culture in which they developed, provide a context for understanding the plays produced in the United States. The Covent Garden Theatre in London was the first “legitimate” home of equestrian drama in England.The debut of equestrian drama at Covent Garden

44  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

followed a tumultuous period for both of the Theatre Royals, Covent Garden and Drury Lane. The Covent Garden Theatre was destroyed by fire in 1808. The Drury Lane burned down less than a year later. Covent Garden was soon rebuilt and reopened, but the result of the costly renovation of the theatre was viewed by many as privileging the rights of the wealthiest attendees over all others and, in effect, making attendance at the legitimate theatre a privilege of the rich. This ideological shift was notable in both seating and pricing. The renovated design of the theatre both increased the number of expensive, private boxes and decreased the size of gallery, which was also moved farther from the stage into a small, crowded, steeply raked area that became known as the “pigeon hole.” The ticket prices were also raised, and this change in particular angered audience members, many of whom were moved to protest by intentionally disrupting performances with demands for a return to the “old” ticket prices. These protests lasted for over two months and became known as the “Old Price” riots of 1809. The Theatre was temporarily closed in response to the protests and the policies reviewed, but the changes were maintained when it reopened. The protests continued until John Kemble, the theatre manager, lowered the prices and made a public apology. Henry Saxe Wyndham, writing in his Annals of Covent Garden Theatre, from 1732–1897, reports, This formality over, the rioters at last hoisted a placard from the pit with the words “we are satisfied” and the worst of the horrible business was done. By what was certainly a foolish piece of mismanagement, Kemble tried to evade the entire fulfillment of the agreement at the beginning of the 1810–1811 season, and there was a renewal of the old disturbance, necessitating the closing of the theatre until eight of the private boxes were done away with, and not till then were the historic “O.P.” riots entirely at an end.3 It was perhaps at least partially due to the combination of negative publicity and financial concerns resulting from the riots that the choice was made to produce, in 1811, both Blue Beard and Timour the Tartar. These plays not only enticed audiences back into the theatre but also formally introduced equestrian drama to audiences at the “legitimate” theatres of England (although many members of the audiences had previously attended productions of equestrian entertainments with dramatic elements at “illegitimate” venues, most notably at Astley’s Amphitheatre and the Royal Circus). American audiences had less experience with this type of equestrian entertainment, but by this time, Signor Manfredi had already presented an equestrian drama at the Park Theatre in New York, and circuses were experimenting with combining horses and drama in dramatic pantomimes. The first equestrian drama produced on the legitimate stage in London was Blue Beard; or, the Female Curiosity by George Coleman the Younger. The play had been produced many times before, beginning in the late eighteenth century, but always without horses—until now. The debut of Blue Beard as an

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 45

equestrian drama occurred at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden in February 1811. This production was quickly followed by the production of another equestrian drama: Timour the Tartar, which was the first play written specifically for the inclusion of horses. Timour debuted at the Covent Garden on either 29 April or 1 May 1811.4 The introduction of horses for the first time on the legitimate stage of ­London with the productions of Blue Beard and Timour the Tartar sparked a great deal of discussion. Many critics questioned the proper nature of drama, and many decried what they perceived as the debasement of the legitimate stage with what was widely viewed as a lesser form. The popularity of these productions, however, was undeniable, as was the need for theatre management to draw in and please audiences after the difficulties of the prior seasons. As Jane Moody states in Illegitimate Theatre in London, 1770–1840, “No longer confined to Sadler’s Wells and the Royal Circus, illegitimate theatre had taken control of the cultural metropolis.”5

Blue Beard at Covent Garden Blue Beard, as produced at Covent Garden in 1811, included horses in two scenes, including the play’s finale. Since the play was written, and often produced, without horses before its debut as an equestrian drama (after which it became an equestrianized sensation), the original written script does not include any specific scenes requiring “horses.” This highlights a central challenge to the study of equestrian drama: review of the written scripts does not tell the “whole story” of the plays in production. While this can be said to hold true for all plays to some degree, the distance between the written text and the performance text of an equestrian drama can be especially vast. Blue Beard tells the story of the Abomelique, the high-ranking Turkish military officer known as Blue Beard, and Fatima, the woman who has been promised to him in marriage by her father despite her love for the Turkish cavalryman, Selim. The main action of the play is set in motion when Blue Beard leaves Fatima alone in his castle with the instructions to explore freely, except for one locked room known as the Blue Apartment, which she must not enter under any circumstances. Fatima, urged on by her sister (in act 2, scene 5) is unable to resist entering the Blue Apartment. When she does, she sees an assortment of horrors, including a skeleton, over whose head is written, “THE PUNISHMENT OF CURIOUSITY.”6 In her shock and fear, Fatima drops and breaks the decorative key that she used to enter the forbidden chamber, making it impossible for her to conceal that she has entered the room. When Abomelique returns to the castle, he sets out to punish Fatima, but she makes a dramatic narrow escape with the help of Selim. Although the specifics of equestrian action are not detailed in the script, they are described in various sources.7 James Boden, in his biography of Covent Garden manager at the time of the equestrianization of Blue Beard, John

46  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

Philip Kemble, describes the entrance of horses onto the legitimate stage, which occurred in the second act: Early in the second act of Blue-Beard, sixteen most beautiful horses mounted by spahis suddenly appeared before the spectators, and were received with immense applause; their various and incessant action produced a delightful effect upon the eye; and when they were afterward seen ascending the heights with inconceivable velocity, the audience were in raptures, as at the achievement of a wonder. Subsequently, however, they seemed still more astonished at the sagacity, or recollection of the noble animals before them;—in the charge, some of the horses appeared to be wounded, and with admirable imitation fainted gradually away. One of them, who in the anguish of his wounds, had thrown off his rider, and was dying on the field, on hearing the report of a pistol sprung suddenly to his feet, as if again to join, or enjoy the battle; but his ardor not being seconded by his strength, he fell again as if totally exhausted. It is hardly necessary to say more upon the subject, than that this splendid novelty was completely successful.8 Blue Beard’s horses became the subject of great discussion within the theatre community. This brought to light many of the most significant aspects of equestrian drama, both positive and negative. Word of mouth only added to the play’s intrigue and popularity. One of the most straightforward benefits of the inclusion of real horses onstage is their contribution to the “photographic” realism of the play, since their presence mimics what would happen in “real life.” Another practical advantage of their inclusion is the excitement added by the presence of horses onstage in the theatre. Seeing a horse inside the theatre and onstage was exciting and novel for audience members at Covent Garden in 1811, many of whom heard or read about the unique production of Blue Beard and then seized the opportunity to see it for themselves. Another advantage of including horses in plays is the subsequent heightening of the theatrical illusion and effectiveness of the dramatic world created onstage, which helps the audience members to suspend their disbelief. The inclusion of horses onstage also raises some legitimate concerns, as Leigh Hunt, a frequent attendee at the nineteenth century English theatre and a contributor to the Examiner (where the following account was originally published, on 24 March 1811) observed in regard to the inclusion of horses in that year’s production of Blue Beard at the Covent Garden. Hunt frames his reaction to Blue Beard by observing, We are now presented with horse actors at “classical” Covent-Garden. These prepossessing palfreys appear to be about twenty in number, and come prancing on the Stage into rank and file with as much orderliness as their brethren at the Horse Guards, facing directly to the spectators, and treating them with a few preparatory curvettings, indicative of ardour, so

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 47

that when the riders draw their swords, the appearance is not a little formidable, and seems to threaten a charge into the pit.9 Hunt further observes that the “twenty” horses performing in the play were made to represent a greater number more by the contrivance of repeated entrances and exits: “Till every steed has reappeared often enough to represent ten or a dozen others.” He proceeds to summarize the content of the play’s equine action, which includes, gallopings [. . .] repeated over mound and bridge, [. . .] then one or two of them get interestingly entangled in a crowd; then a drawbridge breaking down is scaled by three or four at full gallop, which calls down the thunder of the galleries; then a duel ensues between a couple of horsemen. After a tongue-in-cheek description of the play’s final death scene, wherein particular attention is paid to three equine actors who Hunt refers to as Twitcher, Twirler, and Whitenose, he concludes, It is no doubt interesting to see of what so noble an animal as the horse is capable; and it is still more agreeable to be relieved from those miserable imitations of him, which come beating time on the Stage with human feet, and with their hind knees the wrong way. If it were possible to present the public with such exhibitions and at the same time to cherish a proper taste for the Drama, they might even be hailed as genuine improvement in representation; for if men, and not puppets, act men, there seems to be no dramatic reason why horses should not act horses.10 Hunt’s observations not only raise ethical concerns but also point out a central paradox of equestrian drama, which is the tendency of the form to elicit strong reactions from audience members, often a combination of emotions including both wonder and shame, making it a rather “guilty pleasure” for some (and Hunt is one such). This is perhaps at the heart of the numerous burlesques of equestrian drama that appeared in the wake of the equestrian dramas produced at Covent Garden and which continued to enjoy modest popularity for decades.11 Despite his concerns, Hunt found the equestrian drama an “interesting” and “agreeable” theatrical innovation, but expressed his wish that he could enjoy it while still cherishing “a proper taste for the Drama.” Herein is the conundrum; Hunt was moved by his first experience with equestrian drama to consider both its positive and negative effects; in this pursuit, Hunt proceeded to question the costs and rewards of bringing real horses into the theatre and onto the stage. He had two main objections: first that the horses would so dazzle the audience with their very presence on the stage that it would render the audience unable to concentrate on the more “delicate” aspects of the drama and,

48  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

second, that “the animals themselves are to be considered, with regard to their comfort.” Hunt’s first concern, that of potential audience distraction, seems relatively minor and perhaps even unfounded; a reading of virtually any extant equestrian drama, as well as most reviews from the time period, reveals that a major, if not the major, concern of the playwright and/or director of most any such play, and the intended focuses of audience attention, is the spectacle itself! As such, it seems impossible to distract the audience with the spectacle when that was in fact the intended focus. These were not plays in which one was intended to ruminate deeply on the plot or characters; these were plays to be experienced and enjoyed without the necessity of great concentration on the literary elements. Hunt’s worry over the well-being of the horses, on the other hand, is a legitimate concern and remains an essential aspect of the form’s legacy. The moral concerns of producing equestrian drama are not the focus of this study, but they are significant and merit some attention.There was nothing inherently cruel in the plays, or in the treatment of the horses who performed in them, but clearly the theatrical stage is an unnatural environment for a horse, even a highly skilled, performing horse. Accidents were (thankfully) rare and serious accidents rarer still, but some did occur.12 Despite this fact, and the concerns raised by Hunt, Blue Beard continued at Covent Garden through the close of the theatrical season of 1811 and on 29 April 1811 was joined by the first of what would be many new equestrian dramas: Timour the Tartar.

Timour the Tartar at Covent Garden The success of the equestrianized production of Blue Beard, inspired the managers of the Covent Garden (John Philip Kemble and Henry Harris) to commission the playwright Matthew Gregory (aka Monk, Matt, and MG) Lewis to write a new play featuring horses. The resulting play was Timour the Tartar, a grand romantic melodrama and the first play known to be written specifically as an equestrian drama.13 The front matter included in the published script for Timour includes a quote from its predecessor, Blue Beard: “I see them galloping! I see them galloping!” Lewis’s notes preceding the published text of the play go on to explain that the play was written at the request of the theatre management and that Lewis was specifically instructed to include horses, although he had concerns about doing so: This trifle was written merely to oblige Mr. Harris, who prest me very earnestly to give him a Spectacle, in which Horses might be introduced: But having myself great doubts of the success of these New Performers, I constructed the Drama in such a manner, that by substituting a combat on foot for one on horse-back, the Cavalry might be omitted without injury to the Plot.

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 49

In concluding his note, Lewis acknowledges that the success of the play in London was “clearly indebted [. . .] above all to the favour with which the Horses were received by the Public.” Timour the Tartar tells the story of Zorilda, the widowed princess whose husband was murdered by the cruel usurping tyrant Timour the Tartar. Zorilda’s son, Prince Agib, is being held captive in a tower by Timour, who hopes to thus prevent Zorilda from attacking his kingdom. Timour also plans to marry an Amazonian princess in order to ally himself with the country of Georgia. Knowing of this plan, Zorilda disguises herself as the Amazonian princess, entering in a grand equestrian procession. Timour uncovers the plot, but Agib still manages to escape and join the Georgians. Timour then seizes Zorilda as a hostage and, standing with her high above the Georgians and Agib, he threatens to kill her unless Agib is returned to him. Zorilda somehow breaks free from Timour’s grasp and makes a desperate leap into the sea below; Agib, watching from below on horseback, springs into action with his horse, with whom he leaps a parapet and dives into the sea after Zorilda. The triumphant emergence from the water of the pair on horseback closes the play. Timour the Tartar had numerous productions over many seasons in England, both at the Covent Garden and other venues. It was often given as an afterpiece to performances of other, more traditional plays, including those of Shakespeare, as it was at its Covent Garden debut (when it was on a double bill with The Comedy of Errors). Timour the Tartar played through the end of the season, which turned out to be the most profitable financial season in the history of Covent Garden.14 The premiere of Timour the Tartar and of the “legitimate” equestrian drama can be viewed as a boon or catastrophe for the legitimate theatre, because of the inclusion of horses. Reactions were strong on both sides, for and against horses on the legitimate English stages of London, with some saying the rights of the minor theatres had been violated by the producers who some saw as usurping the “non-legitimate” form of equestrian drama for profit on the legitimate stage. Although many critics lamented the arrival of horses onstage at the Theatre Royal with Blue Beard, the play could still be dismissed as an odd adaptation of an established play; with Timour the Tartar, it became clear that the equestrian drama had indeed arrived. The form was undeniably a hit with audiences, and Timour the Tartar became a sensation that enjoyed popular success in various productions for decades. The horse onstage could no longer be dismissed as an oddity, nor could the form of equestrian drama be regarded as the occasional bastardization of circus and theatre. Equestrian drama had emerged as an unusual but, nonetheless, bona fide theatrical form. From here, the form, and Timour the Tartar, soon spread to the United States.

Equestrian Drama in the United States On 18 June 1812, the United States declared war on Britain and attendance at theatres subsequently dropped throughout the country. Feeling the sting

50  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

of lowered attendance, theatre proprietors looked for new material that they hoped would entice audiences. It was around this time that Breschard (along with Twaits and Placide), of Pepin and Breschard’s Circus, took over management of the Olympic Theatre in New York. Here they presented horsemanship and other entertainments as they had done at other venues in the past, but they added something new: equestrian drama. Their production of Timour the Tartar on 12 September 1812 is the first documented production of an equestrian drama in the United States since Manfredi presented La Fille Hussard in 1803. The production of Timour the Tartar was announced in The Columbian: OLYMPIC THEATRE, LATE CIRCUS SATURDAY EVENING, Sept. 12, Will be presented an entire new Equestrian Melo Drama, written by M. G. Lewis, with new scenery, dresses, &c, as performed in Covent Garden Theatre, London, with unbounded applause, called, TIMOR [sic] THE TARTAR Timor [sic] Mr. Robertson Lorilda Mrs. Twaits. Want of room prevent a detail of the scenery, for which see the bills.15 On this, Odell commented, It will be many and many a long year before Timour the Tartar gets out of our story—especially in the realms of circus spectacle.The performances at the Circus Building in Anthony Street, closed about mid-September, 1812; one might have expected from Timour success sufficient to keep it open somewhat longer. But it was a very bad year for amusements, that of the beginning of war with England.16 After a successful run at the Olympic, Timour the Tartar moved to the nearby Park Theatre. From here, the play enjoyed a long production history, being performed often over the next five decades throughout the United States (as well as in England).The play is examined in more detail in Chapter 4, but first a representative time line of significant early productions of this and other equestrian dramas, and related acts, is traced. Following this first production, Breschard returned to Philadelphia where he presented (in late September, most likely on the 25th) the play again. This production marked the Philadelphia debut of both Timour the Tartar and equestrian drama.17 Around this time, numerous productions of the equestrian pantomime of Don Quixote are also found advertised. On 10 September 1812, The Columbian announced that the New York Circus (at the corner of Broadway and White Street) would present “ACT SECOND,The grand pantomime of DON

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 51

QUIXOTE, Performed on foot and horseback, with several combats, and the most interesting passages of history.”18 And Odell reports that on 4 August 1813, another performance of Don Quixote was announced in The Columbian.19 In September 1813, Pepin and Breschard continued to present displays of horsemanship and capitalized on a growing patriotism in Philadelphia by presenting patriotic spectacles and pantomimes.These productions included ample opportunities for the inclusion of horses, but it is unclear to what extent horses were actually included onstage.20 The next major step in the development of equestrian drama came with James West, who arrived in the United States along with his circus and provided a boost for Pepin, the Olympic Theatre, and the public performance of horsemanship and equestrian drama.

James West The equestrian James West arrived in the United States in 1816, most likely landing first in New York and then moving to Philadelphia, bringing with him with what Charles Durang describes as a “splendid circus corps, stage performers, and a splendid stud of different colored horses [. . .] spotted horses.”21 West made his debut with various equestrian acts on 28 November 1816, and less than one month later, on 16 December, his production of Timour the Tartar opened at the Olympic Theatre in Philadelphia. Although Timour had been performed at the Olympic prior to this, West’s version was exceptionally well received. Charles Durang described the production in his series of essays for the Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch, saying, The manner in which they did their pantomime business, their combats &c, took our audience by surprise, [. . .] The horses were taught to imitate the agonies of death, and they did so in a manner which was astonishing. In the last scene, where Zorilda, mounted on her splendid white charger, ran up the stupendous cataract to the very height of the stage, the feat really astounded the audience. Perhaps no event in our theatrical annals ever produced so intense an excitement as that last scene. The people in the pit and boxes arose with a simultaneous impulse to their feet, and, with canes, hands and wild screams, kept the house in one uproar of shouts for at least five minutes.The next day the success of the piece was the general topic of conversation.22 West remained at the Olympic Theatre through the early weeks of 1817, at which time he moved either to Baltimore (according to James’ account in Old Drury) or to New York (according to Davis’ in America’s Longest Run).23 Both Brown and Odell report that West and company were in New York on 22 January for West’s production of Timour the Tartar at the Park Theatre. As was typical for equestrian drama, the play was part of a larger run of equestrian dramas.24 The practice of producing more than one equestrian drama over the course of a set period of time achieved multiple purposes. Most simply, it made the most economic sense, having engaged a company of horses and equestrians to have them perform multiple pieces. While a single equestrian drama might

52  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

draw some repeat business, a few of them would almost certainly entice a good percentage of theatregoers to return for more than one of the plays—especially if the first one was a success. Having the equestrian troupe perform multiple shows one after the other made good business sense. Of West’s 1817 engagement at the Park, Ireland reports, An engagement commenced with a fine equestrian corps, under the direction of Mr. West, from London—opening with “Timour the Tartar,” in which Mr. Robertson played Timour; Mr. Parker, Kerim; Mr. Williams, ­Sanballet; and Mrs. West (a superior dancer, and an able melodramatic actress) Zorilda. [. . .] “Blue-Beard,” “Lodoiska,” and the “Tiger Horde,” followed successfully, drawing full houses until the engagement terminated on the 28th of February.25 This is a significant engagement because it is the first record found of the equestrianized versions of Blue Beard and Lodoiska, and also of The Tiger Horde being produced in the United States.26 It is also significant because of West’s expertise in horsemanship and his impact on the development equestrian drama, which stems from both the frequency with which he produced such plays and the enthusiasm with which the public greeted his productions. Announcements for West’s engagement at the Park ran in The Columbian beginning on Monday, 20 January 1817. The first of these announced, “The public are respectfully informed, that Mr. West’s Troop of Equestrians are engaged for a few nights, and will shortly make their first appearance in the grand dramatic romance of TIMOUR THE TARTAR. With new Scenery, Dresses and Decorations.”27 After completing the run of equestrian dramas at the Park Theatre, West next returned to Philadelphia’s Olympic Theatre, where he reunited with Pepin and the pair began to present offerings by “Pepin and West.” They collaborated on equestrian dramas, including a revival of Timour the Tartar and one of another equestrian drama, The Secret Mine. The season ran through late November 1817, apparently closing when the nearby Chestnut Theatre opened for its season. West commenced a tour while Pepin remained in Philadelphia, where he continued presenting equestrianism and spectacular equestrian melodramas, but his later productions failed to achieve the level of success West’s company had brought to the Olympic (which soon became known as the Walnut Street Theatre). After this, Pepin worked as a riding instructor and continued to perform occasionally, but never regained any significant level of commercial or popular success. Pepin died in 1845. He is remembered for his early work at the New Circus and for his collaboration with the celebrated equestrian James West, with whom he pioneered the most popular productions of early equestrian dramas. West’s Circus returned to New York on 21 August 1817, when Odell reports that they opened a Circus building “near the Stone Bridge, Brooklyn.”28 The Post reported a variety of equestrian acts performed there through late September. Pepin’s Circus opened a “Broadway Circus” between Hester and Broome

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 53

Streets in New York on 22 June 1818.29 A learned horse and various feats of horsemanship were presented throughout the season, and Odell reports that, on 28 September 1818, the pantomime of Don Quixote was performed.30 The following year, the return of Pepin’s Circus was announced in The Columbian of 15 May 1819. A short but intense season was promised in a circus building so altered [. . .] to accommodate a numerous audience—an additional tier of boxes have been erected—many windows have been added for the purpose of giving a free circulation of air—in short, the whole building has undergone a thorough repair. The season included numerous equestrian pantomimes, including performances of The Taylor Riding to Brentford (by Campbell beginning on 1 June); a “Grand Triumphal Entry of the Greeks into the City of Troy by Twelve Equestrian Performers”; Don Quixote (on 2 August, for the benefit of Pepin); The Death of General Malbrook (on 4 August); and The Battle of New Orleans (which provided the finale for the season on 11 August).31 One year later, on 4 September 1820, the Columbian announced that James West had returned to New York, and his circus building had been renovated for the fall season. Horsemanship was to be presented, but no mention is found of equestrian dramas.32 West continued to perform, most notably in New York City, where he competed for audiences with the Park Theatre. Odell reports that Timour the Tartar was presented at the Park Theatre the next year in a run beginning on 5 August 1821, in a season that also included Park Theatre productions of numerous other equestrian dramas, notably The Forty Thieves (“with forty real horses”), Blue Beard (“with all the horses”), and The Secret Mine (advertised to be “wrote expressly for Mr. West’s horses”), and in which “Mrs. Tatnall will ride her Arabian charger up the craggy part of the mine, to the astonishment of every beholder.”33 During the summer of 1822, the Olympic Theatre in Philadelphia was leased by Stephen Price and Edmund Simpson. Price and Simpson came to Philadelphia from New York, where they had previously managed the Park Theatre, with which Price had first affiliated himself in the 1808–1809 season. This duo would make significant contributions, often in conjunction with West, to the development of equestrian drama in the United States. Price and Simpson are often credited with introducing James Hunter, the first bareback rider in the United States. Hunter’s bareback riding was sometimes more colorfully billed as “riding in the rude state of nature.”34 His amazing act, which was accomplished without benefit of saddle, bridle, or, indeed, any form of control or restraint for the rider, is usually reported to have first been presented in New York when Hunter joined Price and Simpson’s Circus (after arriving in New York from England, where Odell reports he had previously performed at ­Astley’s). I have found an earlier advertisement from the American and Commercial Daily Advertiser from Baltimore, Maryland, on 16 December 1822

54  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

advertising performances by Hunter as well as a production of Timour the Tartar. The ad indicates Hunter’s performances were ongoing and that this was not his debut. It also illustrates the mixing of diverse equestrian acts with equestrian drama in a single evening of performance. It is reprinted below in its entirety: CIRCUS Performance This Evening and every evening during the week. FIRST NIGHT OF THE GRAND EQUESTRIAN DRAMA OF TIMOUR THE TARTAR, Which was written for the purpose of introducing the horses upon the stage. Mr. Hunter’s 7th appearance. This evening, Dec. 16, The entertainment will consist of the following performances, and commence with GRAND ENTRÉE, with a magnificent display of beautiful horses. HORSEMANSHIP by the whole troop. MR. CARNES will go through a variety of feats of HORSEMANSHIP. The two Wonderful Ponies will go through their astonishing performances. STILL VAULTING by the whole troop of Flying Phenomena—Riding Master, Mr. Blythe. [. . .] Horsemanship by MR. HUNTER; who for swiftness, elegance and perfect balance, stands classed one of the first horseman of England; he rides without saddle or bridle, the horse in its rude state of nature going at full speed; in his acts of horsemanship he will perform a great variety of feats of agility, never witnessed in this city, in the course of which he will leap through a hogshead, his horse in full speed!! The whole to conclude with the grand spectacle called TIMOUR THE TARTAR. In which will be introduced the beautiful horses. (For particulars see bills of the day.) The whole of the Equestrian performances under the immediate direction of Mr. BLYTH; late of Astley’s Amphitheatre, London. Box, 50 cents; children under 10 years, admitted with families to the boxes at 25 cents—Pit 25 cents—Box office open from10 to 2 o’clock. Females not admitted to the boxes unless accompanied by gentlemen. Officers of the police are expressly engaged for the preservation of order.35 Davis cites Charles Durang as reporting that audiences responded to Hunter’s performance with “crashes of tumultuous applause. The enthusiasm, the shouts of approbation and loud huzzas, with other Babel noises, defines all reasonable

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 55

description.”36 With his bareback riding act, Hunter set a new standard for acrobatic equestrianism and provided a suitable opening act for equestrian drama. Davis reports that throughout the fall season, Price and Simpson’s Circus performed various equestrian dramas in Philadelphia, these included not only Timour the Tartar and Blue Beard but also The Tiger Horde,The Secret Mine, Lodoisdka, and Tekeli.37 A similar equestrian engagement at the Park Theatre in New York was headlined by Mrs. Tatnall, an actress and equestrian who performed leading roles in various traditional plays that led up to the opening, on 14 March 1823, of what Odell describes as a series of grand equestrian dramas, breathing the very spirit of Astley’s London Amphitheatre. Timour the Tartar, with the stud of horses managed by Blythe and Tatnall, cavalcaded on the stage [. . .] In this, Mrs. Tatnall was in her element, and so were the horses. Nevertheless, on its second night, Timour served as an afterpiece to The Belle’s Stratagem, in which Mrs.Tatnall challenged critical taste as Letitia Hardy. On March 24th, another equestrian spectacle, The Secret Mine, presented Mrs.Tatnall as Zaphyra, Blythe as Hyder [. . .]. To attone, Mrs. Tatnall played Adelgitha, before this thing, on the 25th, and Evadne, before Timour, on the 26th. She also enacted Albina Mandeville (with Timour), on March 29th. On March 31st, the grand equestrian drama, El Hyder “as played at Astley’s Amphitheatre, London,” [. . .]. I cannot tell the reader how gorgeous were the trappings of stage and horses. The equestrian troop departed on April 5.38 The production of equestrian dramas was profitable throughout the year, and a degree of competitive antagonism seems to have developed in New York. Soon, a transaction that had a profound effect on the future of equestrian drama in the United States occurred. James West sold his theatrical interests and left the American theatre scene, soon after departing the country. Numerous accounts regarding the details of his departure are found.The first comes from Odell, who begins by reporting,“The circus [. . .] was, in the summer of 1823, under the control of Price and Simpson.”39 This was largely the result of the bargain Price and Simpson had struck with West, the result of which was that they took control of James West’s Circus, along with his horses and the leases he held for theatres in various cities. After this,West retired to London, and Price and Simpson hired one of his former equestrians Sam Tatnall to take over the circus. Of this transaction, Odell reports The clever chicanery by which these astute managers secured control of West’s interests is detailed by the invaluable Cowell; West’s annual visits were hurting the regular theatre, and Cowell was chosen to convey indirectly to West the notion that Price and Simpson were about to build a grand new amphitheatre in Broadway. A model of the structure “after the plan of Astley’s,” was placed in the green room of the Park, and Tatnall, “a delinquent” from West’s, was employed to break in two horses in a temporary ring, back of the theatre.” The hits were swallowed, and West sold out to Price and Simpson, with a “prohibition against . . . again establishing

56  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

a circus in the United States.” West, “with a handsome fortune, went to England,” and Price and Simpson could, in later years, sadly ruminate on their folly. The details of West’s “retirement” are commented on in numerous sources. Frederick M. Litto reports in Edmund Simpson of the Park Theatre, New York, 1809–1848 on the history leading up to this transaction as well as the machinations behind it: Price and Simpson in the spring of 1823 were intent upon buying West out so as to eliminate his serious competition to their affairs. They resorted to a stratagem to accomplish their goal, using Cowell as part of the scheme. Cowell was told to let it be known to West’s friends that the Park managers were going to erect a splendid amphitheatre on Broadway. A model much like London’s Astley’s Amphitheatre was placed without comment in the Park green room, and at about the same time a circus worker named Tatnal [sic] was employed to begin training two horses on a lot bordering Theatre Alley. West got the hint and negotiated with the managers. They settled on buying West’s circus for a low down payment, the remainder of the sum to be paid from the receipts of the new firm; and into the deal were thrown West’s buildings and lots in the various cities, his leases, engagements, horses, wardrobe, scenery, and an agreement that West would not establish a circus in America again. West returned to England a happy man: he had come to America practically penniless (Price and Simpson had paid his passage over to help stage Timour the Tartar and The Siege of Belgrade), and here he was going back a rich man, indeed, one of the few early circus men to become wealthy. West was known to have been living in Yorkshire as late as 1860.40 Cowell explains the goings on in his own words in his memoir Thirty Years Passed Among the Players in England and America: West, with a fine company of performers and a magnificent stud of horses, paid a yearly visit to New-York, to the serious injury of the theatre; and in self-defence, Price and Simpson were desirous to buy him out. To effect this, resort was had to stratagem, to which I played a very useful part. My particular intimacy with the management being notorious, with binding oaths of secrecy, I named to those well-fitted to instantly convey the news to West, that the Park proprietors intended erecting a most splendid amphitheatre in Broadway, where the Masonic Hall now stands; a model, somewhat after the plan of Astley’s, was placed in the green-room, and the imagination aided by the whisper abroad, soon gave it a local habitation and a name. A delinquent from the circus (Tatnal) was engaged, and employed to break two horses in a temporary ring, boarded round, in a lot on the alley at the back of the theatre. These broad hints at opposition

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 57

soon brought matters to an issue; and at a fair price, and easy mode of payment [. . .] Simpson and Price, and some others, [. . .] purchased the building, lease, engagements, horses, wardrobe, scenery, and a prohibition against West again establishing a circus in the United States.41 It is interesting to consider what effect West would have had on the continued development of equestrian drama in the United States if he had continued to perform, but the last report of his work comes from Odell, who cites The American of 8 November 1823 as reporting that during this season and before retiring from the New York stage, West presented the equestrian dramas The Forty Thieves (on 12 January 1824), Valentine and Orson (19 January), The Brazen Mask (beginning on 26 January), Tekeli (on 2 February), and The Secret Mine (for which no date is specified).42 James Hunter is reported to have also performed at the Olympic in Philadelphia during 1823, at which time James Cowell had taken over management duties there. Cowell added a trick horse named General Jackson to the circus and continued producing equestrian dramas, as they had done in New York. These included The Blood Red Knight, or the Fatal Bridge; El Hyder, or Love and Bravery; and The Coronation of Henry V. These ran through December, when the Philadelphia theatrical season concluded and the company divided up to move on to other cities before reuniting in New York for the summer of 1824.43

Price and Simpson With West’s departure, the United States lost a significant figure in equestrian drama, but there were many others remaining to carry on, and the form did not suffer in terms of plays produced or audiences in attendance. The circus at the Broadway Theatre in New York, now with Cowell as the director and Blythe as the equestrian director, had a company that included numerous equestrians and trained horses, so it is not unexpected that they produced a variety of equestrian dramas. Odell reports that these included Valentine and Orson (12 June), Tekeli (27 June), “The Pony Races” from Tom and Jerry (8 July), The Turnpike Gate, Timour the Tartar (21 July), Lodoiska (23 July), El Hyder (28 July), The Blood Red Knight (4 August), and The Forty Thieves, “employing the usual forty horses; this dashing thing emerged in mid-August and held the stage for days.”44 In the spring of 1824, Price and Simpson opened at the Broadway Circus (located in New York on Broadway, between Howard and Grand Streets) on 17 May with displays of horsemanship in the ring and Timour the Tartar on the stage. This combination in performance of horsemanship displays and equestrian drama continued to appeal to audiences, and Hunter debuted his bareback act for the season on 20 May (he also performed non-equestrian acrobatic feats on “polander’s ladder” and the tight rope, demonstrating the versatility typical of many equestrian performers). Productions of other equestrian dramas continued throughout this season and included The Blood Red Knight, The Pony Races, or Tom and Jerry at Epsom—in May—a “burlesque Tom and Jerry [. . .] on

58  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

June 21.” Valentine and Orson, El Hyder, and The Turnpike Gate followed.45 The circus moved back to Philadelphia in the fall and again presented The Cataract of the Ganges in October, along with productions of Timour the Tartar, The Turnpike Gate, and Tom and Jerry throughout the fall of 1824.46 Meanwhile, horses continued to be a major focus of the productions offered by Price and Simpson and others. The most popular of equestrian dramas tended to be restaged and offered in new productions season after season, or sometimes multiple times during one season at different venues, or even at the same theatre but with different casts. James Hunter continued performing with their circus through 1825 when they opened the summer season with Timour the Tartar, followed by productions of The Tiger Horde, The Turnpike Gate, The Blood Red Knight, Valentine and Orson, The Forty Thieves, Tekeli, El Hyder, and The Cataract of the Ganges (for the 4th of July, with an extended run to follow).47 In the summer of 1825, the Lafayette Circus opened in New York City.48 Owned and built by Charles W. Sandford, the Lafayette specialized in the presentation of melodrama and spectacle, including equestrian drama. Sandford was, like Philip Astley, a military man with both a skill and an affinity for working with horses. His productions quickly found an audience. After only about four months in operation, the Lafayette Circus was renovated, and the stage significantly enlarged. When it reopened, the venue was rechristened the Lafayette Amphitheatre. Equestrian dramas were presented on the impressively sized stage. The equestrian company included Tatnall, Hughes, Simpson, and Hunter. That fall, the Lafayette produced equestrian drama Timour the Tartar (opening October 19) and continued to present horsemanship featuring the horses Romeo and Napoleon throughout the fall. On 6 February 1826, El Hyder opened in a production that featured not only real horses but also an elephant. On 27 February, Odell reports, “The last two acts of Richard III were staged ‘with horses.’ ” Productions of Tekeli and El Hyder were presented in March.49 In the summer of 1826, the ring was replaced with seating and circus acts were eliminated; the venue was renamed the Lafayette Theatre.50 The stage was the largest in New York and exceptionally well suited to the presentation of large-scale spectacles including horses. The lighting and ventilation systems were also excellent and considered by many to be the best in New York at the time, which also suited the plays and enhanced the experience of audience members.51 In the winter of 1826, Simpson made the decision to divide his circus troop into two units, allowing one to continue business as usual and sending the other to Charleston to work with Edmund Kean. This led to an occurrence that illustrates just one of the many potential difficulties faced by those producing equestrian drama at this time.The need to tour was a given, as audience demand necessitated that artists travel from city to city. This was somewhat challenging for any actor, but traveling with horses raised a number of unique challenges, proving more complex, expensive, and danger-wrought than simply traveling with a troupe of human actors. While moving from one local venue to another, horses could be walked or ridden, sometimes even employed to help move the belongings of the company. When distances too long to

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 59

cover on foot needed to be crossed, both people and horses usually traveled by boat. In February 1826, while Cowell was sailing from Baltimore for Charleston (along with 55 people and 18 horses) a storm struck their vessel. Cowell recalled the event in his memoirs: About midnight it suddenly chopped round to the southeast, and soon increased to a violent gale. [. . .] During the blow the spar on the starboard side, that was lashed fore and aft to partly support the divisions of the stalls and keep the horses in them, had parted, and caused some confusion; and now the ship rolled so heavily, and the horses backing or actually hanging by their halters at every lurch, it required all the exertion of all the hands I could muster to replace it; [. . .] Suddenly the zig-zag lightening seemed to tear asunder the curtains of eternity, plash on the deck, and struggle at your feet! And, on the instant, thunder “so loud and dread” it shook your very heart, made you hold your breath, and feel both deaf and blind. [. . .] It struck us forward, and with such overwhelming violence we could feel her tremble to the core, as she instantly keeled over on her side. [. . .] the ship seemed to labor to get her keel once more under water, and by the less effulgent flashes of lighting we could see the fore-top-mast, yard and all, hanging overboard, but not a vestige, on the leeward side, of the poor horses nor their stables. [. . .] All the horses on the side that had gone underwater, of course, were gone “No man knows whither,” with the exception of a pretty little mare called Fanny. Poor Fanny! She was named after an angel in heaven now. She was nearest the bow, and had, through fright, accident, or instinct, got her forefeet over the spar, intended to secure the stalls in front, and where the ship lay over, some booms and masts belonging to the vessel had shifted, and jambing her legs, had there held her fast; though skinned and torn, no bones were broken, and in this cruel manner, her life was saved. [. . .] She recovered sufficiently to be made a pet of. To windward, three of the horses, wonderful to relate, were still on their legs, Platoff, Wellington and Jackson.52 Reports indicate that when the surviving company members arrived in Charleston, they met with a sympathetic reception; their performance fees were waived by the city council, horses were loaned to the troupe by locals, and sympathetic audiences filled the venue for the performances.53 In the “late spring” of 1826, Simpson advertised the circus and all of its assets for sale. Litto quotes The American of 16 September 1826 as reporting that the sale included “the whole of the New York Circus Establishment, formerly owned by Mr. West, consisting of leases of Circuses in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Savannah, Charleston, and an eligible lot of ground in Baltimore, together with Horses, Scenery, Wardrobe, Music.” All but the Broadway Circus building were reportedly sold, but the new proprietors apparently failed to prosper, and soon afterward Simpson bought back from them that which he had sold.54 The following year, in May 1827, Cowell returned to Price and

60  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama

Simpson’s Circus as a shareholder. Also in May, Odell reports that the Broadway Circus advertised the acquisition of 20 new horses in The American. On 26 May, Timour the Tartar opened. On 19 July, James Hunter returned with his bareback act, followed by The Cataract of the Ganges on 21 July and Tekeli on 25 July.55 Of an equestrian production of The Forty Thieves, Odell reported, There are some things that we simply must have in certain situations; and here at last is what we have been yearning for—The Forty Thieves, with forty ‘real’ horses. There, at last, on February 15th, is the perfection of equestrian melodrama; vaguely, perhaps without knowing what we ailed, we were longing for this consummation. Mount Pitt has come to Laurens Street emphatically and perfectly; all the forty actors now need do is ride those forty horses to forty nights of success.56 In January 1830, Blanchard’s Amphitheatre opened on Chatham Street in New York. Equestrian performances were presented here under the direction of G. Blanchard, and various equestrian dramas were performed during the early months of 1830, including Timour the Tartar (15 February), The Tiger Horde, Blue Beard (2 March), and “a new drama, The Independents of Bohemia, stated on 8 March, ‘with all the horses.’ ”57

Conclusions on Early Productions of Equestrian Drama in the United States From these beginnings, the popularity of equestrian drama spread.The production history of the plays indicates that audiences sometimes attended numerous productions and/or performances of the same title, seeing different productions of the same play. The plays also spread from early performances in the major theatrical cities of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston to locations throughout the country (although they remained most popular and were most frequently performed in major cities). Timour the Tartar, for example, is recorded to have been produced at the Camp Theatre in New Orleans 14 different times between 1825 and 1833.58 The play was also reported to have been performed in St. Louis, Missouri in 1833, probably for the first time, with an announcement appearing in the Missouri Free Press for a performance “as early as the eighth a performance of Timour the Tartar, ‘in which all the Horses appear.”59 Meanwhile, in New York, Timour was produced with Dinnerford as Timour on 27 June 1836 and again that same month with William Sefton as Timour. Odell reports of this: “But, thank heaven! the [sic] theatre has at last shaken itself free of the circus, except for equestrian melodramas like Timour.”60 By this point in American theatre history, equestrian melodrama was established as a popular theatre genre. The plays continued in production, in various forms, throughout the nineteenth century (and even into the early years of the twentieth, although by then their popularity was diminishing). The evolution of the form that began with public displays of horsemanship first presented in

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 61

the American colonies during the 1770s into an identifiable type of play was complete, but the development of the genre would continue throughout the nineteenth century. The displays of horsemanship had evolved first to include simple story lines and characters in early equestrian pantomime; from there, the form grew into a unique theatrical genre of fully formed equestrian dramas that included horses as significant and necessary elements of their plot and production. Performances by circus equestrians were still presented as supplements to play productions at theatres throughout much of the nineteenth century, and while venues that we would today identify as theatres were sometimes still called “circuses” or “amphitheatres” instead of theatres, the circus itself became a distinct and recognizable form. The pioneering work of Ricketts, Pepin, ­Breschard, West, Price, Simpson, and others helped bring equestrian entertainments featuring dramatic elements to the attention of the American public and into the American theatre. Taking the performers from the circus ring to the stage was easy enough to do. The equestrian drama, and the pantomimes and other circus acts from which it had emerged, were popular with increasingly diverse audiences whose tastes were moving away from the general limitations of traditional, “acceptable” dramatic structure and content dictated by the contemporary critics and other purveyors of “good taste.” For these reasons, increasing numbers of theatres found it profitable to produce equestrian dramas. Here equestrian drama became a distinct and bona fide theatrical genre, drawing audiences to theatres for a regular schedule of performances of equestrian dramas that tended to be of a few main types: melodramatic equestrian dramas, military equestrian dramas, frontier equestrian dramas (and the related form of the Wild West show), and racing plays and other similar equestrian dramas that were produced with specialized stage machinery. The emergence of these distinct types of equestrian drama, and the plays themselves, are examined in the following chapters.

Notes 1. Davis, p. 20. 2. The circus was primarily an outdoor entertainment and a traveling form that found its “home” under a canvas tent that traveled with the performers. The moveable circus tent was first utilized in or around 1825 (after first likely being introduced by J. Purdy Brown of Brown and Bailey and then adopted by the Washington Circus). The “circus tent” facilitated ease of travel and set up, and, as circuses adopted the tent that provided a mobile home for performances, they moved further away from theatrical productions of equestrian drama, which were developing separately in traditional theatres.The use of a portable tent led to a mind-set of being able to move from location to location with relative ease, which had many benefits, but which was not conducive to the production of fully developed dramas on stages, with lights and sets, not to mention horses and human actors—all of which were relevant for the production of equestrian drama. 3. Henry Saxe Wyndham. Annals of Covent Garden Theatre, from 1732–1897 1:348. Archive.org 4. Saxon (Enter Foot and Horse) cites 29 April as the debut; Moody cites 1 May; DeCastro says “February 1811.” The actual date is unclear but most likely Saxon or Moody is

62  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama correct. A number of studies exist on the production of these productions of Blue Beard and Timour the Tartar. Since the focus of this book is on equestrian drama in the United States, readers interested in detailed histories of equestrian drama in England and France are directed first to Saxon’s Enter Foot and Horse and Giraud’s dissertation The Equestrian Drama of the Nineteenth Century. Jane Moody’s Illegitimate Theatre in London, 1770–1840 provides some study of the plays, viewing them as part of the larger London theatre scene from the title period. Garner’s essay A Matter of Turf also examines the early productions of some equestrian dramas in England. 5. Jane Moody. Illegitimate Theatre in London, 1770–1840. 6. Moody also explores the connection between the rise of formerly illegitimate forms on the legitimate English stage and the movement away from spoken drama toward a more physical and visual style that included use of dramatic tableaux to create stage pictures and what she terms a “corporeal dramaturgy which privileged the galvanic, affective capacity of the human body as a vehicle of dramatic expression” (p. 86). 6. Barry Sutcliffe, editor. Plays by George Coleman the Younger and Thomas Morton. “Blue Beard,” act 2, scene 5, p. 203. Google Books. 7. The productions are discussed in Giraud, Saxon, Moody, and Gardner. Gardner examines this production in-depth, and discusses the motivations for and implications of bringing horses into the “legitimate” theatre, in his article “A Matter of Turf.” 8. James Boeden. Memoirs of the Life of John Philip Kemble, Esq: Including a History of the Stage, from the Time of Garrick to the Present Period,Volume 2, pp. 542–543. Google Books. 9. Lawrence Huston Houtchens and Carolyn Washburn Houtchens, eds. Leigh Hunt’s Dramatic Criticism 1808–1831. pp. 45–46. 10. Houtchens, p. 47. 11. Saxon’s Enter Foot and Horse (pp. 94–96) gives a concise overview of the burlesques that appeared in England beginning soon after the productions of Blue Beard and Timour the Tartar at Covent Garden in 1811. The first of these is Thomas Dibdin’s one act, What’s a Stage Without Horses? The most enduring of the burlesques is probably The Quadrupeds; or, The Manager’s Last Kick, which first appeared in July 1811. This and another related burlesque, Quadrupeds of Quedlinburgh; or, The Rovers of Weimar, were promoted as satires of the equestrian dramas produced at Covent Garden, and it is likely that the audiences for both were quite similar. Burlesques of other, later, equestrian dramas, most notably Mazeppa, became popular in later years. Reviews of early equestrian burlesques appeared in various sources during mid-late July 1811, including The Morning Post,The Examiner, Bell’s Weekly Messenger and Examiner, Morning Chronicle, Courier, and Times. 12. While such questions are not the focus of this study, such a study is warranted, and the subject is worthy of investigation and consideration. One extreme example (the worst found in researching this book) illustrates the potential dangers of including horses in theatres. In 1856, an equestrian drama entitled Herne the Hunter was produced in 1856 at the Old Broadway Theatre in New York. The play was advertised as an adaptation of Ainsworth’s novel made “expressly for this theatre.” The equestrian and scenic aspects of the production were emphasized in detailed announcements, such as that which ran in the New York Herald and described the show as featuring 24 horses, including the “wonderfully trained animal, FIREFLY.” The announcement promised, among other claims, The same liberal outlay, time and attention have been paid in the production of ‘Herne the Hunter,’ which has characterized the presentation of all the legitimate and show pieces, including Shakespeare’s [. . .] in a style of grandeur and minute corrections that no other theatre in the United States has equaled or excelled. (New York Herald. 18 February 1856. Wikimedia) No matter how exacting the preparations and “corrections,” the play went horribly wrong in production and, of this, T. Allston Brown (1:404) reports, On the opening night of this spectacle a horse leaped a chasm twelve feet wide, but found no bridge on the other side, and therefore tumbled over, rolling his rider

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 63 under him.The accident was of no serious consequence; the horse and rider received some slight flesh wounds, and the horse “Firefly,” appeared the following night, when another accident occurred. Anne Boleyn made an entry upon the stage, and just as the chariot and six horses were to cross, the platform came down with a crash, and two of the horses were dropped into the cellar. In the tournament scene, a horse came full tilt to the footlights, and not meeting the expected check there from an opponent, pitched over them and fell upon the sharp iron spikes of the railing that separated the parquet from the orchestra. 13. Further information is available in Lars Eckstein’s essay “Monk Lewis’s Timour the ­Tartar, Grand Romantic Orientalism and Imperial Meloncholoy,” published in Reflections on Literary and Cultural Criticism. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 2013, pp. 113–128. Publish.UP. For newspaper accounts contemporary with the productions, see The Examiner, 17–31 March, 12 May, 14 July, and 28 July 1811; The Morning Chronicle of 30 April 1811; the Dramatic Censor of 1811–1812 (pp. 156 and 241, 242, 243, 244); The Globe of 30 April 1811; the 19 July 1811 editions of The Morning Chronicle, Morning Post, and The Times; and the 28 July 1811 edition of The Examiner. 14. This season is widely accepted to have been the most profitable in the Covent Garden’s history and is reported as such in various sources, including Saxon, who reports on page 89 of Enter Foot and Horse, “At a time when the average annual receipts amounted to approximately 80,000 pounds, the season of 1810–1811 brought in 100,000 pounds, of which more than 21,000 pounds was produced by the first 41 nights of Blue Beard alone.” The original source of the figures is Frederick Reynolds’s, The Life and Times of Frederick Reynolds, 2 Volumes. London, 1826, pages 2:403–404. 15. The Columbian (New York). Saturday, 12 September 1812. No. 897. An almost identical announcement, with the date updated to “Sept. 19” ran the following week on 19 September 1812. 16. Odell, 2:392. 17. Thayer, 1:58. On this subject, Davis also cites (p. 365) a “mortgage document dated February 22, 1812,” in the “Theatre Arts Collection of the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin.”The show, competing with the wartime worries of Philadelphians, closed within two weeks. Pepin and Breschard struggled to make ends meet, and in February 1813, the Olympic was seized for non-payment of debts. 18. Pepin and Breschard reunited in New York for performances of horsemanship, announcing a 2 July 1813 performance at the New York Circus. The equine performers included Conqueror, Hunter, Zebra, and Romeo; the human performers included Masters Charles, Spencer, and Duffie, as well as Menial, Codet (at some performances), and Breschard. 19. Odell, 2:410–411. 20. This season was Pepin and Breschard’s last at the Olympic, and by the beginning of 1815, they had played their last public performance together. Pepin returned to Philadelphia in August 1816, where he struggled to make ends meet by working as a riding instructor and horse trainer while also performing at the Olympic (with a mostly new company of performers). 21. James, Old Drury, p. 26, citing Charles Durang, I, LIV. 22. Davis, p. 36, citing: Charles Durang, Philadelphia Stage, 1:113. 23. Litto reports (168) that West also visited other cities before coming to New York, but no support is found for this. He says, “James West, who had acquired some reputation at the Royal Circus, London, about 1805, first appeared in America at the head of his own equestrian company around 1816. He won success in Boston, Philadelphia, Charleston and Hartford before opening in New York in 1817.” 24. The details of the plays are covered in later chapters. 25. Ireland, 1:323. These productions are noteworthy as early examples of equestrian drama. 26. Accessible extant scripts are not found for Lodoiska or the Tiger Horde as equestrian dramas (although Lodoiska is found as an “opera”). 27. The Columbian (New York), Monday, 20 January 1817.Vol.VIII, No. 2228.

64  Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 28. Odell, 2:490. 29. The New-York Columbian. Monday, 22 June 1818. Vol. IX, No. 2071. The advertisement announced: “Mr. Pepin, after an absence of many years from the city of New-York has the honor to announce to the liberal and enlightened citizens of this metropolis, that he has returned, and at a considerable expense, erected an airy, elegant and convenient Circus and will open it THIS EVENING. [. . .] The elegant Horse Othello will act the part of a Domestic. He will at command, bring a whip, hat, blanket, handkerchief, and conclude by walking, trotting and cantering. [. . .] HORSEMANSHIP. Master McCarn, the wonderful youth, only nine years old, will on one horse perform many feats, and conclude by leaping four ribbons. [. . .] The whole to conclude with the invincible horse Mentor, who is seen standing undaunted amidst FIRE WORKS.” 30. Odell, 2:511–512. 31. Odell, 2:544, referencing information found in various issues of The New-York Columbian. 32. The New-York Columbian (New York), Saturday, 2 September 1820. Volume XI. The announcement read, “CIRCUS. MR. WEST respectfully informs the public, that he has fitted up the CIRCUS, at a great expense, and will be opened on Monday, September 4th, 1820, with his celebrated Equestrian Troop and magnificent and beautiful HORSES.” 33. Odell, 3:42. 34. Hunter is first found advertised to perform in New York at the Broadway Circus in early June 1823. Odell reports he debuted on June 10, 1823, citing The American from 2 June 1823. Hunter’s act was groundbreaking, and demonstrated great horsemanship, athleticism, and balance (surely contributing factors to the success of Hunter’s other specialty, the tight rope). To ride a horse in the upright position, or to turn an acrobatic trick of any degree requires great skill, to do so without the benefit of saddle, bridle, or even the minimal support provided by a traditional bareback pad, is remarkable. Audiences were understandably impressed. 35. American and Commercial Daily Advertiser (Baltimore, MD). 16 December 1822, p. 3. 36. Davis, p. 50, citing James, Old Drury, p. 19, who is apparently citing Charles Durang. It is interesting to note in regard to Hunter’s performance, In the tradition of competitive professional equestrianism, Sam Tatnall apparently felt he had no choice but to try and master the trick himself or lose face. He reportedly spent his evenings practicing in secret in the theatre’s arena, working mainly with his young student Charles LaForrest, until he had mastered bareback riding. While Tatnall’s skill is not recalled as having matched that of Hunter,Tatnall soon announced that his bareback act would be performed on 16 November 1822. 37. Davis, p. 50. 38. Odell, 3:61. 39. Odell, 3:82. 40. Litto, p. 169. Litto is referencing “Cowell, p 64” and suggests that readers consult Vail, pp. 84–87 for more information. 41. Cowell, p. 64. 42. This is the only mention found of The Brazen Mask. The Forty Thieves and Valentine and Orson are performed regularly over the next many decades, but scripts are not found for these equestrian dramas. Tekeli is also performed frequently and for decades as an equestrian drama, but no specific references to horses are found in the written script. 43. Davis, p. 52. 44. Odell, 3:83. Lodoiska is another popular equestrian drama the script of which does not mention horses and no extant script for the popular equestrian drama Tom and Jerry is found. An extant script for the equestrian drama Dick Turpin’s Ride to York is found, but none for The Turnpike Gate, which appears to tell a similar version of the same basic story and which seems to have been more popular as an equestrian drama in the United States, along with Rookwood and Lailah Rook, two other versions for which no extant scripts are found.

Early Productions of Equestrian Drama 65 45. Odell, 3:115. Odell references various New York newspapers from 20 May 1824. 46. James, p. 45. 47. Odell, 3:170. 48. Litto presents a detailed study of the Lafayette in in his dissertation, “Edmund Simpson of the Park Theatre, New York, 1809–1848.” 49. Odell 3:215. See also the New York newspapers from 19 October 1825 and the New York The Mirror. 11 March 1825. 50. The New York newspapers, including, most notably, the New York Post (7 November 1825) presented assorted reports and updates on the improvements made at the Lafayette Theatre. Litto presents a more detailed account of the physical structure of the Lafayette Theatre, including the changes made during renovations conducted over the years. 51. On 6 October 1827 the New York Mirror described the Lafayette Theatre as “the most elegant in the country” and provided a detailed description of its interior. Litto (54) describes the Lafayette by saying, “With the completion of the alterations of 1827, the Lafayette Theatre was the largest and most modern in the country.” Although he laments its lack of a water tank for presenting aquatic spectacles, an “oversight” that he reports (54) as being “remedied the following spring.” 52. Cowell, pp. 68–69. 53. Litto, pp. 181–182. More information is available from Cowell. 54. Litto, pp. 184–185, citing an ad from The American of 16 September 1826. 55. On a related note, another significant circus equestrian began performing around this time; he is Levi J. North, who was known as the “American Ambassador” and “America’s own horseman.” North first performed his equestrian feats in the United States in 1826. North’s act featured a variety of equestrian entertainments, and an unusual act of competitive somersaulting, which featured North facing off against Mr. Price (also an excellent vaulting rider). Although the somersaults were not done on horseback, they did highlight the acrobatic skills of these two elite equestrians. Reports indicate that North emerged victorious most nights and was the decisive overall winner, completing a total of 44 somersaults in a row on his best night. North transferred this skill to horseback the following year when he became the first person ever observed to complete a somersault on horseback that was both initiated from and completed in the standing position on the horse’s back.When this honor was mistakenly attributed to another equestrian (Timothy Turner, who was said to do it in 1826), North wrote to the newspaper, explaining, “It was never accomplished until I performed the feat in England, in 1839. I was also the first to perform the feat in this country, in 1840 at the Bowery Theater.” 56. Odell, 3:349. 57. Odell, 3:469, citing the New York Post of 18 January 1830. 58. Kendall, p. 65. 59. Carson (p. 137) citing the Missouri Free Press, which he notes is on file at the State Historical Society in Columbia, Missouri. This is the earliest mention of the play being produced in Missouri that I find; from this, it can be reasonably concluded that Timour the Tartar was produced for the first time with horses in Missouri in August of 1833, most likely by J. Purdy Brown. Carson also reports another production of Timour the Tartar in Missouri during the summer of 1838, in St. Louis, starring J. M. Field as Timour and Mr. Lewellen as the Georgian Chief. 60. Odell, 4:101.

4 The Plays Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

A horse in the highway is simply a horse and nothing more; but, transferred to the theatre, the noble animal becomes a real horse. —Edward Dutton Cook (1876)

In turning to the study of the equestrian dramas themselves, it is appropriate to begin with melodrama, since this is the genre in which most of the earliest equestrian dramas were written. Although melodrama can be said to have developed as early as the late decades of the eighteenth century, it was in the early years of the nineteenth century that melodrama truly became a viable form of dramatic literature. The first playwright of melodramas is generally accepted to be Thomas Holcroft, whose plays were first produced in England in 1802. As the nineteenth century turned, increasing numbers of people moved into emerging industrial centers in search of work in industry and, mainly, in factories; as a result, densely populated cities, filled with many “working-class” citizens, developed. As populations in these areas increased in response to the need for a workforce, potential audiences for theatres grew as well. People living in these newly formed major cities had access to a wide variety of plays and related entertainments (from productions of Shakespeare, to circuses, pantomimes, and musical performances) with equestrian drama soon to enter the mainstream mix of offerings. Melodrama became exceptionally popular and achieved the height of its popularity during the nineteenth century. Melodrama is a recognizable form of theatre, with a few clear identifying characteristics, the most basic of which is the inclusion of music, from which the form takes the “melo” aspect of its name. (In England, this inclusion of music may have enabled some producers of the plays to sidestep the restrictions on producing “legitimate” plays without a license.) The music used developed in practical use to serve primarily to set the tone of particular moments or scenes and to indicate and reinforce the appropriate reaction of the audience to a particular character or action. Melodrama also tended to incorporate numerous short scenes that were enacted in an exaggerated style that assisted audiences in differentiating between virtuous and villainous actions and characters.

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 67

The characters themselves tended to be of stock types, the most central of which were the victim (usually disadvantaged in some seemingly unfair way and most typically a woman), who was championed by a hero (typically a noble, working-class male), after having been wronged by a villain (usually a distinctly evil character in a position of power). Some melodramas took place completely in conventional settings, but spectacular melodrama, including many equestrian melodramas, tended to have romantic settings that featured extravagantly designed natural settings and/or exotic locations.The settings of these plays also presented a universe that was simpler than the real world in terms of good/bad and right/wrong; just characters were rewarded and evil ones punished. This all proved enormously satisfying to audiences in both England and the United States. Equestrian drama emerged as a distinct form of melodrama in the early decades of the nineteenth century. It developed throughout the nineteenth century and into the early years of the twentieth as a spectacular and romantic form of the genre. Beyond the strictly or mainly melodramatic type of equestrian drama, most other types of equestrian drama can be said to include at least some elements of melodrama. The suitability of the horse to melodrama and the reasons why horses often functioned so successfully within these plays are many. This is largely because horses lend themselves well to the portrayal and support of melodrama in which they function effectively as sympathetic characters who can be presented as pure, innocent, and “good.” Horses also enhance both the verisimilitude and the spectacle of the plays in performance, and function both realistically and symbolically to provide support for melodramatic and romantic human characters who are typically misunderstood or underappreciated, if not outright abused, and tend to value emotion over reason and rationality. Equine characters are typically presented in melodrama as brave and reliable, many are notable for being distinctly selfless and noble creatures; often they are saviors whose faithful service to their human masters leads them to perform heroic actions, sometimes to the point of martyrdom. The horse was a suitable vehicle for the sentiments and style of the emerging popular theatre in the nineteenth century and for those of the expanding theatre audience, which was created and being shaped by a rapidly changing society, and which included a growing reliance upon technology that brought with it a host of both unfamiliar and uncertain experiences. Audience members at early equestrian dramas would have been familiar with performing horses and most would have previously seen equestrian acts, including comic, and perhaps even dramatic, equestrian pantomimes, performed at the circus, as well as horsemanship and other acts performed by equestrians. Members of the audiences were old enough to have experienced the horse as a necessary adjunct to daily living, enabling transportation, easing labor, and providing enhanced freedom and power; they were also young enough to adjust to a changing world, with advancing technology. The vast majority of them would have had at least some experience with horses and were likely to have owned and worked directly with horses at some point in their lives. Members of the upper classes still

68  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

used horses for leisure, but most members of the working class were (or would soon be) growing less dependent on horses than ever before as society became increasingly industrialized. As the role of horses in human society evolved, the horse became less of an everyday necessity and more of a romantic figure, representative of the dependable and comfortable past. “Faithful,” “brave,” and “loyal” are words used in dialogue and scene direction to describe the horse characters in these plays. Horse characters provided theatre managers with a reliable and effective means of enlivening their plays with added spectacle by having “real” horses onstage. Adding to this was the intense, often unconscious, audience involvement with the symbolic and metaphorical associations that the onstage horses embodied. When considered in this way, equestrian drama becomes viewable as a true reflection of the culture/s that created it.

The Horse/Human Connection The connection between horses and humans is an ancient one. Thanks to the long, rich history of the horse in human culture, the horse is central to both our creative consciousness and our unconscious belief systems. The powerful symbolic meanings attached to the horse have permeated society and its creative cultural consciousness to such a degree that the motifs inspired by the symbolic associations we have with the horse can be considered to reflect what Jung refers to as an “archetype” of the collective unconscious. Archetypes, in the Jungian sense, are somewhat challenging to apprehend, as Jung explains, The term “archetype” is often misunderstood as meaning certain definite mythological images or motifs, but these are nothing more than conscious representations; it would be absurd to assume that such variable representations could be inherited. The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif, representations that can vary a great deal in their details without losing their basic pattern.1 As an archetypal image, and as a symbol, the horse has inspired an extensive set of associations in the human psyche, and these associations are an important part of the horse’s significance in the theatre.The meaning of “symbol,” like the meaning of archetype, is complex and subject to varying interpretations; as Jung explained, “What we call a symbol is a term, a name or even a picture that may be familiar in daily life, yet that possesses specific connotations in addition to its conventional and obvious meaning.”2 An understanding of the functioning of the horse as archetypal image and symbol, as well as a vehicle for metaphor, is essential in determining the horse’s significance in theatre within the United States. This is not because it is the only way the horse functions in theatre, but because horses are the subject of innumerable works of art, legend, and myth, presenting numerous and varied opportunities for the effective communication of symbolic meaning in all artistic media, including theatre. The complex cultural significance of horses can

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 69

be manifested or suggested onstage through the employment of one or more of the numerous and diverse motifs of the equine archetype, many of which originate in the ancient connections people have with the horse. Many of the symbolic attachments with the horse are present in the first equestrian melodrama produced in the United States, which was Timour the Tartar. Timour the Tartar

This play can be interpreted in various ways and can be used to explore concepts of culture, class, gender, orientalism, romanticism, and, perhaps most obviously, patriotism and nationalism. These latter themes were surely apparent during its initial season in England, as those viewing it at Covent Garden in 1811 could view the play through the lens of the ongoing Napoleonic Wars.When the play debuted in the United States in September 1812, the play carried different, but still meaningful, associations, and on both sides of the Atlantic, the show thrived in production. Examination of the script for Timour the Tartar makes clear not only that horses are featured throughout but also that they function in various ways within the play. The horses in Timour the Tartar function symbolically as well as realistically, and they can be said to represent wealth, riches, and power (Zorilda’s entrance); loyalty and bravery (the knight’s contest and Agib’s horse leaping into the water); salvation (Zorilda’s amazing rescue from the water at the show’s climax); and strength (the cavalry forces and Agib’s horse, who carries out both Agib and Zorilda at the end). The first reference to a horse comes in the opening scene, when Liska, the sister of the prince, refers to the coming of the heroic “Warrior Princess” who “Rides the Great Horse.” (This Warrior Princess will later be revealed as Zorilda in disguise.) The first actual appearance of horses onstage comes a few pages/minutes later with the actual arrival onstage of the princess’s procession, described in the stage directions as “the Tartars on horse-back.” This sort of build up to the entrance of horses, especially in early equestrian drama, was an effective means of building excitement and anticipation in the audience. The Warrior Princess/Zorilda enters, “mounted on a Courser richly caparisoned, and attended by four African Boys in golden Chains, and holding fans of painted feathers. [. . .] the Courser kneels, and She steps on the Slaves to dismount.” The courser is an important aspect of the spectacle accompanying Zorilda’s entrance, commanding attention and communicating power and wealth. The other horses in the scene (even though these other horses are directed to simply enter and then “withdraw”) also communicate through their presence. These horses help establish a scale of spectacular verisimilitude for the play and illustrate the opulent lifestyle of the aristocracy in contrast with that of the serving class. The stage direction for the courser to “kneel” indicates that a trained horse was used in this role.3 The princess’ courser is not the only horse with unique stage business to conduct, as the next appearance of horse characters makes clear.

70  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

In act 1, scene 3, the stage is transformed as a “circle is formed by Balconies filled with Spectators.” This crowd is assembled to observe a contest between two Tartar chieftains (Kerim and Sanballet, both played by equestrians). At stage left and right are thrones (for Timour, Zorilda, and Selima, the female slave for whose favor the men are competing in this contest). The scene directions describe the equestrian action in detail. This is unusual for equestrian drama and very helpful. The detailed description of the action provides an excellent idea of how this scene was intended to be played out onstage. Kerim and Sanballat enter on Horseback, from opposite sides.They charge with lances: at length Kerim’s Horse takes part in the Combat, seizes Sanballat, and drags him to the ground—Sanballat rises, and attributes the victory solely to the Horse. Kerim proposes to renew the Combat on foot; the Horses are led away, and the fight begins: Kerim falls, and loses his sword. His Rival rushes to dispatch him, when Kerim’s Horse leaps the Barrier, prevents Sanballat from advancing, picks up the sword, and carries it to his Master. Sanballat in fury stabs the Horse, who falls, and expires. [Zorilda cries out at this] Hold! Hold! Oh! Coward! Kerim’s desire to avenge the faithful Animal increases his strength. He disarms his Rival, drags him to the Horse, and sacrifices him on the Body: During which all descend. Selima embraces Kerim: Zorilda crowns him: But He takes off the wreath, breaks it, strews the flowers on the Horse, and falls upon Him weeping—Selima hangs over them greatly affected. This scene, although somewhat tangential to the main plot, is a key and poignant moment, which may easily be remembered as the emotional high point of the play, or at least of its first act. Clearly, the focus of the scene shifts from the initial apparent focus on the outcome of the knightly contest to outrage at Sanballet’s cowardly act and grief at the unjust death of the “faithful” horse. As the action continues, Zorilda’s true identity as the “Princess of Mingrelia,” the “mortal foe” of the evil Timour, is revealed. There is much action to follow, but none that significantly features horses until the spectacular conclusion, in which Zorilda, running for her life from Timour, leaps “from the Terrace into the Sea.” Just in the nick of time, Agib enters “on horseback, followed by Georgians [. . .] seizes a banner, leaps his Horse over the Parapet, and disappears.” A moment later, “the Horse rises out of the Water, bearing Agib and Zorilda.” A struggle and “general engagement” ensues between the Tartars and the Georgians.Timour is defeated, but his life is spared by Zorilda. As expected, the brave and true characters (both equine and human) have not only triumphed, defeating the villains, but also have been generous in sparing their lives. Timour the Tartar was the first equestrian drama that was widely produced for a period of many decades in the United States. It is also a good example of a spectacular melodramatic equestrian drama. Other, melodramatic equestrian dramas that debuted and became popular during the nineteenth century are considered below. The main focus of this discussion is limited to the plays that

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 71

were written as equestrian dramas and produced in the United States and for which there are extant scripts. Other plays (including those that were originally written for production without horses and later equestrianized and those equestrian dramas for which no extant script is found) are examined in as much detail as possible/relevant. The following plays are introduced in the chronological order of their debut in the United States. Where information was available, concise production histories for early or otherwise significant productions are also included. The Secret Mine

Following on the success of Timour the Tartar, the next new equestrian drama in the United States was The Secret Mine, written by John Fawcett.4 The Secret Mine originally premiered in England, where various debut dates are reported and the exact date of its first performance is unclear. The earliest date comes from Saxon, who reports that The Secret Mine debuted on 24 April 1812 at Covent Garden.5 The Secret Mine was popular in England, where it was often revived and played at Astley’s numerous times, including reported productions in 1814, 1816, and 1819. From here, it moved, as Timour the Tartar had before it, to the United States. The earliest record of The Secret Mine being produced in the United States is found in the Boston Commercial Gazette of 23 June 1817. The announcement includes details for a diverse evening of equestrian acts that, in addition to The Secret Mine, are described to include “The Sagacious Managed HORSE” (who leaps through fire, fetches a handkerchief, and, most uniquely, performs “the part of a Spaniel Dog in the Field; a Bird will be shot, and the Horse will Hunt, Find, and bring it in at the Word of Command”). The Secret Mine is announced as the finale of the evening: This evening, Monday, June 23, And every Evening during the Week (except Saturday and Sunday.) Positively for this week only, of the Secret Mine. First Night of the New Grand Equestrian Spectacle called the SECRET MINE. Never performed in America before. As performed at the Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, upwards of 100 nights, to overflowing Houses, and wrote expressly for Mr. West’s Horses to appear in. With New Scenery, Dress, Platforms, &c. &c. The Piece to conclude with the Blowing up of the Mine; in which the Horses will appear and Exhibit, many New and Extraordinary Feats of Courage, Intrepidity, and Sagacity.6 Davis reports that the play was performed in November 1817 at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, for the first time in that city. An announcement for this production of the play is found in the Philadelphia Gazette for

72  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

“THIS EVENING, November 3.” Ireland references a later production of the Secret Mine on 1 January 1819 (citing “Faucit” as the playwright) that proved “highly attractive” and featured “Mr. Simpson playing Araxa in New York.7 Odell reports that The Secret Mine was first performed in New York on 9 February 1824 by West’s troupe, but an announcement is found in The Columbian from 7 January 1819 for the play being performed “for the 3d time in America,” so it is fairly clear that the New York debut of the play was sometime between 1817 and 1819.8 The melodramatic plot of The Secret Mine focuses on the attempts of Ismael, a Persian governor, to uncover the location of the title ruby mine. He seeks this information from Araxa, the displaced son of a murdered Hindu rajah. Although he knows the answer, Araxa refuses to reveal the location of the mine because it is not only a source of wealth but also the secret hiding place of his remaining subjects. A traitor later reveals the information, but Ismael’s daughter, Zaphyra, who is engaged to Araxa, shows up at the mine on horseback to warn Araxa of Ismael’s impending attack. Here is where much of the scripted equestrian action begins. The penultimate scene, act 2, scene 4, opens at “the outside of the chief entrance to ‘The Secret Mine’—rude, scraggy rocks, with thick tangling brushes and underwood. Zaphyra enters on her Courser, with her Amazon’s robes.” Zaphyra wonders aloud how she will enter the mine, speaking perhaps for the benefit of the audience: Zap. Safely I’ve passed the tangled maze, guided by Araxa’s clue.This should be the spot, the chief entrance to the Secret Mine. How can I gain admittance? How apprise Araxa of his danger? Abbas and Hindoos enter and surround her. Ab. Down with this rash intruder! Spare not the spy upon our secret haunts. Zap. Oh my Araxa! save me, save me! tis thy Zaphyra! She flings off her Amazon’s robes, and appears as Zaphyra; the upper part of the entrance opens and discovers Araxa. Ara. Hold, comrades! harm not your Prince’s consort. My wife! my loved Zaphyra! Reunited, but not yet safe, the lovers have little time to talk. Zaphyra warns Araxa of the approach of the traitor Hyder’s forces, and drums are heard in the distance. The loyal character, Camilla, enters: She spurs her horse, ascends the shields, and enters the Mine. Araxa following at the mouth of the Mine, stops and orders his officer to remain with his men to surprise the enemy, he disappears, the mine closes, and all appears as before. [...] Hyder enters cautiously, followed by Ismael and Infantry, and approaches the lower entrance of the mine; on touching it, it opens, when the officer rushes on Hyder; the soldiers come from behind their shields, and engage Ismael’s Infantry, who are driven off; [. . .] Ismael

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 73

and Hyder return with cavalry and artillery drawn by horses; they discharge them ‘till a breach is made, by which they all enter, when in, a mine is sprung, and the whole sinks, dies, falls, and discovers SCENE V. “SCENE V” is the play’s final scene, and as it opens, the action becomes even more spectacular, and the horses figure most prominently: The Mine as before, with such additions as may be supposed to have been constructed for its defence. The two parties are discovered engaged.—After some fighting on the stage they take to the platform and then again to the stage; while horse and foot are battling on the flying bridge the cavalry again take to the platform, when the artillery is leveled and discharged at those on the bridge, which breaks, and several infantry and some horses fall on the stage. By this time, Ismael’s party have placed faggots under the middle bridge, which is seen on fire while a party of horse are fighting on it—and with a horrid explosion, the bridge sinks, with horses &c. Zaphyra is seen struggling with Hyder, and a part of the mine falls, and brings Hyder to the ground: he recovers from the fall, and again pursues the princess. Araxa on his horse enters, and seeing her danger, he dismounts to climb up the ruins after Hyder, leaving his horse on the stage. Hyder and Araxa meet.—Hyder is overcome, and flies pursued by Araxa. The horse seeing the danger of Zaphyra, who is in the midst of the flames, gallops up the platform ‘till he reaches where she is—she jumps on his back, and he brings her down the platforms. During this Araxa has pursued Hyder up a staircase under which is a general fire.—the staircase gives way and both clinging to it are borne on the stage. Araxa kills Hyder, &c. The spectacular conclusion of this play thrilled audiences for many seasons. The functions of the horses within the play are symbolic as well as realistic. They serve as essential contributors to defense in the final battle scene and also provide salvation earlier by carrying Zaphyra and Camilla to the Mine just in time for them to warn the heroes and save their lives. El Hyder, or the Chief of the Gaut Mountains

El Hyder, or the Chief of the Gaut Mountains, a grand Eastern melodramatic spectacle in two acts, written by William Barrymore, is recorded as having first been performed at the Royal Coburg Theatre (which later became known as “The Old Vic”) in Lambeth, England, on Monday, 9 November 1818.9 (Although the earliest written script found is dated 1852, when it appears in a Lacy edition.) The first known production in the United States was in New York, most likely at the Broadway Circus, on 31 March 1823.10 This production was advertised in the New York Evening Post on 28 March, but little detail was given.11

74  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

A degree of exoticism blended with romance and spectacular realism seems to have been intended for this production and a note in the front matter indicates that “the picturesque Scenery [has been] taken from Daniel’s Views in India.” Specific costumes are also dictated; not in great detail, but indicating an element of exoticism with “Turkish trowsers [. . . and . . .] turban helmets” for Hamet’s party and “Eastern dresses [. . . and . . .] turbans” for “The Ladies.” Heightening the spectacle and exoticism is the “splendidly caparisoned Elephant” that Hamet enters on in scene 3. Elephants were more challenging to include onstage than horses, but they sometimes served as exotic additions to spectacular realism. Horses are included throughout El Hyder, beginning with the opening scene: A fertile Valley near the City of Delhi, occupied as an extensive military post, the horse-platforms forming, in regular gradation, a passage over an immense mountain, over which fortifications appear thrown. Music. At the rising of the curtain, a body of Mahratta Troops appear in recumbent postures, their horses tied to trees and tents, while numerous pieces of cannon arranged at the different entrances, mark the scene to be the seat of war; the sun is seen to rise gradually over the distant mountains. El Hyder enters and is welcomed as a “noble chief ” and “great chief.” He professes bravery in the face of the ongoing battle, even though “the princess and her son are prisoners” of the “tyrant” Hamet. A donkey is also featured and provides the only individualized equine action, which comes at the end of act 2, scene 1, when he is directed to aid in the princess’s escape by kicking open a gate. The next scene opens in “an extensive jungle—the rushes high enough for men and horses to hide behind.” Finally, the play’s spectacular and patriotic finale opens as follows: SCENE III., and LAST.—City walls, with Gate and Portcullis, C.—Walls manned with HAMET’S TROOPS—EL HYDER and PATRIOTS enter with scaling ladders, they mount, but are beaten back—the PORTCULLIS is raised—A charge of Horse and Foot, EL HYDER and party are forced to retreat—HAMET’S party re-enter the City—the portcullis falls—HYDER, the PRINCESS armed, and SOLDIERS return to the assault—“HURRAHS” are heard, and CLIFTON, MAT, with SAILORS, dragging in two pieces of artillery, enter—they blaze away—the Portcullis is beaten down—HYDER’S cavalry gallop on, and enter the breach—the SAILORS and others follow- lastly, Hafez, mounted on his Donkey, comes on and enters the City shouting—general conflict ensues—Horse and Foot—ZADA and NILAUF—EL HYDER and HAMET—CLIFTON and SAILORS clear the ramparts—the Usurpers party are defeated— CHERREDIN is brought on upon a shield raised on the shoulders of four men—MAT waves the British Flag upon the ramparts—red fire—and—Curtain.

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 75

On 31 July 1825, El Hyder was produced at the newly opened Lafayette Circus in New York. With this production of El Hyder, the Lafayette reached new heights in regard to the production of equestrian drama as it unveiled a newly enlarged stage for the production, announcing the renovations in various New York newspapers and assuring readers “no expense has been spared to render the establishment worth the patronage of the commercial emporium of the United States.The stud of horses will be found equal, if not surpassing any stud in this country.”12 El Hyder became the most popular play in the history of New York’s Lafayette Theatre, where it “was performed a total of 72 times.”13 Odell reports that on 15 February 1827, the Lafayette and Bowery Circuses united for a production of El Hyder at the Bowery, using the Lafayette’s horses. The reasons for the collaboration are unclear, but may have been motivated by a shortage of suitable horses or by lack of sufficient audiences to support two equestrian troops producing shows in close proximity. Odell continues, “The reader knows without me telling him what ‘novelty’ in the form of equestrian drama succeeded El Hyder—Timour the Tartar, of course, on February 28th.” Performances of the equestrianized drama Lodoiska and then another of Cataract of the Ganges (discussed next) continued throughout the season, along with productions of El Hyder and the equestrianized dramas Valentine and Orson and Blue Beard.14 In late September 1827, the Lafayette Theatre reopened after more renovations that included an enlarged stage and improved lighting. Ongoing or frequent renovations were referenced in published announcements for upcoming performances and seemed useful in drawing audiences; they were common practice for the theatres producing equestrian dramas during this period. Lodoiska was presented in October, Tekeli on 3 November, El Hyder on 6 December, and Tom and Jerry on 15 December. Odell comments, “The Lafayette, with Sandford’s horses, with its huge stage, and its accomplished scene-painters, no doubt put on such exotics with all necessary completeness.”15 Odell reports that the Mount Pitt Circus also produced a number of equestrian dramas during the fall of 1827, including Timour the Tartar and El Hyder. Tekeli was produced in December, as was The Cataract of the Ganges and The Tiger Horde, along with scenes from Richard III and a production of Blue Beard. The Mount Pitt Circus continued to produce equestrian dramas in 1828 and to share their horses, which were also employed during this time period for performances offered by the Lafayette Circus.16 El Hyder remained popular in production for many years, and its popularity seems to have mainly been due to the spectacular nature of the play in general, with the horses featuring as elements of spectacular realism and contributors to verisimilitude throughout and especially in the opening and closing scenes. Horses were often the focus of advertising for the play, as in a playbill from an 1844 production at the American Theatre on Poydras Street in New Orleans, which bills the show as “the grand equestrian, oriental, romantic drama of El Hyder, or, Love and Bravery” and announces a cast that includes “the whole of MR. STICKNEY’S unrivaled stud of TWENTY HORSES, exclusively engaged for this establishment.”17

76  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama The Blood Red Knight, or, the Fatal Bridge

The 1823 script of The Blood Red Knight was “PRINTED AND PUBLISHED AT THE Circulating Library and Drama Repository” in New York. It includes the following details on the first productions: “First performed in New-York, on Monday evening, August 4, 1823, under the direction of Mr. Blythe of ­Astley’s Amphitheatre, London, and published from the original manuscript by his kind permission.” This production makes The Blood Red Knight the next equestrian drama to debut in the United States. It featured “Tatnall” (presumably Sam Tatnall) as the Blood Red Knight and Dinneford as Alphonso. Some form of the play was previously performed at Astley’s in 1810 under the direction of Blythe and is cited as the first to feature horses onstage there.18 The printed version of the play dating from 1823 is most likely a revision of the Astley’s production, adapted over the years and set down for the first time in this form in 1823 for the New York production at the Broadway Circus. The production was announced in the New York Evening Post: This evening, August 4th, first night of the splendid melo drama of the BLOOD RED KNIGHT. [. . .] The evening’s entertainments to conclude with (for the first time in this country) the celebrated melo dramatic romance, of the BLOOD RED KNIGHT, or the Fatal Bridge. With new scenery, dress, and decorations [. . .] as performed at Astley’s Amphitheatre, London, for upwards of one hundred nights, in succession, and the first piece in which the horses were introduced upon the stage.19 The Blood Red Knight presents the story of Isabella, the loyal wife of Alphonso and the mother of Henry, as she attempts to escape the aggressive pursuit and advances of Sir Rowland (aka the Blood Red Knight). The action opens in a “Woody Glen,” with Isabella, her infant son, and her companion, Emma. Emma warns, “Away, away dear lady, safety is not here—far on the hills a troop of horse appear, the Blood-Red Knight approaches our retreat.” And with this, the briefly bucolic scene is interrupted as Isabella rushes offstage with her babe and: A March is heard, the Blood-Red Knight’s party; both on foot and horse, are seen crossing the mountains; all the Peasants come on from the back of the stage, and are anxiously viewing the Cavalcade. A party of infantry enter and range on the stage, as a troop of horse do immediately on the opposite. The male and female peasants come down the stage during the symphony of the Chorus—the Blood-Red Knight dashes across the mountains on horseback, full speed, and arrives on the stage while they sing. The scene closes with the troops exiting on foot and horse, with Rowland/the Blood Red Knight exiting “over the mountains.” Scene 3 is the next scene with horses, which opens “outside of Alphonso’s castle” where “Sir Rowland enters on horseback, followed by his party, both foot and horse—they go across the stage, the Blood Red Knight returns.” He is

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 77

looking for Isabella, who has fled to a cavern with Henry. As the action progresses, Alphonso is taken prisoner (and later escapes, and returns in disguise), and Henry and Isabella are separated. Act 2 begins with Isabella being forced to agree to the marriage by Rowland, who (in a brilliant display of melodramatic villainy) seizes her child and threatens to kill him if she does not acquiesce. Thankfully, Alphonso is present, and reveals his identity as he declares the wedding will not proceed. Swordplay ensues and Alphonso is driven out, but he quickly and surely rallies his troops for a final assault. The next and last scene includes mounted and unmounted soldiers and horses, some lying “dead and dying” on the stage, amid special effects that the stage directions indication should include both water and fire. The horses return in great numbers for the spectacular “Last Scene:” A Bridge approaching the Castle. Dyke, Battlements, &c. Alphonso, Frederick, Edgar, and their party enter, horse and foot, and give directions for the different parties to attack the Castle generally, for which purpose they quit the stage. Horse and foot are seen in action on the Bridge—the Castle being forced, action becomes general on the stage, ramparts, water, and Bridge. Some of the guards are immerged in the water, surrounded by friends and foes—the Castle is at length seen on fire in several places, while the dead and dying, both men and horses, are seen confusedly mixt together. The Blood Red Knight has a furious combat with Alphonso, who is disarmed by him, and at the moment the Red Knight is about to cleave him down with his sword, Isabella enters and seeing Alphonso’s danger she shoots Sir Rowland, who falls and expires. A most interesting picture is formed by Isabella, Alphonso, and the Child, and the curtain falls amid the shouts of the victorious troops of Alphonso. The horses in this play function both as symbols of power and of aspects of the verisimilitude in military scenes. They were promoted in announcements for productions of the play. The Philadelphia premiere of the play seems to have followed within a few months of the New York production, occurring on 20 November 1824, when it is advertised as a benefit for Mr. Blythe. The evening’s offerings also included bareback riding, The Drunken Hussar, and the Polander’s Ladder, by James Hunter, and horsemanship, a “Grand Combat of Eight” (from Ivanhoe), and “Pony Races,” all directed by Blythe.20 Ireland reports that on “Jan. 11th, 1828 [. . .] a drama called ‘Blood Red Knight’ was first played” at the newly rebuilt Lafayette Theatre.21 The play remained popular after this, but not so much so as The Cataract of the Ganges, the next equestrian drama to debut in the United States. The Cataract of the Ganges; or, the Rajah’s Daughter

The Cataract of the Ganges; or, the Rajah’s Daughter, a grand romantic melodrama written by William Thomas (W. T.) Moncrieff, is recorded as having been first

78  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

performed on Monday 27 October 1823 at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where the playwright Moncreiff was employed and paid a weekly salary as a resident playwright or “stock author” earning 10 pounds weekly for writing plays.22 A script dated 1824 is found for the play titled “The Cataract of the Ganges: or, The Rajah’s Daughter: A Melo-Drama in Two Acts; by W.T. Moncrieff, Esq. Correctly given, as performed at the Drury Lane and New York Theatres.” The play made its American premiere at the newly renovated Park Theatre in New York on 1 September 1824. The script can reasonably be assumed to be based on that performance and that from 1823 at the Drury Lane.23 This Park Theatre production featured Mr. Blythe and his horses, as well as Mr. Simpson and Mr. Placide. The production was promised, in a piece running in the New York National Advocate prior to its premiere performance, to be “the greatest piece ever produced in this country; scenery and dresses new; more than one hundred persons are engaged in it, also, a number of horses.The Cataract in the last scene will be of real water.”24 Ireland does not go quite so far with his praise after seeing the show, but says that the production was “got up with unusual care and splendor, [and] had a long and profitable run.”25 Odell reports, The season at the Park began on August 30, 1824 and Moncrieff ’s celebrated equestrian melodrama, The Cataract of the Ganges, [was] produced on September 1, and then started on a career that was to carry it through many, many years of uninterrupted acclaim. Zamine and her galloping steed allured actress after actress to leap that fearsome cataract to safety in the flies.26 After quoting a review from The Mirror of 11 September 1824, Odell concludes, “If the reader accompanies me to the end, he will weary of The Cataract of the Ganges, as of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and The Two Orphans, thirty to sixty years later.” A few pages later, Odell references, “the never-failing The Cataract of the Ganges, which I suspect flowed like good money into the treasury. It reached its forty-second performance, and last for the present, on December 6th, a marvelous record.” And concludes the report by testifying that the play was revived again on 2 May and “repeated many times before the close of the theatrical year.”27 The Cataract of the Ganges includes (in its printed version) a quote from Byron’s “Mazeppa” (a poem that itself was soon to be adapted into an enormously popular equestrian drama). The quote reads, “It is no dream! The wild horse swims the wilder stream!”This references not only the horse but also the onstage water in which the horse swims, which was another element of spectacle this play featured in production. Also included is a note from the playwright Moncrieff, in which he explains the inspiration for the piece: “Mr. Elliston expressing a wish to have an Afterpiece written, in which Horses and a Cataract could be introduced” along with a defense of the work against any insults that might be

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 79

leveled against it (as a work of equestrian drama), including his expectation that it may be him, the “unhappy Author,” upon whom critics: can safely vent their spleen—on him they can advantageously disgorge their bile [. . .] on the ‘debasement of the Legitimate Drama’— ‘dignity of the British Stage’ [. . .] so many spirited invocations to the ‘insulted shades of Shakespeare and Massinger’ [. . .] to the charges of ‘Degradation of the Drama’— ‘Debasement of the British Stage,’ and so on. Moncrieff concludes by expressing his gratitude: The Author has to thank the whole of the critical tribe for awarding him all the praise to which he aspired [. . .] To the horses, for the powerful way in which they have combined in drawing in it during its career, the Author’s best thanks are also due, and are gratefully offered. The main action of the play is set in motion by reference to the practice of female infanticide, which is practiced within some segments of Indian society and threatens the rajah’s daughter. In order to protect his daughter, Zamine, from death, the Rajah of Guserat, Jam Saheb, has disguised the female child as male. A crisis arises while Jam Saheb is away from home fighting in a war when his “son” (actually his daughter), the “prince” (actually the princess) is promised in marriage to Princess Dessa, the daughter of Ackbar, the Emperor of Delhi, by the Grand Bramin, Mokarra. Zamine protests, but Mokarra insists, and the wedding is hastily planned. Zamine’s true love, Iran, urges her not to give up hope. But when Zamine’s true gender is revealed, Mokarra carries her off with the ostensible intention of sacrificing her. He is soon revealed as a hypocrite though when he becomes enamored of Zamine and pressures her to marry him.When she refuses, he finds solace in drink and dancing girls. A rescue team is miraculously assembled to save Zamine and makes its way to the “Sacred Wood” where Zamine is about to be burned alive in a raging onstage fire. She is saved at the last moment by Iran and his magnificent horse, “the courser of Iran,” who “dashes safely up the cataract” with Zamine, while a thrilling battle on foot and horse rages onstage in the play’s dramatic and spectacular conclusion. Horses are featured in a few other scenes in The Cataract of the Ganges, including the first, which opens on “the field of Battle, near Ahmedabad, by moonlight.” Throughout the play, they feature mainly in the opening and final scenes of each act. In the play’s opening scene, the curtain rises on the battlefield, which is filled with “wounded, dead and dying [. . .] soldiers, officers and horses stretched confusedly on the Earth.” One soldier, Iran, “feebly raises himself ” to curse the enemy who struck him as he sought to tend to his “faithful” (and mortally wounded) horse: “Curse on the coward arm that struck me down, while turning to assist my dying charger—my faithful Durbar; thou

80  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

should’st have borne me homeward—now alone I must return.” Here, as in earlier equestrian dramas, the horse functions symbolically as well as realistically. The implications of the loss of his innocent life is representative here of the larger horrors of war. Horses are scripted to return in the finale of act 1, which takes place at a temple “on the Mount of Cambay” with “winding paths” visible on either side—a spectacular procession, accompanying the arrival of the princess. It features a “grand Military Band” accompanying the entrance of various soldiers and dignitaries, including “a Troop of native Cavalry; in superb trappings.” Finally, the entrance of “Zamine [the Child of the Raja] in a magnificent Car, drawn by six horses three abreast, attended by Guards, Slaves, &c.” Act 2 begins on the “Beach and Gulf of Cambay” with the “Mahratta Infantry discovered en bivouac—drum beats to arms—Officer appears—they form in line—Mordaunt enters with native Troops and Cavalry, and joins them.” Horses return for the play’s spectacular final scene—the highlight of the play’s production.The finale features Iran and Jahrejahs breaking through fiery woods to free Zamine, who “rushes into Iran’s arms.” As “burning trees fall on all sides,” the great Cataract is revealed, as are troops “pouring down the rocky heights around the Cataract in every direction.” Iran calls for Zamine to flee upon his horse, “Fly!—my steed will bear you safely!” Here the horse functions as a means of escape, literally Zamine’s savior. The action is described in the scene directions: Zamine mounts the Courser of Iran, and while he keeps the foe at bay, dashes safely up the Cataract, amidst a volley of musketry from the Enemy on the heights—the Rajah, Mordaunt, and Robinson enter at the head of the combined Mahratta and Jahreha Army—the contest becomes ­general— horse and foot are engaged in all parts—Mokarra vainly endeavours to rally his Forces, who are overpowered by the Raja—Mokarra is killed by a pistol shot from Robinson—Iran brings forward Zamine in safety—the Rajah joins their hands—and the Curtain falls on the shouts of the Conquerors. The grand conclusion of The Cataract of the Ganges was undoubtedly the highlight of the play in production and the horses are an essential component of both the scene and its spectacle. Odell reports that The Cataract of the Ganges was performed on 21 July 1826 at the Broadway Theatre in New York. On 1 March 1838, The Cataract of the Ganges was produced in New York “with Buckley’s horses” at the Park Theatre in New York.28 Brown reports that it was still being revived in New York at the Broadway Theatre in late 1851.29 On 26 December 1853, The Cataract of the Ganges was again produced at the Old Broadway, featuring the debut of Sands & Co’s horses. Brown reports, “The driving on the stage of six horses, three abreast, drawing a triumphal car, was a novelty.”30 The next year, on 27 November 1854, Brown reports that Cataract of the Ganges was again revived at the Bowery Theater in New York.31 On 10 March 1856, Cataract was again revived at the Old Broadway Theatre in New

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 81

York with C. Fisher as Mokarra. It was followed, on the 17 by Timour and, on the 24, by Mazeppa (discussed next). On 5 October 1871, Cataract played again at the Bowery, with Kate Fisher as Zamine. (The engagement also included Fisher as Mazeppa on 2 October, The French Spy and Jack Sheppard—both with Fisher on horseback—and El Hyder on 11 October.)32 Odell reports that in January 1873: A very elaborate revival of the old cruiser, The Cataract of the Ganges, altered by John Brougham was brought out, and with a new character written for Mrs. John Wood: [. . .] The old play was beautifully set on the stage, the scene of the cataract being specially lovely, and Zamine’s daring ride up the rocks being—according to the Herald—positively thrilling in effect. [. . .] the old melodrama ran for four weeks, Zamine making her last perilous ascent on the evening of February 17.33 In June 1874, Fisher again presented a run of equestrian dramas at the Bowery, performing in various plays, including Mazeppa, The Cataract of the Ganges, and Putnam (which is discussed in Chapter 7).34 The Cataract of the Ganges enjoyed successful productions for many years, becoming one of the most often produced equestrian melodramas, along with Timour the Tartar, El Hyder, and the next to debut, Mazeppa, which became the most popular of all. Mazeppa

The last of the major equestrian melodramas to premiere in the United States is Mazeppa, or The Wild Horse of Tartary. This a spectacular, romantic equestrian melodrama based on Byron’s 1818 poem, “Mazeppa.” Because of its great popular success and long production history, as well as the detailed stage directions for and written accounts of the horses in the show, this play is examined in relatively great detail. The title character is inspired by a real-life figure, Ivan Stepanovich Mazepa-Koledisky, a young Polish courtier, who is discovered to be in a romantic affair with a married woman and is then punished by being bound naked to the back of a wild horse who is then set free. This basic story line has had numerous adaptations.35 The earliest known equestrian production of Mazeppa was advertised in the Times of London on 3 November 1823 to premiere that evening at the Royal Coburg Theatre. This version of the play was likely written by Henry (H. M.) Milner, although no written script is found to verify the details of the play or its authorship.36 Saxon also references another version of this play, written in French by Cuvelier in collaboration with Léopold Chandezon; this is Mazeppa, ou Le Cheval tartare, which he says premiered at the Cirque Olimpique in January 1825.This is most likely the source of an unproduced late 1825 play written in English by John Howard Payne.37 The version of Mazeppa that achieved the greatest popular success in the United States is Mazeppa: A Romantic Drama in

82  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

Three Acts by H. M. Milner, which became the most famous equestrian drama of all time.38 This version of the play is recorded as having first been produced on 4 April 1831, in spectacular equestrian fashion at Astley’s Amphitheatre, under Ducrow’s direction. In 1833, Mazeppa was produced for the first time in the United States. Most sources agree that the play debuted at the Richmond Hill Theatre in New York on 18 April 1833, with the “wild horse” played by Napoleon and Mazeppa by Emanuel Judah.39 The Richmond Hill was a converted family home that served various functions during its existence and which was also known at various times as the Richmond Hill House and Gardens, and as the Mortier House. It was located at the southeast corner of Varick and Charlton Streets, and opened as a theatre on 14 November 1831.40 There, Mazeppa opened on 18 April, and Odell reports that it played (with the exception of one night) through the end of Barnes’ lease on the theatre, which expired on 30 April. Most agree this is the play’s American debut, but John S. Kendell, in his The Golden Age of the New Orleans Theatre, contends that Milner’s Mazeppa made its debut not at the Richmond Hill in April, but in New Orleans at the Camp Theatre on 13 February 1833 with J. M. Field playing Mazeppa and a horse “hired from a circus that was passing through the city,” portrayed the Wild Horse of Tartary.41 Mazeppa is set in 1672 and consists of three acts. The first and third acts are set in Poland, at the castle of the Polish Castellan of Laurinski, and the middle act in which the “Wild Horse of Tartary” features most prominently, is set in Tartary. Mazeppa features a large cast of at least 17 human characters, plus numerous extras. No equine characters are mentioned in the cast list, but at least one, the “Wild Horse of Tartary,” was clearly necessary for the play’s production. In order to produce the play in the style in which Milner wrote it, that is as a full-blown, nineteenth-century spectacular equestrian drama, many more horses were needed. Mazeppa begins in a castle courtyard, with a love scene between Olinska, the Castellan’s daughter, and Cassimir, a page in the Castellan’s court. (It is later revealed that Cassimir is actually Mazeppa, heir to the throne of Tartary, although neither he nor Olinska know this at the play’s beginning.) In the first scene, two servants are overheard conversing about “a grand tournament” to be held and reveal that today is the day the Castellan will “attempt to subdue the unbreakable, fiery, wild Tartarian horse, so long the terror of all our grooms and the executioner of so many rough-riders!” After describing the terror that is the wild horse of Tartary, the servant Drolinsko proceeds to compare him with Cassimir. Both the description and the comparison are significant because the two characters (the Wild Horse and Cassimir/Mazeppa) will be paralleled throughout the play. Let the Castellan waste no more time, labour, nor life about him; but send the devil on all fours back to his native Tartary. I tell you what godfather, there never was a native of that country, whether walking on one pair of legs or two, that ever came to any good by being in a better. Look, now,

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 83

at that young Tartar fellow Cassimir, picked up, as I have heard, in a wood, some eighteen year ago [. . .] I think his brother, the wild horse, the more amiable barbarian of the two. Cassimir overhears the conversation and grabs the offender by the throat, but then releases him and rushes out. After this, Drolinsko concludes, “Oh, that the Castellan would clap him on the back of his brother devil, the Tartarian horse, and send them off to Tartary, or Tartaraus.” Olinska enters and expresses dismay over her father’s plan to marry her to the Count Premislas, instead of to Cassimir, whom she loves. The arrival of “a splendid cavalcade of knights and warriors [. . .] an envoy from Count Premislas.” This leads into “THE GRAND PROCESSION.” The Castellan commends the count for his well-timed arrival and explains, “This day I had prepared a solemn tourney, in which the pages of my household and friendly knights will contend in those manly sports which form the warrior’s earliest lesson.” Not only does this tournament provide Cassimir with the opportunity to prove himself as a worthy and capable warrior but also facilitates the inclusion of equestrian spectacle. Scene 2, a brief and relatively minor one, serves mainly as exposition (it seems that women find Cassimir attractive but the men dislike him) and as filler between the Grand Procession of scene 1 and the tournament of scene 3, allowing the stage to be set in an elaborate scene and for the actors and horses to take their places. The scene directions call for a list of activities, including “a tilt of mounted and armed Knights, with spear and battle axe, of whom ­Cassimir is one—then a sword combat on horseback, between Cassimir and his opponent—in both of these, Cassimir is successful.” This establishes Cassimir’s prowess in battle and on horseback. Cassimir follows this success by confronting Count Premislas, his rival for Olinska’s hand, and challenging him to a sword fight. Cassimir easily defeats and wounds the count. Once apprehended, his punishment is harsh; the Castellan commands, Lead the vile Tartar hence—strip him of that garb he has degraded—let not the arms of my house be sullied by adorning a traitor who raises his assassin arm against my friend, under the very roof that gives him shelter. Lead out the fiery untamed steed—prepare strong hempen lashings around the villain’s loins—let every beacon-fire on the mountain’s top be lighted, and torches, like a blazing forest, cast their glare across the night. In scene 5, the appearance of the wild horse is anticipated by the servants, who express their terror at having to catch him. Drolinski shares the details of his experience in trying to carry out this order: His lordship has ordered them to bring out the wild Tartar horse and strap Cassimir to his back. Lord love you, there stood the poor wretches about him,—not one of them had courage to approach him; but my eagerness for

84  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

difficult adventures inspired me—I approached the infuriated monster, and seized him by the mane, when he turned round and savagely tore—[. . .] Why, he tore what I won’t venture to mention. (Turns round and discovers his small-clothes torn.) This descriptive recounting of the encounter is immediately followed by music, and the entrance and hurried exit of two grooms, one wounded. Both instances serve to build tension and raise the audience’s expectation for seeing a very wild horse when he finally does appear. Having established, through secondhand accounts, the horse’s ferocity by scene 5; Milner seeks next to establish the inhospitable nature of the landscape in scene 6. Here he describes “a tract of desolate country, composed of precipitous mountain ridges, abounding with cataracts—the rocky pathway crosses a stupendous waterfall, by a slight rustic bridge, and is finally lost in a chain of lofty eminences, stretching into the distance.” It is against this backdrop that Cassimir is dragged forward and, despite the pleadings of Olinska, the household’s other women, and even the Count, bound to the back of the wild horse. The horse as written is barely controllable by multiple grooms. Milner provides a detailed set of directions for staging the release of the wild horse and the action accompanying it: The horse is released, and immediately rushes off with Cassimir, R. 3rd E—he presently re-appears on the first range of hills, from L. to R., all the spectators rushing to the L., and as he crosses again from R. to L., they take the opposite side—when he has reached the third range of hills, they commence pursuing him up the hills, and as he progresses, they follow—when he has disappeared in the extensive distance, the whole range of hills is covered by servants, females, guards, and attendants, shouting, waving their arms and torches, forming an animated tableau—­ Olinska, who has fainted, is supported by Agatha and Premislas, in the front, whilst the Castellan expresses exhaultation, completing the picture, lighted by the glare of the torches and the red beacon-fires, on which the drop falls. The scene exemplifies the melodramatic nature of the play with its use of pleading women at the feet of the misunderstood and underestimated hero whose overly harsh punishment is depicted spectacularly against a detailed and visually rich stage design, and with the inclusion of an equine actor and character. American actress Clara Morris recounts the excitement, and the very real danger, inherent in creating and presenting such a scene in her discussion of a horse named Queen aboard whom the American actor R. E. J. Miles played the title role in Mazeppa during the mid-nineteenth century: When she came rearing, plunging, biting, snapping, whirling, and kicking her way on to the stage, the scarlet lining of her dilating nostrils and the foam flying from her mouth made our screams very natural ones, [. . .] and really it was a thrilling scene when Mazeppa was stripped and bound, his head tail-ward, his feet mane-ward, to the back of that maddened beast.

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 85

She seemed to bite and tear at him, and when set free she stood straight up for a dreadful moment, in which she really endangered his life, then, with a wild neigh, she tore up the “runs,” as if fiends pursued her, with the man stretched helplessly along her inky back. The curtain used to go up again and again—it was so very effective.42 Act 2 begins with another spectacular scene that was, in some productions, staged with the help of a moving panoramic background. The moving panorama would become common in equestrian drama (and is discussed in-depth in Chapter 7), but its inclusion in the 1831 production of Mazeppa is the first time a moving panorama is known to have been used to depict the illusion of the forward motion of a horse onstage. In this instance, Cassimir and the wild horse appear in front of a moving panorama of the Dnieper River, which runs behind them from left to right, giving the appearance of their journey’s progression.43 The scene calls for a rainstorm raging, complete with thunder, lightning, and hail, all of which heighten the degree of spectacle, as does music at key moments throughout the scene. Once this effect is established, the wild horse pauses, apparently exhausted, and Cassimir, now referred to in the text as Mazeppa, takes the opportunity to reflect on his situation, lamenting that he wishes he were dead before the wild horse gallops off the stage and the pair exits. The storm ends, and the sun comes out. The pair reenter and wade upstream across the stage before the moving panorama. They are observed by a pack of wolves waiting on the other side of the river and by a vulture circling above. Mazeppa recognizes the bird as a species native to his homeland of Tartary and announces his own imminent death, having thus arrived home. Scene 2 begins in a “Rude Tartar Landscape.” Two shepherds talking are interrupted by the sound of the wild horse approaching “at full gallop, with Mazeppa.” The shepherds believe the pair represents the arrival of the Volpas, the much-feared horseman from Tartary legend, proving an example of the power of the horse to function within myth and religion. Scene 3 offers the opportunity for more bucolic horses on the stage, as the shepherds repose while their horses graze nearby and warriors and elders enter the rural landscape of Tartary. Significantly, during this scene, Abder Kahn, the king of Tartary, reveals that even though it has been many years since he lost his beloved infant son, Mazeppa, he believes that Mazeppa still lives and will one day return to rule Tartary. As a violent storm begins to blow, Kahn urges his subjects to look after their horses and reassures the people that all will be well, despite his own growing apprehension. The scene of rich and multi-faceted equestrian spectacle that follows is described in detailed stage directions: The shepherds sound their horns—their horses rush on from the adjacent pastures— they mount them and proceed in various directions [. . .] the heavens pour forth a continuous stream of fire—the shepherds, with a shriek of alarm, exclaim “The Volpas! The Volpas!” and rush forward and throw themselves on their faces. The Wild Horse, with Mazeppa, is seen furiously pursuing his course among the

86  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

mountains, crossing first from L to R, backwards and forwards over the range of hills, till he reaches the front, and as he is crossing from R S E to L S E, a thunderbolt falls and strikes a fir tree L, which falls amongst the brushwood and hides him from view.The shepherds all rise up and rush off in horror. This scene is noteworthy for the script’s detailed description of the equestrian action, as well as for its presentation of multiple levels of diverse equine action within an already spectacular scene of natural forces. To say it must have been a thrilling experience for the audience is an understatement. As the forces of nature finally subdue the wild horse, Kahn can approach and investigate. He recognizes his long-lost son, Mazeppa, who is released from his ties and placed on a stretcher.44 Kahn also assists the wild horse to his feet and orders that his injuries and Mazeppa’s be tended to: “That noble steed claims our assistance, too. Of mortal mould it cannot be, but the choice instrument of heaven to restore to Tartary a sovereign, to a doting sire a long-lost son. [The Shepherds raise the horse.]” It is worth noting that the effect of an exhausted horse collapsing onstage requires a skillful and disciplined horse; the fact that this is the same (presumably) “wild” horse seen wreaking havoc earlier, makes the scene even more impressive. In scene 4, there is grumbling among some Tartars that Mazeppa does not deserve to become king. A rebellion is raised and an attack made on the lives of Mazeppa and Khan in scene 5, but the pair defeats the attackers. The army and citizens of Tartary are swiftly assembled, and Kahn introduces Mazeppa to the troops as their King.This appearance of the army assembled thus, offers another opportunity for the inclusion of horses and equestrian spectacle. Mazeppa addresses the assembly, announcing his intention of bringing his true love, Olinska, to Tartary to rule as his queen. Music plays, and horses are brought on for Khan and Mazeppa. One of these is the wild horse, who enters here as a battle mount for Mazeppa.45 The transformation of the wild horse of Tartary, who has transformed into a suitable mount, is paralleled by the transformation of Cassimir, who has transformed into Mazeppa, the Prince of Tartary. Kahn decrees, “Behold the steed, fated by heaven to bring you to your native land and throne, again awaits you. He bore you to my arms; let him now bear you to your triumph.” Act 2 ends with another opportunity for the spectacular display of equestrianism as Mazeppa and Kahn ride out as the commanders of the assembled forces. Details of scenes such as this one could vary in production depending on the production resources available, including stage size, theatre construction, and available equestrians and horses. Olinska is found unhappily preparing for her marriage as act 3 begins. In the second scene, Kahn and Mazeppa secure an invitation to the festivities by their clever disguise as visiting peasants. Kahn excuses himself, under false pretenses, and exits to ready the Tartar troops for battle. Mazeppa reveals himself to Olinska, who in turn reveals her plan to kill herself rather than marry the count. The action moves to the gardens, which are readied for the wedding. As a priest enters to perform the marriage ceremony, Mazeppa pushes him aside

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 87

and reveals his true identity. A battle ensues, and cavalry forces are, of course, included: the Polish troops in the garden fire at the Tartars on the terrace. The latter charge down the steps. A general conflict ensues. A charge of Tartar cavalry is made along the upper terrace; they are met by the Poles, issuing from the principal portal. The attendants endeavour to force Olinska through the tumult into the castle. The cavalry appear in front, and after skirmishing off on both sides, a charge in line from L to R is executed by the Tartars.The front then becomes occupied by pairs of combatants. Abder Khan is on the point of cutting down the Castellan, when Olinska rushes in and interposes. She is followed by Mazeppa, to whom the Castellan resigns her, which is the pledge of peace. Premislas has been meantime overcome by a Tartar warrior, and the Poles altogether vanquished. Abder Khan, Mazeppa, the Castellan, and Olinska, hasten to mount the steps to stop the slaughter, and on the top form a group. The females line the terraces. Subdued Poles and triumphant Tartars fill the scene, which is lighted by the conflagration of the forest; and on the general picture the curtain falls. Mazeppa has a long production history. Following its debut, Brown reports that on 22 May 1833, George Gale played the title role in Mazeppa at the Bowery Theatre in New York City.46 This production included the moving panorama incorporated into the stage design.47 Numerous other productions followed, as Mazeppa was a popular success in production for decades. Some of the landmarks from this long production history include the September 1833 production of Mazeppa at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia. Odell also reports on productions of Mazeppa this season: A really enormous success brought out on July 22nd; an adaptation of Mazeppa, that carried Hamblin safely over the summer and into the season of 1833–34. Barnes had tried a version of the poem at Richmond Hill previously [. . .] the piece came too late to save the day for him. Hamblin, however, was carried by the steed of Mazeppa far over troublous land and water of debt and distress, and arrived, like the hero, into a kingdom that knows no worry. [. . .] The scenery indicated on the bill of the first night, [. . .] includes a “grand Moving Panorama of the Banks of the Dnieper, the Confines of the Tartary, Wolf ’s Hollow, a Mountain Torrent, and the Desert.”48 Mazeppa was also produced, and was presented on a bill that also included circus-style performances, at the Vauxhall Gardens in New York. Odell reports only: “Cooke’s Circus was at Vauxhall Gardens in the autumn of 1836.” On 20 February 1837, an exceptional production run of equestrian drama featuring Mazeppa as the main attraction, along with other equestrian dramas followed, opening at the Bowery Theatre in New York where it was presented by Woolford and Cooke’s company. Ireland cites numerous productions from the

88  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

1830s, including one in February 1837, which featured, “entire new scenery, dresses, &c, and Mr. Cooke’s celebrated stud of horses. It was played every night for four successive weeks to an average nightly receipt of over eight hundred dollars.”49 The run was interrupted when Cooke left to perform in St. George and the Dragon at the National Theater. The National was not alone in trying to compete with the spectacular run of the equestrian drama, and The ­Mirror reported that the “departure of the Cookes, and their unique stud, has not impaired the popularity of the piece, which still continues to draw as profitably.”50 There are numerous accounts of the Bowery’s production of Mazeppa in the New York newspapers and numerous mentions of it in different volumes of his chronicle of the New York stage, including “Volume 4,” in which Odell devotes more than five pages to the run and reports, “The Bowery brought out its very imposing, spectacular revival of The Wild Horse or, Mazeppa; not to be outdone, the National, on the same night, gave a ‘new Equestrian, Oriental Spectacle,’ Lalla Rookh.”51 Odell goes on to report, Woolford and Cooke’s Circus had had great success at the Bowery with their equestrian-spectacle Mazeppa. Hackett now hired Woolford, his actor assistants, and Cooke’s magnificent horses, to bring out the great spectacle, St. George and the Dragon, which had a year or two before disgraced the boards at Covent Garden, when Alfred Bunn hired Ducrow and his horses to star in the piece. [. . .] The piece was entirely arranged, produced and the Horses tutored by Mr. Woolford. And further, The “extensive platforms, machinery, etc.” were by Deverna [. . .] the cast included Woolford as Mazeppa [. . .] but what were mere actors to “Mr. Cooke’s unrivalled stud of Horses, amounting to 50 in number,” which awakened the admiration and awe of beholders every one of whom must have seen hundreds of horses daily in peregrinations through the horribly dirty February streets of this town?52 In January 1838, Odell reports the production of: a revived Mazeppa, on January 2nd, the useful Thorne now riding the fiery, untamed steed to fame and fortune; [. . .] But Mazeppa itself gave way, on January 8th, to the ever-useful Cataract of the Ganges, in which Thorne played Mokarra, and Mrs. Herring Zamine, exponent of feminine equestrianism. All for a horse and the drama well lost!53 In August 1837,Thomas T. Cooke’s equestrian circus opened in a new Philadelphia arena, located near the Walnut Street Theatre. From here, Cooke traveled to Baltimore, where his circus was devastated by fire; he returned to Philadelphia and opened at the Philadelphia Theatre on 2 April and performed there through 5 May 1838, enacting various equestrian dramas, including Mazeppa. In 1838, Carson records that The Republican (of St. Louis, Missouri) published an announcement saying that the theatre would be closed until August 9,

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 89

on which date it would reopen and present the “Grand Romantic Drama,” Mazeppa, or The Wild Horse of Tartary with “Mr. Lewellen and his celebrated horse Timon.” Carson also reports that on 10 August, The Republican “praised it highly” and that “two days later the editor asserted that the horse alone was worth the price of admission.”54 In the summer of 1840, the equestrian Levi J. North was engaged to perform in New Orleans at the American Theatre on the corner of St. Michael and Royal Streets; he brought with him a trick horse and other performers, including “Old John Robinson” and a child rider known first as “Little Jimmy” and later as “Master Fernandez.” The equestrian troupe was a success when their production of Mazeppa opened on 16 November 1840, followed by Timour the Tartar (which opened on 14 December), The Cataract of the Ganges (opening on 1 April 1841), and then El Hyder, The Forty Thieves, Tekeli, and an equestrianized production of John Walker’s Napoleon, or the Emperor and the Soldier.55 These productions illustrate how, by this time, the production of equestrian drama had spread beyond the major east coast cities where it debuted. On 11 January 1851, the American Theatre in New Orleans welcomed the Spaulding and Rogers Circus, which played through March presenting nightly displays of equestrianism in the circus ring and equestrian dramas, including Mazeppa and Timour the Tartar onstage. On 3 January 1859, Charlotte Crampton performed Mazeppa at the Chatham Theatre in New York with her trained horses, Alexander and Black Eagle. Remarkably, she performed the traditional routine of being carried up the onstage runs without actually being lashed to the back of the ascending “wild horse;” this was the first time the feat was performed. Crampton and her horses also performed in other equestrian dramas while in New York.56 Perhaps the daring performance of the role by Crampton foreshadows one of the most significant events in the long history of the equestrian drama, Mazeppa; the debut of Adah Isaacs Menken in the title role on 7 June 1861 at the Green Street Theatre in Albany, New York.57 The performance made her a star and revolutionized the play’s production. She played it again at the Broadway Theatre in New York for three weeks during the summer of 1866.58 In regard to the impact of this on the play’s performance history, Raoul Granqvist, in his Imitation as Resistance, observes, The American reception history of Mazeppa falls roughly into two periods, the dividing line being the year (1861) of Menken’s first performances in it. [. . .] One could characterize the almost three decades of Mazeppa performances prior to Menken’s emergence, as the period of the ‘fiery steed,’ or that of the “wild Ukranian horse.” So much attention was lavished on the equestrian art that the horse and rider exhibited that comments about the plays other qualities are rare and when they occur seem peripheral.59 Although the play had remained in steady production since debuting in 1833, intense audience interest in Mazeppa was rekindled when Menken joined

90  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

the cast and brought an element of sensual titillation to the play, which had remained popular throughout the decades as a purely equestrian drama. Menken became a major star because of her role in Mazeppa. In doing so, some believe she changed equestrian drama from a form that focused its visual effect on the spectacular movements of horses onstage to the titillating effect of a nearly naked woman onstage.60 Mazeppa enjoyed continued popular success in performance for many years. Its production history is effectively summarized by James Smith in his introduction to the play in his anthology of Victorian melodramas: For nearly fifty years Mazeppa-fever raged through every hippodrama house in England and America. Astley’s revived the show for season after season. In 1833, there were two rival productions in New York and two more in Philadelphia. St. Louis succumbed in August 1838, and San ­Francisco in December 1851. Sanger’s tent circus toured the play through Scotland in 1854. Cartlitch alone played the young hero more than 1,500 times [. . .] History’s most famous Mazeppa was the actress Adah Isaacs Menken, who made her debut in the role at the Green Street Theatre, Albany, on 7 June 1861, and in the next five years went on to conquer New York, San Francisco, London, and Paris.61 Other equestrian melodramas followed Mazeppa, but none matched its combination of longevity and popular success. To conclude this chapter, a few supplemental anecdotes illustrate the challenges of staging Mazeppa and other equestrian dramas. Because of the challenging staging of the play and the subsequent action required of the equine actor playing the “Wild Horse,” and because of the play’s long production history and great popular success over many decades, there are numerous firsthand accounts of the training of and performances by horses in the play (more than are found for other equestrian dramas). These provide insight into the production process of this play, which can be extended to working with horses in equestrian drama in general. The methods described are simple and, while not what would be considered acceptably humane today, advocate reward over punishment in all training situations. Gil Robinson recalls his experience supplying and handling a horse for Adah Isaacs Menken in Mazeppa: Pike’s Opera House was on the second floor, and the only way to get the horse to the stage was to compel him to walk up the forty steps of the main stairway. He went up alright, but as I doubted my ability to get him up and down for each performance I arranged to keep him on the stage until the close of the engagement. There was a crowd on hand to see “Billy,” the “Wild Horse of Tartary” go up the stairs, and when we got to the top [. . .] Miss Menken [. . .] requested me to assist her still further by helping her to manage the horse at the first performance. Dressed as the “Tartar Chief,” I was to bring the wild horse

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 91

on the stage so that “Mazeppa” could be strapped on his back and sent on his sensational flight over the mountain passes. I wanted the horse to act as though he was really wild and just been captured. I strapped a piece of leather, perforated with sharp-pointed tacks, on my right hand.When my cue came, I entered with my left hand on “Bill’s” bridle and the other pushing the tack-imbedded strap into his back, and presently much to the delight of the audience and the consternation of the actors, the horse and I were waltzing all over the stage by our “lonesomes.” In trying to hold “Billy” I inadvertently jabbed him with the tacks, and this made him so wild that everyone on the stage ran into the wings and gave us the stage to ourselves. Finally I managed to get the horse partially quieted, “Mazeppa” was dragged onto the stage and strapped onto the horse’s back, and the wild horse went dashing over the mountain pass headed for the plains of Tartary.62 An account of training equine actors to play the “Wild Horse of Tartary” is found in the reminiscences of George Sanger, who recalls Mazeppa as the “great draw” of his circus in the mid-nineteenth century. He says at that time the show was, “a novelty in the provinces, and people never seemed to tire of it.” On the training of the “Wild Horse,” he says, The fiery, untamed steed which so delighted the Scotch audiences was a decent-looking spotted horse which had seen quite twenty summers and winters. I bought him from an Irishman near Liverpool, and broke him to the business of rearing, kicking, bucking, and to the seeming tumbledown-from-sheer-exhaustion which is a feature of the Mazeppa show. How I did it I will tell you. To make a good kicking, rearing, or buck-jumping horse for Mazeppa or Buffalo Bill business the chief instrument you require is an ordinary pin. When you approach the horse put your hand against the pommel of the saddle, near his withers, and prick him sharply there with the pin. The animal at once rears up. Directly as he does so, caress him to show him he is doing what you want him to do. Repeat this process a few times, and the horse will rear to the tap of the finger without the pin, and, what is more, he never forgets the lesson. To make a horse fling up from behind the pin the process is repeated at the back of the saddle on the crupper. A few simultaneous touches on crupper and withers together produce the buck-jump. In this way you might within a week produce a hundred fiery, untamed steeds if you happened to want them. Training the horse to lie down at command is a little more tedious.You strap up the off fore-leg, and then with a light hand-whip or fine cane gently tap him below the knee on the fore-leg on which he stands. To avoid this treatment the horse will presently go to his knees.When he does that, caress him to show him he has done the right thing. When you have done this a few times, if you to the off side and pull the bridle towards you, the horse will lean on the near side and lie down, and on the lesson being

92  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama

repeated a few times he soon learns your wishes and becomes efficient in his business. Always remember one thing: never lose your temper with the animal, and in the end you will find that you can without any unkind treatment teach him to do anything you want him to do. There was only one thing I had to complain about in the spotted Mazeppa steed I have mentioned. With a travelling circus you have all weathers to put up with, and very often if there had been much rain the ring was ankle-deep in mud.Wherever it was so that old horse would make for the wettest, softest spot for the lying-down act. As I played Mazeppa, my feelings in the uncomfortable situation, while the Khan rapped out his rather long speech, “Whence is this wounded and exhausted stranger,” etc., may be imagined. I never quite got used to the mud bath, though I have played the part of Mazeppa in my own and other establishments upwards of nine thousand times.63

Conclusions on Melodramatic Equestrian Drama Melodramatic equestrian dramas, like all equestrian dramas, feature horse characters that function both realistically and symbolically. With respect to the realistic functioning of horses in melodrama, they fulfill some of the same purposes and embody roles that are similar to those traditionally presented by human characters in melodrama; but, as horses, they also add to both the spectacle and verisimilitude of the plays. The symbolic functioning of horses in melodrama makes possible the onstage embodiment and representation of various themes and ideas that are essential to the plays. In this way, horses make a unique contribution to the form of melodrama, a style that has become known for highlighting (and exaggerating) the good qualities of one (thing, person, or situation) and juxtaposing them against the (again, highlighted and exaggerated) bad qualities of another. Horses do this by enabling audience members to ponder existential “truths” that can be difficult to apprehend through human characters embroiled in the everyday complexities of “real life.”The horse offers a non-threatening and effective lens through which to enact the melodramatic characters and plots. The equine archetype enables the presentation of horse characters onstage that are virtually completely noble, loyal, strong, courageous to the point of fearlessness, and, essentially, “good.” When human characters are presented in this way, audiences often struggle to accept them, but when an equine character of this type is introduced, the archetypal qualities associated with the horse enable the easier and more complete acceptance of the character. In this way, the melodramatic equestrian drama offers the potential to explore the embodiment of various essential virtues (and, by comparison, vices).

Notes 1. Carl G. Jung. “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols, 1968, p. 58. 2. Jung, p. 3.

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 93 3. It would be interesting to read more about the training of this and other performing horses featured in early productions of equestrian drama. Unfortunately, none are found until decades later. Some of these are included later in this chapter. There are also early manuals of horsemanship that provide insight into the training of equestrians and horses; these include that written by Philip Astley and that by the earlier vaulting equestrian Stokes. These do not directly address equestrian drama or the training of horses for the production of these plays, but provide some insight into the process. 4. Thomas Dibdin is sometimes credited as the coauthor of The Secret Mine. 5. Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, p. 96. 6. Boston Commercial Gazette (Boston, MA). 23 June 1817, p. 3. This announcement cites the location of the performance only as “AMPHITHEATRE. (Late Circus, Charlestown, near Boston.) On Monday, 30 June, another announcement appeared in the same publication for the “LAST WEEK OF THE SECRET MINE.” 7. Ireland, 1:349. 8. The New-York Columbian. 7 January 1819, p. 3. 9. The Royal Coburg Theatre opened on 11 May 1818. In 1833, it was renamed the Royal Victoria in honor of Princess/Queen Victoria. It was renovated in 1871 and reopened as the New Victoria Palace. During the 1925–1926 season, the management formally adopted the theatre’s popular nickname, the Old Vic. The theatre is closed during 1940– 1941 due to the war and on 10 May was hit by a bomb; it reopened on 14 November 1950. The Old Vic remains in operation as of this writing. 10. The production most likely occurred at the Broadway Circus as this was a major venue presenting equestrian dramas at this time, prior to the opening of the Lafayette and other equestrian theatres. Other equestrian dramas were also produced here during the 1822–1823 season, including Timour the Tartar and Alexander the Great. Price and Simpson’s Circus also performed El Hyder in 1823, doing so in Philadelphia during the fall. They also performed the play in New York during the summers of 1824 and 1825. 11. Evening Post (New York, New York). 28 March 1823, p. 2. An announcement in the New York National Advocate from 1 April 1823 (p. 2) announces the “2nd night of El Hyder, or Love & Bravery.” Another in the New York Evening Post for the following day announces the “third night of El Hyder, or Love and Bravery.” No specific theatre or location is cited in any of the announcements. It is worth noting that the play as found advertised here appears under the title El Hyder: or, Love and Bravery, rather than El Hyder; or,The Chief of the Gaut Mountains. The play of the former title, is found to be listed with the following publication information: New York, printed and published at the Circulating Library and Dramatic Repository, 1826, and is the only extant script I find for El Hyder. Therefore, that is the script to which I refer. The effect of the discrepancy between subtitles on the play’s content is unclear. Also, there is some evidence to suggest that El Hyder was related in some way to another equestrian drama known as The Tiger Horde, for which no existing script is found. Announcements for productions of equestrian dramas by both titles appeared around this time (1817–1823), and both plays include characters with similar names; it is unclear to me if they are the same play or not because I have been unable to find a script for The Tiger Horde to compare with that of El Hyder. I do, however, find plays by both titles performed in close proximity, sometimes even as part of the same engagement; this makes it highly unlikely that the plays are the same or even very similar. 12. New York. Evening Post. 2 July 1825, p. 3. 13. Litto, p. 158. 14. Odell 3:265 & 276–277, also see The Mirror of 2 December 1826. 15. Odell, 3:349. Montilla discusses the renovations at the Lafayette in detail. Coverage in The Mirror from 29 September–6 October also provides an overview of the updates. 16. Odell, 3:364–365. 17. Hamlet and El Hyder at American Theatre, New Orleans, 1844. Poster/playbill held by Duke University Libraries Digital Repository.

94  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 18. Scenes from this 1810 production are depicted in an etching held by the British Museum. The image is described as: “View of a theatre stage with battle scene taking place on a bridge, burning buildings behind and horses in the water below, fallen soldiers in the foreground beside a couple embracing, a girl and kneeling soldier at right; after Robert Dodd, a vertical fold in centre of sheet. 1810 Aquatint and etching.” The following information is also included beneath the image: “Representation of one of the Scenes in the grand Equestrian and Pedestrian Spectacle called The Blood Red Knight, or the Fatal Bridge, as now performing with unbounded applause at the Royal Amphitheatre, Astley’s Westminster Bridge,” with production detail (image and description available from Britishmuseum.org). It is also interesting to note that Saxon cites George Male as the actual author of The Blood Red Knight, even though the credit is usually given to William Barrymore (whose name appears as playwright on the printed script) or, occasionally, J. H. Amherst. Saxon suggests that Barrymore “usurped” the work when he revived it at Astley’s in 1817; he cites an ad in the Times (6 October 1810) and DeCastro’s memoirs (p. 101) as his sources for this info, but also notes that the authorship is “always a trivial consideration in these matters.” Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, 48–49. DeCastro (p. 101) also cites “an equestrian spectacle, called ‘The Blood Red Knight,’ written by the late Mr. George Male.” ­DeCastro also observes, “Whether from the appalling sound of the name, or the expected terrific exploits of the gory hero [. . .] or from the intrinsic merits of the piece, we cannot tell—but it exceeded in terms of attraction, any of modern days; it run a whole season in the first instant.” 19. Evening Post (New York, NY). 4 August 1823, p. 3. The announcement also ran on this date in the New York National Advocate, p. 2. 20. National Gazette and Literary Register (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania). 20 November 1823, p. 3. This announcement does not state that this is the Philadelphia premiere, but no earlier production is found. 21. Ireland, 1:582. 22. I am citing Moody, p. 162, who in turn is citing “Moncrieff, SC 3122–29” on this point. 23. The script is published by Charles Wiley, No. 3 Wall-Street; H. C. Carey & I. Lea and McCarty & Davis; Philadelphia, and Samuel H. Parker, Boston. 1824. Google Play Books. 24. National Advocate (New York, NY). 26 August 1824, p. 2. 25. Ireland, 1:432. 26. Odell, 3:136. 27. Odell, 3:144 and 147. 28. Odell, 4:202. 29. Brown, 1:385. 30. Brown, 1:396. 31. Brown, 1:133. 32. Brown, 1:404. 33. Odell, 9:285. 34. Brown, 1:161. 35. Adaptations of Mazeppa include numerous burlesques, which were produced with much less success than the original/s, in the mid-nineteenth century; these include Mazeppa the Second, or the Wild Horse of Williamsburg, written by C. W. Taylor and performed on 12 June 1854 at the Chatham Theatre (performance details from Brown, 1:319 & 326), Mazeppa, or the Fiery, Untamed, Rocking Horse, which premiered at Tripler Hall on 7 January 1861 with Joseph Jefferson as Mazeppa (as reported in Brown, 1:449), Henry J. Byron’s, Mazeppa! A Burlesque Extravaganza. London, Lacy, n.d., in Lacy’s Acting Edition of Plays, and Mazeppa, An Equestrian Burlesque. New York, n.d., in Brady’s Ethiopian Drama, No. 3. 36. Saxon cites a playbill in the British Museum Playbills Collection (No. 174; Coburg Theatre, 1818–1823).

Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 95 37. Saxon describes both the French production and Payne’s written script in detail (pp. 175–188). He also devotes an entire chapter of Enter Foot and Horse to discussion of Mazeppa (pp. 173–204) 38. A note on the versions of the text used here: the two versions I am using are the Lacy text, found at Archive.org, and the one reproduced in Victorian Melodramas Featuring Seven Sensational Dramas, ed. James L. Smith. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowan and Littlefield, 1976. Smith explains (3) that his is one of two surviving versions of the play: “One in Dicks’ Standard Plays, the other in Cumberland’s Minor Theatre, which is reprinted line for line in Lacy. The present edition is based on Cumberland, which is far the earliest. One or two effective touches are introduced from Dicks’, together with a few cuts sanctioned by the later acting text.” In his introduction, Smith also cites an earlier version of the play, which was also written by Milner, and which premiered at the Coburg on 3 November 1823. Saxon also cites this as having first appeared on 11 November 1823 under the title of Mazeppa; or, The Wild Horse of the Ukraine. The version written by the American John Howard Payne is extant and included in “Trial Without Jury and Other Plays,” in vol. 5 of America’s Lost Plays Series, eds. Codman Hislop and W. R. Richardson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940. The quotes I use come from the text as reproduced in Smith, unless otherwise noted. 39. This performance was advertised in the New York Evening Post on 17 April 1833 for, “To-morrow Evening, April 18,—First night of MAZEPPA.” And again the next day in that publication, “This Evening, April 18—First night of MAZEPPA.—The grand melo dramatic spectacle of MAZEPPA, or the Wild Horse of the Ukrane—Mazeppa, Mr. Judah.” 40. The year after Mazeppa opened here, on 4 March 1834, the renovated Amphitheatre, Richmond Hill opened “as an equestrian establishment.” And featured “a wonderful horse, Mokarra,” along with productions of equestrian drama. Odell, 3:648. 41. Kendall reasserts (p. 62 and p. 110) in discussion about Emmanual Judah, saying, “Judah was long regarded as the first man in this country to play Mazeppa, but he did not do so till 1844, ten years after it had been given at the Camp by J.M Field and Mrs. Rowe.” Since evidence supports Judah first playing the role in 1833, not 1844 as Kendall contends, this could account for some confusion, however, his original date given for Field’s premiere performance still precedes Judah’s at the Richmond Hill Theatre, which is generally accepted as being first and which no other significant sources are found to refute. 42. Morris, 109–110. Morris also reports (pp. 112–114) that Queen was later killed in a stage accident while appearing in another equestrian drama.There was also a real danger for the human actor in enacting this scene; for example, Saxon reports in Enter Foot and Horse (p. 223) that in 1873 Leo Hudson was killed “as the result of a fall sustained while her horse descended a run during a performance of Mazeppa in St. Louis.” 43. Since there is no record of a treadmill or other device enabling movement, it is likely that the horse marched in place or at least with a collected gait before the panoramic background. 44. Mazeppa has his name either branded or tattooed to his body in some way.The Cuvelier and Chandezon text (Paris, 1825) includes a line also included in the stage directions by Smith, “he points to the name ‘Mazeppa’ engraved in Arabic letters on his right arm,” but Smith notes (p. 26) that this is not found in Milner’s text. Even so, Khan advises Thamar, in Milner’s text (p. 26),“Read, read brave chief, those words of gladdening power. Mazeppa! Yes, mark thou that honoured word.” The Archive.org version of Milner’s text reads, “Behold this jeweled star, the badge and emblem of our noble tribe; myself affixed it there; and glittering now upon his bosom, it flashes sweet conviction on my soul.”Whatever the precise nature of the mark, it identifies the now grown Mazeppa as the long lost son who disappeared from Tartary as an infant. 45. Oddly, in the Archive.org version of the play, the horse is not identified as the Wild Horse, only as “a superbly caparisoned steed,” but Kahn’s line is still included, so clearly it is the same horse.

96  Melodramatic Equestrian Drama 46. Brown, 1:111. Ireland reports that George Gale was killed in 1851 “by a fall from a balloon, with which he was presumptively making an ascension on horseback,” 1:441. 47. Ireland, 2:59–60 and Odell, 3:641. As in the London production, the panorama depicted the characters’ movement along the Dnieper River. 48. Odell, 3:641 49. Ireland, 2:207. 50. The Mirror, 25 March 1837. 51. Odell, 4:145 & 163–169. 52. Odell, 4:147 & 163. 53. Odell, 4:235. 54. Carson, pp. 254–255, citing Republican of 11 March and Daily Argus of 16 August 1838. 55. Kendall, pp. 187–188. 56. Brown, 1:332. 57. Much has been written about Menken and her work in Mazeppa over a long career. Renée M. Sentilles provides a good starting point for interested readers with, Performing Menken: Adah Isaacs Menken and the Birth of American Celebrity. 58. Brown, 1:515. 59. Raoul Granqvist. Imitation as Resistance: Appropriations of English Literature in Nineteenth Century America. Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1995, p. 170. 60. It is mainly for this reason that Saxon cites Mazeppa as being at least partially responsible for the equestrian drama’s downfall. Essentially, Saxon states that the evolution of the play from a spectacular melodrama focusing on the sensational appearance of an equine actor in dramatic feats on stage to one focusing on the sensational appearance of a nearly naked woman onstage, shifted the focus of equestrian drama in an irrevocable way. This argument is summarized in Enter Foot and Horse, p. 225.While it is true that Menken was an attraction in her own right, there is scant evidence that her appearance contributed significantly to the demise of equestrian drama. The decline of that genre was caused by multiple factors and is discussed in Chapter 8. 61. Smith, p. 3. 62. Robinson Gil, Old Wagon Show Days, pp. 88–89. 63. ‘Lord’ George Sanger. Seventy Years a Showman, pp. 193–194.

5 The Plays Military Equestrian Drama

I will not change my horse with any that treads but on four pasterns. Ca, ha! He bounds from the earth, as if his entrails were hairs; le cheval volant, the Pegasus, Qui a les narines de feu! When I bestride him, I soar, I am a hawk: he trots the air; the earth sings when he touches it; the basest horn of his hoof is more musical than the pipe of Hermes [. . .] he is pure air and fire [. . .] —William Shakespeare, Henry V

Military equestrian dramas are plays that include scenes of battles and related pageantry or other similar action that features horses. While some equestrian melodramas also include such military action, these tend to be small-scale conflicts that do not comprise the central focus of the plot. Military equestrian dramas, on the other hand, typically dramatize large-scale conflicts, often drawn from actual historical battles that are the primary focus of the play’s action. The horse is suited to inclusion in this kind of play mainly because of the importance of horses to warfare throughout history, which makes them significant within the dramas both realistically and symbolically. A brief overview of the horse in war will provide the necessary foundation for understanding the functioning of the horse in these plays.

Horses in War The history of the horse in combat is a long and rich one. Horses have served in battle for millennia, beginning as early 3,500 bce.They have made consistent vital contributions to the defense of various peoples and nations throughout history. Horses have added speed, power, and mobility to the armies they served. They have engaged in actual combat, contributing directly to defense on the fields of battle, often getting wounded or dying as a result. Horses also served by aiding in the transportation of troops, gear, supplies, and otherwise immovably heavy artillery to, from, and around battlefields, and of injured soldiers to safety. Horses continued to function significantly in warfare through the twentieth century, playing essential roles in both the First and Second World Wars. Even in the twenty-first century, the horse continues to serve in military operations

98  Military Equestrian Drama

for numerous countries including the United States, where they still serve an active, though limited, role, especially in rough terrain and other areas where motorized vehicles are not effective, significantly in Afghanistan.1 Because of the decisive role that horses have played on the battlefield in deciding the fate of nations, as well as individuals, the horse has acquired associations in the human psyche that are both practical and symbolic in relation to combat. This is reflected in various ways in the arts, with equestrian statues, monuments, and portraits dating from approximately 550 bce (with the first known equestrian statue of the “Rampin Rider” in Ancient Greece and that of Marcus Aurelius from second-century Rome). Since the Classical period, many cultures have immortalized their greatest citizens in equestrian statues and portraits. In the United States, iconic leaders such as George Washington from the American Revolution, to numerous Civil War notables, to Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders in the Spanish American War, and even to General George Patton in the Second World War, have been represented in this way. Representations of military horses have also been recorded in literature since antiquity, with the earliest known book about horsemanship being a manual on training horses for battle. It comes from Kikkuli, a Hittite working for King Sepululiumas in the fourteenth century bce. Herodotus, Pliny, and Strabo also reference military horses in their writings as does Homer, who presents a powerful image of them in The Iliad by describing Xanthus and Balios (the storied horses of Achilles) weeping on the battlefield, mourning the death of their caretaker, Patroclus.2 Throughout much of history, the horse has been a huge asset in combat, where a horse often meant the difference between not only victory or defeat but also between life and death.The contributions of horses in warfare encouraged the development of military equestrian drama and enable them to function within these plays both realistically and symbolically. In spectacular and historical representations of battles, they contribute to the verisimilitude and function as excellent vehicles for metaphor.

Military Equestrian Entertainments There are also a few earlier forms of equestrian entertainments that influenced the development of military equestrian dramas. The first significant incorporation of horses into military-style entertainments is found in the equestrian ballets and mounted quadrilles popularized in seventeenth century England. Although these stylized presentations of cavalry maneuvers did not feature story lines or individualized characters, they do present an early example of a military-style equestrian entertainment. They were performed without scripts, but with choreographed equine movement as entertainments for the upper classes. Another influence on the development of the military equestrian drama is the practice of equestrianizing military scenes in existing non-equestrian plays. Since many pre-nineteenth-century plays already included scenes of battle, or sufficient allusions to battles that such scenes could be added, the

Military Equestrian Drama 99

addition of horses to such scenes was a fairly simple way to enhance spectacle and verisimilitude, and in some cases to enable producers of the plays to sidestep legislation against traditional play production without a license. Adding horses in this way worked especially well in the nineteenth century because horses were an essential component of warfare that could be seamlessly added to scenes of battle. A related influence encouraging the development of military equestrian drama is the body of entertainments designed as reenactments of famous cavalry battles that were produced as pantomimes and which were presented mainly in circus rings.The final significant influence on the development of military equestrian dramas is the equestrian melodramas, the earliest of which preceded them on the stage. Military equestrian dramas are distinguishable from the melodramas in a few ways. They can feature horses in a range of roles, from mere contributors to the verisimilitude in scenes of combat or other military activity, to individualized character roles. In order for a play to be truly of this type (and not, e.g., a melodramatic equestrian spectacle with some military scenes), the military action/battle must be the central focus of the plot. The first equestrian drama in the United States was Signor Manfredi’s landmark New York performance of La Fille Hussar at the Park Theatre on 15 June 1803. The show played for three performances, but beyond this, little is known of the production. No detailed accounts are found, save Odell’s, who described the production as “an astonishing beginning of equestrian drama” with: A Grand Heroic Pantomime “with the introduction of Cavalry”—La Fille Hussar, with music by Pelissier, and much scenery. There was to be a “Review of the Austrian Army,” with “Hussars, on real horses, performing their Evolutions. The Cavalry passing a Mountain (as high as the Theatre will permit).” There was also a “Combat between Albert [Manfredi] on foot, and a mounted Hussar: he dismounts the Hussar, seizes his horse and ascends the Mountain in full gallop, followed by all the Cavalry.” [. . .] The conclusion was a “Grand Military Triumphal Scene.”3 Equestrian pantomimes on military themes followed over the next decade (and beyond) at the circus, but the form did not fully develop, nor did it begin to gain widespread popularity as a distinctly theatrical form in the United States, for two decades. The equestrian melodramas performed in the United States during those two intervening decades were performed mainly in the major theatre cities of New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. These productions were essential in demonstrating (and assuring theatre managers) that equestrian drama could succeed onstage. The circus pantomimes depicting famous battles provided further evidence that including horses in dramatic scenes of battle and military pageantry could also succeed. These had been popular in England since the late eighteenth century and in America since the early nineteenth.4 When elements of these equestrian pantomimes were combined with scripted dialogue and action in production on the theatrical stage, the result was the military equestrian drama.

100  Military Equestrian Drama

Examination of relevant scenes and passages from various military equestrian dramas provide an illumination of the style of these plays, as well as the diverse functions served by the horses within the plays. Extant scripts for these plays are limited, but some good examples are found. The main examples used in this chapter are The Battle of Waterloo, written by J. M. Amherst and Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76, a national military drama written by Nathaniel Harrington Bannister. Also referenced is another of Amherst’s military equestrian dramas, Napoleon Bonaparte’s Invasion of Russia, or, the Conflagration of Moscow: A Grand Military and Equestrian Spectacle in Three Acts. Other plays of this type include Chevy Chase or, the Battle of the Borders: A Grand Equestrian Spectacle (for which only a partial script is found) written by C. A. Somerset, Esquire, and The Battle of the Alma, by J. H. Stocqueler. These plays are referenced as needed to provide the reader with a diversity of examples as well as an understanding of the hallmarks of the military equestrian drama as illustrated by various plays of the genre. The Battle of Waterloo

The most famous and most often produced military equestrian drama presented in the United States is The Battle of Waterloo, written by J. H. Amherst and first produced in England.The playwright, Amherst, had a successful career as a playwright specializing in equestrian dramas, served as director of Astley’s and worked as a professional actor before dying “in utter poverty in the Philadelphia Almshouse in 1851.”5 The Battle of Waterloo is a dramatized version of the famous battle that many historians consider the last great cavalry battle of all time. This play was exceptionally popular in England, and Saxon comments, “The Battle of Waterloo was one of the greatest and, next to Mazeppa, the most frequently performed drama in the entire history of Astley’s.”6 When the play moved to the United States, it also enjoyed success, although it (like most military equestrian dramas) was less popular in the United States than in England (or France). The first report of The Battle of Waterloo in the United States is found in Brown, who reports that on 5 May 1828, Mr. Kinlock played Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo at the Lafayette Theatre in New York.7 This production is also the first mention of the play found in Odell, who cites a production in New York in early May 1828. There is some indication, but no proof found, that the play was performed earlier, based on Odell’s observation that during the 1827–1828 season in New York, “The Battle of Waterloo [. . .] still gets itself fought almost nightly.”8 In regard to the play’s longevity, Saxon notes, “The Battle of Waterloo was regularly revived, both in England and America, until well into the second half of the nineteenth century.”9 One may question why a battle that involved no Americans, and which was dramatized in a script written by an English playwright, was embraced for so long by American audiences. The answer is uncertain, but announcements for the play promote it primarily as a grand spectacle, which seems to indicate this,

Military Equestrian Drama 101

rather than patriotism, was the primary motivation for audiences to attend.This is illustrated by published accounts of performances, as well as announcements for productions, including the following two reports, one by Odell and another by Brown, of the 1840 production of the play at New York’s Bowery Amphitheatre. Odell reports, In The Battle of Waterloo, the advertisements of that date inform us, fifty horses and two hundred supernumeraries were employed. [. . .] The scenery must have been splendid and varied; the evolutions of cavalry and infantry were precisely carried out, and [Charles Kemble] Mason, on foot, or on horseback, seemed the reincarnation of the great Napoleon.10 Brown writes, On Nov. 9, 1840, for melodramatic and equestrian spectacles, [. . .] After the equestrian performances the melodramatic spectacle “The Battle of Waterloo” was given, introducing fifty horses, two hundred “supers,” clothed in new and handsome uniforms, cannons, artillery, baggage-wagons, and moving magazines, making an exciting scene.11 This play features horses as essential elements of its verisimilitude and spectacle. They are included most prominently and spectacularly in the battle scenes, but figure in other scenes as well. The equine characters are listed in the “dramatis persona” as “English, French, Prussian Cavalry and C.” This leaves their precise number and nature to the discretion of the director of each production.Amherst retains some measure of control of the production in his recommended “time of representation,” which he cites at two hours and 40 minutes.12 The written text of The Battle of Waterloo as it appears in “no. 696, Dicks’ Standard Plays” is only 14 pages long and is not unusual in including only sparse stage directions relating to the onstage action of the equine characters.13 The lengthy time estimate for the play in production not only far exceeds what would be expected upon looking at the written script, it is also indicative of the amount of unscripted action of common and/or intended staging practices associated with this and other equestrian dramas (and perhaps helps explain why few extant scripts are found). Based on this and other written reports of The Battle of Waterloo in production, and of other equestrian dramas contemporary with it, it is clear that significant stage action was expected, beyond what is explicitly detailed in the written text. Saxon sums it up well in his discussion of the play as performed at Astley’s in 1824, “Each of the three acts ended with a massive battle.”14 While The Battle of Waterloo features horses primarily as non-specific/­ supernumerary characters, chiefly employed as members of the cavalry, it also includes at least one identifiable individual equine character. Horses are introduced in act 1, scene 3, which opens at the French Bivouac; soldiers stand guard and farriers “strike to the refrain of “ta ra la” of the chorus.”The presence of the

102  Military Equestrian Drama

farriers (blacksmiths specializing in the shoeing of horses) indicates that horses surround the action and foreshadows their upcoming entrance. As the scene continues, French soldiers become visible, approaching in the distance (another opportunity for horses to be added); a “Grand March” is formed downstage and moves across a bridge to receive the arriving troops. This procession includes “Six Pioneers—Brass Band—two Drums—three Side Drums—two Officers— Flags—first twelve Soldiers—two Officers—Flags—second twelve—Officer—Flag— Cavalry—Officers—Staff—NAPOLEON [. . .] The infantry and cavalry are fully occupied at the back.” Action of the equine actors in this scene is not explicitly scripted, but horses are clearly intended to contribute both to the naturalistic and the spectacular realism of the scene. Horses return in scene 6, which opens on the Bridge of Marchienne. Here Blucher enters on horseback and presses forward to battle music. The Prussians enter, and the most specifically scripted equine stage action of the play occurs: the stage directions are reprinted here in their entirety in order to illustrate the large-scale staging and detailed equestrian involvement. It is interesting to note the specific action demanded of the equine actors, particularly Blucher’s horse, who must have been a skilled performer: The Generals BULOW and JOSEF cover the retreat of the Prussians, and being pressed by two French horsemen, suddenly turn and discharge their pistols, which take effect on one man, who falls with his foot in the stirrup, and is dragged off. During this action, the General Bulow has called to his soldiery to secure the bridge—they immediately form upon it, all levelling [sic] their pieces to the L. H. as the Prussians and the French horse enter from that quarter in close fight. Observe every third Prussian on the bridge fires and reloads, by which a dreadful discharge is kept up. NEY gallops at this moment in the centre of the stage in front, and makes an action for the cannon to be brought, which is done, and the devoted Prussians are fired on without mercy—part of the bridge gives way, and four men are precipitated into the water, a boat assists them. The French take advantage of this movement, and order their foot to advance, they do so, and succeed in clearing the bridge. The Prussian horse gallop to their assistance, but are closely pursued by the French, a dreadful contest on the bridge, and continual skirmishing below. Enter BLUCHER and his Aide-de-Camp, who appear to have galloped mercilessly, they are closely followed by four Imperial Guards from the right and a body of French horse on the bridge, who all discharge their pistols at once. Blucher’s horse rears and eventually falls wounded, and Blucher with him. The Aide-de Camp is attacked and fights off—­general attack of horses and foot till the contest becomes confined to the bridge. The Aide-de-Camp enters and raises Blucher, who tears his hair, and Camp’s hand, he begs of him to put a period to his life, rather than let him become a prisoner to France. The Aide-de-Camp raises the infirm old man, and placing him on his own horse, hurries him away from the field.

Military Equestrian Drama 103

A general contest on bridge and stage by horse and foot.The French are disadvantaged, until an Officer of the Imperial Guards leaps from the bridge with an eagle and colours, and endeavours to stem the defeat; he strikes a Prussian soldier from his horse, but is shot; as he is expiring he kisses his colours and his Cross of Honour. Ney snatches the colours—uprears them, and after a short but animated attack, the French become victorious, the cries of “Vive le Empereur” rend the air, and to a triumphant picture the drop descends. Act 2 begins at the English bivouac. As the first scene ends, the stage is cleared for the “grand review” of scene 2, which begins with the entrance of the foot soldiers followed by “the cavalry, who prepare to receive the Duke and Staff.” Wellington then addresses the assembly. His speech is the only dialogue in this scene, which concludes with “Music—Review—Grand Military movement and exit.” This scene and the vague stage directions given for it leave the precise nature of equine action to the discretion of the director. There is ample opportunity for horses, even large numbers of them, to be engaged here to represent the ­English troops. There is further opportunity for these horses to present equestrian pageantry in both their assemblage to receive the Duke and in their “military movement” (which could mean anything from a simple procession to a heavily choreographed display of cavalry maneuvers). No further equine action is called for until scene 5 (although horses could certainly play background roles to add to the verisimilitude of scenes 3 and 4). In scene 5, the results of battle are seen in a parade of wounded and dying soldiers across the stage; these include a donkey pulling a cart and, more significantly, a “wounded Soldier, and horse, lame.” The inclusion of the single, injured equine soldier, along with his human counterpart, highlights the parallels between the equine and human soldier; both risk their lives in war and both suffer for it. Amherst’s inclusion of this image seems to indicate a desire to illustrate the horrors of war. The horse, an innocent victim of the violence of war, provides a powerful symbolic representation of the destructive power of war. Act 3 begins in the field and again shows the results of the preceding battle. The second scene finds Napoleon, without his hat, requesting that his staff keep “his horse at the ready.” The loss of the general’s famous hat illustrates his desperate state, and the need for his horse to be kept ready signals his need to be ready to flee, attack, or defend himself (and his troops) at a moment’s notice. The sounds of battle are heard in the distance. “A tremendous noise like the galloping of horse” is heard and signifies an imminent attack on the farm. French troops arrive, and prisoners are taken. Scene 4 opens with Napoleon ordering his men to “lead the horses to the Genappe road.” Again, the horses are essential to Napoleon’s defense. The play’s final scene takes place outside the farmhouse, with Waterloo visible in the distance. A detailed and violent battle ensues. Horses are not explicitly called for in the scene direction, but clearly could be utilized in this

104  Military Equestrian Drama

final battle scene and it seems clear that they were typically included in production; however, Amherst mentions only that “an ammunition waggon rides on [. . .] and when in the center of the stage a shell falls and strikes it. A dreadful explosion and crash.” Although even here no horse is mentioned, it is reasonable to assume that horses pull the wagon. It is also reasonable to assume that equine action was a feature of this final battle scene, as the horses employed in the previous scenes of action would have been available to perform in this final scene as well. It might be assumed that the inclusion of horses in this scene is so obvious that it need not be written. Horses would have increased both the spectacular effect and the realism of the final scene, and it is almost a given that they would be included. Despite the fact that Amherst’s written stage directions relating to the equine action are somewhat sparse (only the battle scene that concludes act 1 is described in enough detail to vividly imagine it), a clear picture of a spectacular military equestrian drama still emerges from this play, although imagination (and details from published advertisements and accounts of performance) must be used to fill in the blanks commonly found in the written texts of this and other equestrian dramas. It was in production, and with the assistance of an equestrian director, that the plays were fully realized. A description of one production of the play is found in an account published in volume 16 of The Knickerbocker: Or, New York Monthly Magazine.15 Herein the author describes the effects of the recent renovations at the Bowery on the production of equestrian drama, using The Battle of Waterloo as an example: On entering the boxes, the first alteration that attracts attention, was the removal of the equestrian ring to the stage; and before the first act of horsemanship was half over, we felt, in common with the spectators, that the improvement was a marked one. Every action, both of horse and rider, is visible to the whole house; and there is now no danger of the former “shying” from the applause or motions of the audience. The audience have often heretofore been incommoded by the dust of the arena. This cannot now occur. [. . .] The equestrian portion of the performance passed off with great spirit; and in an incredibly short space of time, the stage resumed its usual appearance. A military overture, arranged by MAEDER, introduced the new military spectacle of the BATTLE OF WATERLOO, the chief attraction of the evening. It was known that great labor and expense had been incurred in the production of this new drama, and the public curiosity was highly excited. [. . .] We were shortly afterward introduced to a specimen of war on a larger scale; the march of the French army, cavalry, infantry, and artillery, with drums beating and colors flying, on their way to attack the Prussians under Blucher. CHARLES MASON, in feature a fac simile of Bonaparte and whose dress and appearance cannot be too highly extolled, enters on horseback

Military Equestrian Drama 105

as the emperor NAPOLEON [. . .] The last scene of the first act, is the Bridge of Marchienne, occupied by the Prussians, and assaulted by the French infantry, who are in turn charged by the Black Brunswick Hussars [. . .] In the second act [. . .] the Battle of Quatre-Bras; the field of rye in which the Highland Forty-second form the hollow square, the destruction of the farm-house by shells, and several effective charges of the French heavy dragoons and lancers of the guard, who trample down men and grain alike, to the manifest delight of the audience. [. . .] The third act presents an effective scene between Napoleon and his wounded soldiers, [. . .] Wellington and Blucher embrace each other on the field of battle, and the curtain falls, amidst the waving of Dutch, Prussian, and English flags. [. . .] The house has been fashionably attended each night; and it is evident that the liberal manager is reaping the reward his enterprise so justly deserves. The Battle of Waterloo was Amherst’s most successful equestrian drama, but he also wrote a number of other plays. Napoleon Bonaparte’s Invasion of Russia, or the Conflagration of Moscow

Another Amherst military equestrian drama is Napoleon Bonaparte’s Invasion of Russia, or the Conflagration of Moscow. Debuting at Astley’s on Easter Monday, 4 April 1825, this play featured various examples of equestrian action. The American debut of the play is most accurately dated to early February 1841. Odell reports, as part of a longer entry about equestrian drama in general this season, that on 8 February 1841, “a pretentious offering gladdened the purlieus of the Bowery.” This was the Bowery’s production of The Invasion of Russia, or, the Conflagration of Moscow, which Odell tells us “concluded ‘with a dioramic view of Moscow in flames’ that must have lighted up the darkest nights of the theatrical year.”16 The description of scenes preceding the main text of the written script for this play includes various locations and scenes ranging from the fairly innocuous (“Exterior of a Russian Cottage”) to the theatrical (“A Wind and Snow Storm”) to the truly spectacular (“Moscow in Flames!” and “Wild Charge of the Cossacks!”). Horses figure in the play in various scenes, but their action throughout is dedicated primarily to the enhancement of the spectacle. Descriptions of equine action, as in The Battle of Waterloo, are limited in Amherst’s written text. There are no notable scenes of individualized action and no major symbolic uses of the horse, save those that present horses in battle scenes and those related representations of horses as innocent victims of the violence of war. Some horses (and humans) are, for example, directed to be “dead” throughout the play. As the finale approaches, a soldier in the penultimate scene enters and reports that his horse has “expired.” The French characters onstage quickly

106  Military Equestrian Drama

decide to eat him. The soldier exits and returns with “a remnant of his horse,” but the French are prevented from actually consuming anything when the Russians and Cossacks fire upon them. The play concludes with a final battle in which horses are not explicitly called for, but can be safely presumed to have been included: The ragged and desolate remains of the French endeavor to rally; but, frozen and perishing, they can scarcely stand to their colours. A sudden yell of the Cossaks is heard, and they are furiously attack’d. A powder-magazine is blown up—hundreds perish. The Cossacks enter—perform their wild evolutions, and trample life out of the feeble French soldiery. BEAUHARNOIS makes a last and grand attack, but is defeated. The Golden Cross of Russia is elevated; and the Flag of France laid low. This spectacular conclusion was typical for a military equestrian drama, as the most common ending for such plays was a big battle scene. Other Military Equestrian Dramas

Chevy Chase: or, The Battle of the Borders, A Grand Equestrian Spectacle in Three Acts by C. A. Somerset was first produced at Astley’s Royal Amphitheatre, but the dates of the first performance there, and in America, are unclear. I have found only a partially extant script and find in it that the play features numerous spectacular settings.17 Numerous examples of equine action are also found throughout the play, including various entrances and exits on horseback and, of course, scenes of mounted combat. Chevy Chase concludes in spectacular fashion, with a battle scene that ends with “a grand warlike tableaux.” In February 1837, another spectacular equestrian entertainment, but probably not a fully formed equestrian drama, was announced to be enacted in New York, Grand Equestrian Spectacle—Greek Patriots and Their Turkish Oppressors, or, the Death Struggle for a Nation’s Freedom, with new and appropriate scenery, dresses, music, properties, banners, bannerets, suits of armour, weapons of warfare, [. . .] a splendid stud of horses, camels, dromedaries, elephant and zebras. Odell describes the performance as “an orgy of spectacular production.”18 The ongoing production of military spectacles with horses illustrates the focus of the form on spectacle over fully formed drama complete with dialogue and character development. The Battle of the Alma (Figure 5.1) is yet another play of this type. It is probably best remembered as the production illustrating a famous mid-nineteenth-century advertisement from Astley’s Amphitheatre. This image illustrates the production style at Astley’s, utilizing both the ring and stage.

Military Equestrian Drama 107

Figure 5.1 Poster: The Battle of the Alma, 1854 Credit: “HEW 14.4.1, Houghton Library, Harvard University”

Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76

A more distinctly American equestrian military drama is found in Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76 (also billed as Putnam! The Iron Son of ’76 and Putnam: or, the Iron Son of ‘76), a national military drama written by N. H. (Nathaniel

108  Military Equestrian Drama

Harrington) Bannister. Bannister was a prolific playwright and the author of numerous popular plays. The premier of Putnam was almost certainly at the Bowery Theatre in New York in early August 1844, with the play most likely debuting on 5 August and running for “seventy-eight consecutive nights.”19 There is some question of whether the published script is exactly that of the drama originally performed, but this is not unusual for plays of this era and certainly not unusual for equestrian drama, the heart of which was often in the production and not the written script. On 24 August 1844, The Anglo American reported, BOWERY THEATRE—A very capitol hit has been made at this house in the production of a piece called “Putnam! The Iron Son of ’76,” the subject may be easily understood from the title, but the main incident, that of a miraculous feat by his horse is the feature which gives the extraordinary popularity it enjoys. Crowds nightly flock to watch this piece, and it is likely to have as great a run as the far-famed “Mazeppa.” [. . .] CHATHAM THEATRE—Here also, as at the Bowery, “Putnam” is the lion of the day; but though the titles are similar, the structure of the drama was somewhat different; in fact, the two “Putnams” may say of each other “another yet the same.” But the name itself was attraction enough to the audience, and each of the theatres enjoyed its full share of popularity and profit.20 On 19 October, The Anglo American published another announcement saying that the play was still running. Yet another announcement is found in the 8 October 1844 edition of the Morning Courier and New-York Enquirer, which states, UNPARALLED SUCCESS!—2ND Night of the TENTH WEEK of the National Drama of PUTNAM! Or,The Iron Son of ’76! The Box Book will be open at 10 A.M. every day, for the purpose of securing places to witness, PUTNAM, which piece will be acted every evening during the week.21 Despite all of the evidence for a 5 August 1844 American debut, the Samuel French edition of the written script indicates (almost certainly wrongly) the later opening date of 1845 and gives a “CAST OF CHARACTERS, As Originally Produced at the Bowery Theatre, New York, 1845.”22 Despite the discrepancy of dates, it is clear that the premiere production of Putnam occurred at the Bowery, in either 1844 or 1845, and featured a horse named “Black Vulture,” who was famous enough at the time to be mentioned by name in numerous advertisements for the play. Black Vulture seems to be a New York attraction though, as the horse is not found mentioned in the announcements for other productions, including the next, which is for the 1845 production opening on 3 January in Boston.23 The written script for Putnam includes detailed costume descriptions for both “Indians” and “English,” as well as “goddesses.” The opening scene directions

Military Equestrian Drama 109

do not include horses, but they do serve to provide a sense of the spectacular nature of the piece in performance: Slow music. Three quarters dark. Ethereal firmament, filled with silver stars, 1 and 2 G. Eagle flying in the air, to ascend, looking down upon a lion, couchant, on trap, C. 1 G., to descend.The goddesses discovered in various groups, bearing blue wands with silver stars. God of War on L. 1 G., on small Roman chariot, to descend. Goddess of Liberty on trap, R. H., in small Roman chariot, to descend. Despite the fantastical nature of this opening scene, Putnam (Figure 5.2) is a military play and, like The Battle of Waterloo and others of this type, it is (somewhat) historical as well; although the scene described earlier indicates otherwise, most of the action throughout the play was conducted in realistic settings. The play includes real characters from history, including General G. Washington and General Cornwallis, as well as the title character, who is based on the American Revolutionary General, Israel Putnam. The life and legend of Putnam’s life provides the equestrian (and general) high point of the play. This is the scene dramatizing Putnam’s “Horseneck escape,” which occurred in late February 1779. As legend holds it, although there are various accounts, all agree that Putnam was surprised while shaving in his room at a Tavern in Horseneck, Connecticut, on the morning of 25 or 26 February by the approach of British troops. Leaping onto his horse, Putnam took off at a gallop and continued to urge his horse forward, even when they reached a sharp precipice. Here the famous event occurred: Putnam and his brave steed bounded over the edge and made the treacherous descent down the steep downward face of the cliff on a series of rough stone steps put in place for those wishing to ascend slowly on foot, not descend at full gallop on horseback. It is said that not a single British cavalryman dared follow Putnam, and thus his escape was made. Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76 features equestrian action throughout, beginning with the opening scene in which Clara Putnam is interrupted while saying good-bye to William (a soldier leaving for battle) when her uncle, Major Putnam, enters on horseback, pursued by “Renegade and Indians.” He rushes in, leaps a gate, and falls “covered in blood.” A scuffle ensues with gunfire, and the scene ends with British soldiers appearing on the ridge and firing. The next scene finds William a prisoner of the “Indians” and includes specific equine action (requiring a capable horse) as Putnam’s horse not only spectacularly leaps a fallen tree, but does so while bearing both Putnam and Clara. As the play progresses, Putnam (and others) are found on horseback in various scenes. The “horseneck escape” scene is not explicitly described in the written script, but can be assumed to have included equestrian action under the direction of the equestrian manager. Horses are presented as cavalry mounts in battle scenes and in “wild” settings in scenes featuring “Indian” characters. General George Washington is directed to appear onstage on horseback and “at his horse’s head” while making a speech. Characters ride on and off the stage. A “wild” landscape populated with “Indians” is depicted. When Putnam

Figure 5.2  Putnam Credit: Library of Congress

Military Equestrian Drama 111

and Clara return, they dash on, “pursued by Indians.” Act 2 opens in “a wild country” and again features a horse early on, with Putnam directed to “sleep” on a horse. Act 3 opens with Washington “at his horse’s head” making a speech. After this, he mounts his horse and the scene closes. Scene 3 features Putnam on horseback and concludes with him riding off. Scene 5 is set in a wild rocky country and, again, features Putnam on horseback. In scene 6, troops enter, including General Washington on his “White Charger.” The final scene depicts a battle between the American and English, and concludes with “the British forces defeated, and Americans triumphant.” Notable productions of Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76 include the premiere production at the Bowery, as well as a revival produced beginning on 11 February 1850, also at the Bowery Theatre, which was then under the management of Mr. Hamblin. Ireland reports that Mr. Derr and his horse Abd el Kader starred.24 Ireland also reports that, later that year, on 30 May, in a production of Putnam at the Bowery, “Mr. J.M. Cooke, who, by an accident happening to the scaffolding on which he descended on horseback, had the misfortune to have his horse killed and his arm broken.”25 The play enjoyed continued popularity throughout the 1850s, with Sands, Nathan & Co.’s equestrian troupe performing it at the Broadway Theatre during the 1858–1859 season, along with ring performances and a number of other equestrian pieces. Ireland reports that this production of Putnam opened on 8 January 1859, and Brown tells us it “was produced on Jan. 10.”26 An advertisement for the production appeared in the NewYork Herald on 10 January 1859. After this time, the production of equestrian military dramas continued in America, as in England. The form did not equal the overall level of success of great equestrian melodramas such as Timour the Tartar, The Cataract of the Ganges, or Mazeppa, but the plays did enjoy popular success throughout the nineteenth century. As the twentieth century turned, the form enjoyed renewed popularity as military equestrian drama found its way to the stage of the New York Hippodrome. Here the productions were of the variety show format that had become popular; as such, they featured numerous scenes that could be related closely or only tangentially. Pre-existing plays were not presented here, instead original plays were developed and produced onstage in spectacular fashion.These often featured horses. Horses in Battle Onstage at the New York Hippodrome

A spectacular venue dubbed the New York Hippodrome opened on 12 April 1905 (Figure 5.3) under the management of Fred Thompson and Elmer S. Dundy. For eighteen years (1905–1923), the Hippodrome (sometimes known as the “New York Hip,” and sometimes just as “the Hip”) served as the unrivaled home of theatrical spectacle in the United States.27 Covering a full New York City block, the east side of Sixth Avenue between Forty-Third and Forty-Fourth Streets, this great theatre provided a new home for spectacular dramatic presentations featuring horses, along with virtually every other type of stage spectacle imaginable. The Hippodrome’s huge stage focused on the visual elements of its productions that were designed to attract

112  Military Equestrian Drama

Figure 5.3 The New York Hippodrome, 1905

and entertain large audiences of diverse constituency.The opening of the stage’s massive proscenium arch was 98 feet wide and 37 feet high. The stage itself was 200 feet wide and 110 feet deep.28 The interior and exterior of the theatre were elaborately designed and decorated and the theatre seated an audience of 5,200 people.29 Everything at the Hippodrome was designed to be “big.” The first production at the New York Hippodrome opened on 12 April 1905. It consisted of two distinct spectacles: A Yankee Circus on Mars and Andersonville, A Story of Wilson’s Raiders (later shortened to The Raiders).30  The Circus included bareback riding and other equestrian feats, and The Raiders was a military play featuring horses in various roles, most notably in the climactic scene in which the writer for the New York Times observed, “Realism runs riot.”31 In a later interview printed in the New York Times, Fred Thompson described this scene as “the acme of scene setting,” and reported: In the foreground is the raging Southern mountain stream, crossed by a bridge at the very foot of a precipitous waterfall, fed by pumps with a capacity of 4,000 gallons per minute. The battle takes place between two bodies of cavalry, and during the course of the fight the bridge is blown up and the men and horses thrown into the water.32

Military Equestrian Drama 113

The production closed on 1 July 1905 and reopened on 30 August 1905, running through October when The Raiders closed again and was replaced by The Romance of the Hindoo [sic] Princess, which also featured horses enacting a battle scene. On 6 January 1908, a new military spectacle entitled The Battle of Port Arthur: A Historical Spectacle in Two Scenes opened. Here mounted “Cossacks” rode into an onstage prison compound to distribute food and did not leave until they had completed an “exhibition of fancy riding.”33 A spectacular battle between Russian and Japanese troops concluded with the famous plunging horses. The New York Times review cited the numerous appearances of the horses as the high points of the show and reported, “The sons of Nippon followed their sun flag through fire, while the Cossacks on their horses followed the path of safety through the water of the Hippodrome tank.”34 The Battle of Port Arthur ran for a total of over 450 performances and closed on 23 May 1908.35 The next military equestrian drama came on 6 March 1911, with the opening of Marching Through Georgia. The tri-part spectacle featured horses in scenes drawn from the American Civil War and ran until 13 May 1911. The climactic scene of Marching Through Georgia featured the Union troops seemingly stranded when the retreating Confederate soldiers destroyed the only bridge across the Savannah River. The Union forces build a pontoon bridge of their own design over the water. After this bridge has been completed, in real time and before the eyes of the audience, the entire Union complement of men, artillery, and horses march over it.36 Although the New York Hippodrome continued to produce stage spectacles for another decade, this was the last of the theatre’s great presentations of military equestrian drama.

Conclusions on Equestrian Military Dramas The equestrian military dramas capitalize on the actual and symbolic associations of horses in battle and captivate audiences with dynamic onstage presentations featuring horses, often in large numbers. Horses were employed in these plays both as individualized characters and as contributors to spectacle and verisimilitude in large spectacular scenes.The inclusion of horses in military dramas enhances the plays in many ways and primarily by providing an excellent means by which to create the realistic atmosphere of battle. In critical scenes, horses function as metaphors for the suffering of war.

Notes 1. An example of their work as mounts for allied forces fighting in some areas of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks is memorialized in the 18-foot-tall bronze America’s Response Monument (subtitled “De Oppresso Liber” and unofficially known as the “Horse Soldier” statue) that was installed outside the PATH train station near ground zero at the World Trade Center in New York City in 2012. The monument is the work of Douwe Blumberg and was completed in 2011. Information on the monument is currently available through the 9/11 Memorial and Museum website. More information is

114  Military Equestrian Drama available from the U.S. Cavalry Memorial Research Library at P.O. Box 2325 Fort Riley, Kansas, 66442–0325, and by contacting the artist directly at Douwe Studios.These forces are also depicted and dramatized in Horse Soldiers:The Extraordinary Story of a Band of U.S. Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan and the 2018 film adaptation, Twelve Strong. 2. Homer, The Iliad, 17:426. 3. Odell, 2:179–180. 4. An early example of such an entertainment is found in an announcement from September 1791 for a performance of “The Victorious Tars, or, The South Sea Islands,” which is advertised to be presented at Astley’s Amphitheatre featuring “several combats.” Wikimedia Commons. 5. Ireland, 2:199. 6. Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, p. 152. 7. Brown, 1:99. 8. Odell, 3:351. 9. Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, p. 156. 10. Odell, 4:474. In this discussion of The Battle of Waterloo, Odell also references the December 1840 issue of Knickerbocker Magazine as a resource for reading more about the Bowery Amphitheatre’s production of the play. 11. Brown, pp. 99–119. 12. Amherst, p. 1. 13. Saxon cites (Enter Foot and Horse, p. 168) a different version of the play: “J. H. Amherst, The Battle of Waterloo (London: Duncombe, n.d.) in Lacy’s Acting Edition of Plays, Vol. 98.”There are some significant differences in the two scripts and I am noting them here: Saxon notes that the play debuted at Astley’s on “19 April 1824.” The script as printed in Dicks’ Standard Plays includes a note that it was “first Produced at Astley’s Theatre, Easter Monday, 1824.” Saxon cites Mrs. Makeen as having played the character Phedora. Dicks’ lists that role as played by Miss Huddart. Saxon cites Ducrow as having played the Duke of Brunswick. Dicks’ lists that role as played by Mr. Smith. Saxon (p. 154) refers to a specific line in Wellington’s speech in act 2: “We must not be beaten, guards, or what will they say at home?” In Dicks’ (p. 8), this line reads, “England expects much; no one is here, I trust, who would not rather die than disappoint his native country’s hope.” More significantly, Saxon states (p. 154) that after Wellington’s speech, “the Battle of Quatre Bras was fought.” In Dicks’ (p. 8), Wellington’s speech is followed by a “grand movement and exit.” Also, Saxon quotes (p. 155) the character of Wellington referring directly to the Battle of Waterloo in Act 3: “Altho’ I feel assured of winning this battle, from the steady bravery of my troops, yet to win such a battle as this of Waterloo, at the expense of so many gallant friends, cou’d only be esteemed a heavy misfortune, were it not for its important results to the public benefit.”This passage does not appear in Dicks’. A review in the April 1824 edition of Drama, or Theatrical Pocket Magazine refers to “a fire in an ammunition wagon.” Saxon cites (155) this and uses it to exemplify the fact that “not all of the incidents in the play are manifest in the printed directions.” However, this particular incident, although apparently missing from Lacey’s version of the play, is present in Dicks’ (p. 14):“An ammunition waggon [sic] rides on from L. H. 2e., and when in the centre of stage a shell falls and strikes it.” No other major discrepancies were found. It can be reasonably concluded that Dicks’ written text is an imperfect version, although the only one accessible to the researcher, and that a more complete understanding of the text in performance can be garnered from using it in conjunction with Lacey’s. I have therefore supplemented with information from secondary accounts of Lacey’s whenever necessary. 14. Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, p. 102. (This may have been explicitly scripted in the written version of the play to which Saxon refers; see the earlier note.) 15. The Knickerbocker,Vol. 16, 1840, pp. 546–547. 16. Odell, 4:475. 17. The script was identified as a full script, but was found to be missing pages. 18. Odell, 4:144–145.

Military Equestrian Drama 115 19. This is not specifically noted to be the American premiere, but no earlier reports are found. Of this production, Brown reports (1:121), “Putnam, or the Iron Son of ’76’ was presented here [at the Bowery theatre] Aug. 5, and ran for seventy-eight consecutive nights.”This premiere production of Putnam was produced by Thomas S. Hamblin, manager at the Bowery Theatre. Hamblin came to the United States from England, where he had been a dancer and actor, in 1825. He took over the management of the Bowery in 1830 and, in 1831, renamed the Bowery the “American Theatre, Bowery,” where he became a significant figure in the development of distinctly American drama, as he focused on producing the works of American playwrights, such as Bannister, who wrote more than 40 plays before dying in 1847 at the age of 34. 20. The Anglo American: A Journal of, Literature, News, Politics, The Drama, Fine Arts, Etc. Edited by A. D. Patterson. New York: E. L. Garvin and Co., 1844.Vol. 3, No. 18, p. 429. Google Books. 21. Wikimedia Commons. 22. The written script also provides additional cast lists for Nation, Boston, 1845; Federal St., Boston, 1847; and Bowery, New York, 1857. Bowery, New York, 1858; Holiday St., Baltimore, Maryland, 1859; and Broadway, New York, 1859. Accessed online at Google Play Books. 23. Boston Courier, 6 January 1845 (announcement ran again on 13th and 16th of January) America’s Historical Newspapers. 24. Ireland, 2:556. 25. Ireland, 2:578. 26. Ireland, 2:68 and Brown 1:411. 27. The first “hippodrome” in New York was the one established by and named for Franconi. Built in 1853 on Fifth Avenue and Twenty-Third Street, Franconi’s Hippodrome offered spectacular entertainments, including equestrian performance, but only lasted until 1856. (R. Waddell, “Moving Uptown: Nineteenth Century Views of Manhattan; Section IV including theatres and the Crystal Palace,” New York Public Library, January 1998, currently available through NYPL.org.) 28. Souvenir Book, p. 8. (Diagrams of the Hippodrome’s interior are reprinted in Epstein, 1:48.) 29. It is noted (Souvenir Book, p. 15) “the New York Hippodrome management has left nothing lacking for the comfort and pleasure of its patrons. It is ideally comfortable, and every one of its 5,200 seats commands a perfect view of the stage.” 30. The dates for this and other productions featured in this chronology are taken from Milton Epstein’s “Master Chronology.” Any discrepancies found in other sources regarding these dates will be noted. Furthermore, when a production is noted to “open” and “close” it should not be assumed that the production ran without interruption. Other events were held at the New York Hippodrome on certain nights during these runs, but the spectacles were the major offering of the Hip during that time period. 31. “Hippodrome’s Opening Seen by Thousands.” New York Times. 13 April 1905, p. 11. 32. New York Times. 29 January 1905, part 3, p. 5.This production is also discussed by Epstein, 1:51–96 and Clarke, 34–35, who describes the building and destruction of this bridge. 33. New York Dramatic Mirror. 18 January 1908, cited in Epstein, 1:191. 34. “War at the Hippodrome. Battle of Port Arthur Realistically Reproduced—Long Waits.” New York Times. Tuesday 7 January 1908, p. 7. (The “long waits” refer to the peacetime interludes between episodes of battle within the production that are described by the reviewer as too long, for example: “Then for fifteen full minutes there was peace, dreary, draughty peace, which the orchestra made several attempts to make cheerful—in vain.”) 35. Epstein, 1:194. 36. “Hippodrome Shows a New Pageant ‘Marching Through Georgia’ Depicts Southern Scenes and War Episodes.” New York Times. Tuesday 7 March 1911, p. 11. More information is found in Epstein, 1:253.

6 The Plays Frontier Equestrian Drama

The next, and most distinctly American, type of equestrian drama to premiere in the United States is the “frontier” or “border” drama. Because horses are central to the frontier world in which these plays are set, most of these plays include horses as part of the story line, but horses are not always scripted to appear onstage. When horses are present onstage, the plays are equestrian dramas. In order to best understand the significance of the horse to these plays, it is useful to first consider the significance of the horse within the larger culture and development of the United States. This is essential for understanding the frontier drama and the related form of the Wild West show, which is discussed in this chapter as it relates to representations of the horse in frontier drama and related forms.

Horses in the United States The horse in the United States holds the same actual and symbolic value that the horse does in Europe and other regions of the world, but in addition, distinctly “American” cultural associations and significance have also developed due to the pivotal role the horse played in the opening and development of the American frontier and cities. The resulting history of the horse in the United States is rich and complex. The narrative of the horse that has emerged has been embellished and mythologized in some ways, especially as it relates to the developing of the American West. This is a result of the importance of horses in the developing West, which infused the horse with additional and specific cultural associations, an understanding of which is an important component of understanding the functions of the horse in the American psyche, as well as in drama and theatres in the United States. Although horses performed many functions in the United States, the most distinctly American image of the horse (and the one which has proved the most prominent and enduring) is tied to images of the “American West” that originated in the early decades of the nineteenth century and which were bolstered in the 1840s (when the earliest wagon trains signaled the beginning of the great western movement). The development of these somewhat mythologized images of the horse and of the American West is illustrated by frontier dramas

Frontier Equestrian Drama 117

and the related equestrian entertainment, the Wild West show. Written scripts and performance texts from these forms exemplify a narrative stemming from the reality of the horse not only as a loyal working companion of early Americans but also as an essential element of a cowboy and frontier culture that, while based on reality, has been enhanced by manufactured myths of America and an “American West” that were created and promoted by American writers, artists, and performers.1 The most prominent manifestation of this mythology is that of the “American cowboy,” whose persona is inextricably linked with that of his horse and which has been mythologized and reinforced in fictions presented through drama, literature, visual art, and various media including radio, television, and film. This incarnation of the horse has been presented as the trusted and closest companion of the American cowboy. Although mythologized, this legend is significantly rooted in truth, especially in a few well-delineated segments of American history: the “horse culture” that developed among the native inhabitants of the American West (beginning as early as the sixteenth century and continuing through the late years of the nineteenth century), the cattle drives (which began in 1855 and continued through the difficult winter of 1887), the Pony Express (which operated from 1860–1861), and the general westward expansion of the United States by pioneering Americans (which occurred mainly from the 1840s through 1855 and then resumed again after the American Civil War in 1865).These are the four main sources of the mythology of the horse in the American West, and all of these play a significant role in the frontier drama and Wild West shows.2 Many Native American Indian tribes used working horses on a regular basis. Some utilized horses for hunting, while others used them for transportation, and still others put them to work in war; some did all three. The Plains Indians in particular were affected by the introduction of the horse, as the horse is suited to the topography of the plains region. Horses allowed the tribes to hunt buffalo successfully, which provided food and other resources, and to transport goods on something other than their own backs, which greatly increased their mobility. The horse helped the Native American cultures to thrive, especially during the “horse culture period,” which extended from the sixteenth through late nineteenth centuries.3 Another way horses functioned significantly within Native American culture is through their inclusion in the ceremonial activities and related pageantry of many Native American tribes throughout this historical period. Imagery from this period remains part of the American cultural consciousness today. Representations of Native Americans on horseback are prominent features of frontier drama and Wild West shows. These representations endured beyond these live equestrian entertainments and carried through into later television and film dramas. Horses also played an essential role in the large-scale cattle drives that began in 1866 and continued during much of the second half of the nineteenth century, when American entrepreneurs realized that by “driving” the plentiful

118  Frontier Equestrian Drama

cattle herds of Texas north and west to Illinois and California (most typically in order to get the cattle to transportation centers and, ultimately, slaughterhouses and meatpacking facilities), they could make a profit.These great “cattle drives” would have been impossible without the horse and his partner, the American cowboy. These “cowboys” who worked professionally on ranches and driving cattle from one place to another on horseback still exist (in greatly reduced numbers) today, but American cowboys experienced the peak of their usefulness during the mid- to late-nineteenth century, specifically flourishing from 1855, when the Texas Trail drives began, through the difficult winter of 1886– 1887. These two events, the Texas Trail drives and the winter of 1886–1887, bookend the most significant period of the American cowboy. The enduring image of the American cowboy and his horse, working together as partners as they cross the lonely and challenging terrain, contributes significantly to the symbolic interpretation of the horse as a loyal and trustworthy companion in equestrian dramas.The cowboy and horse also feature prominently as recurring or stock character types in frontier drama and the Wild West shows, as well as later on, in westerns on radio, film, and television. Another uniquely American use of the horse began in April 1860, with the origination of the Pony Express, which was created to facilitate the carrying of mail, and therefore the carrying of news, goods, and information. The horses and riders of the Pony Express covered a dangerous route, nearly 2,000 miles long, between Missouri and San Francisco over a ten-day period.4 Although it operated for less than two years (ceasing operations in October 1861), the Pony Express pioneered a route across the new country that would be used for years to come. It also helped buttress, both in history and in the American psyche, an image of equine speed, dependability, and bravery that still endures. Reenactments of Pony Express rides were popular features of many Wild West shows. The final root of the unique mythology of the horse in America lies in the great westward migration in the United States. This is divisible into two main phases. Phase one began in the 1840s and reached its peak in 1855 when more than 50,000 pioneers traveled west by wagon train, many fleeing the financial Panic of 1837, when banks closed and depression hit, causing many farmers to lose their farms. Numerous epidemics in the eastern and southern regions of the United States also fueled the migration, as people moved west in search of free land and a better life. The migration was interrupted by the Civil War (1861–1865). The second phase of the westward migration began shortly afterward, when people sought to escape the devastating effects of the war by leaving their homes and moving west. Horses did not serve alone during this phase; in fact, oxen and mules were utilized in greater numbers than horses during the actual migration (due to their ability to travel great distances, pulling heavy loads, without requiring the diet of heavy and expensive grain that horses did) and thus served most efficiently for the long and arduous journey, but horses also made the trip in great numbers and were in heavy use during this phase of the westward migration. Once settlers reached their western destinations, horses became their primary

Frontier Equestrian Drama 119

means of transportation. These hardworking horses bolstered the image of the horse not only as a loyal and trustworthy companion but also reinforced the powerful image of the horse as a facilitator of the transportation of goods and people. These motifs prevail throughout the nineteenth century in equestrian drama and, even more prominently, in the frontier drama and Wild West shows. While horses were also essential contributors to the development and everyday functioning of virtually all parts of America, often working in farming and transportation in the northern, eastern, and southern United States just as in the west, this “western” horse is the most ubiquitous and enduring image of the horse in the United States. These images of the horse contributed to a shared “idea” of America and are central to the notion of the American West, as well as to the development and popularity of frontier drama.5 Roger A. Hall in Performing the American Frontier, 1870–1906 describes the nature of frontier drama: With the immediacy that only live theatre can offer, these productions not only told stories of the border, but also showed them taking place. Here was Jesse James’ horse escaping through the window of a house—the actual sights, sounds, and smells. Here—live on stage—was a frontier marksman shooting through the rope of an innocent man about to be hanged. Here were a horse and rider plunging from a bridge as it collapsed twenty feet above the stage floor.6 Frontier dramas did not always include real horses onstage, but most of them included scenes in which horses could be included in production; when they were, the plays became equestrian dramas. The play productions that did not feature real horses still almost always included the “idea” of horses as an essential element of frontier life and, therefore, are significant illustrations of how essential horses were becoming to the national identity of many Americans and provide significant representations (and contributions to the development) of characters and acts essential to the mythologized American West. These plays were especially instrumental in helping to establish the stock character of the uniquely American “frontier hero.” This character would be essential not only to frontier drama, but also to the development and popularity of the Wild West Show (along with that of the later “western” genre of film, television, and radio). The frontier drama, a form of melodrama that focused on the established and still emerging myths and legends of the American West, was seen as early as 1831, when the first significant manifestation of the frontier hero in theatre is generally accepted to have appeared in an April 1831 production of James Kirke Paulding’s play, The Lion of the West, or a Trip to Washington. The play became quite popular and remained in frequent production for two decades.7 Paulding’s distinctly American character is Nimrod Wildfire, the protagonist of the play and a heroic “backwoodsman” character who is based on Davy Crockett.8 Crockett, like Buffalo Bill and Jesse James, who were also dramatized in

120  Frontier Equestrian Drama

frontier plays, was an actual person who grew to mythologized proportions in the legends of the American West, gaining such widespread popularity that they became “household names” in America. Lion of the West (and later frontier plays) contributed to the public’s familiarity with frontier heroes in various ways, including by presenting them in recognizable frontier garb and having them use a distinct dialect. As Michael Wallis says, in David Crockett:The Lion of the West: The Paulding play was replete with backwoods lingo and bastardized words that, over time, several sources erroneously attributed to Crockett. He did in fact use much of the slang, idioms and sayings of the time in his daily lexicon and various writings, but he did not coin the more colorful words uttered by Nimrod Wildfire, such as catawumpus, jubus, tetotaciously, exflunctified, gullywhumping, flutterbation, and the popular ripsnorter.”9 The details of the frontier character were carefully crafted and methodically reinforced in order to create a sense of authenticity in frontier drama. Although this “authenticity” was not always genuine, it became familiar enough to feel like it was. Despite the popularity of The Lion of the West, frontier drama remained a fairly minor genre until about 40 years after its 1831 debut. At that point in the development of America, a number of factors combined to help develop and spread the shared characters and ideas that were prominent in frontier drama. During the 1860s, construction of the Transcontinental Railroad was completed, and great progress was made on the development of the transcontinental telegraph cable. As a result of these advances, both long-distance travel and communication within the United States became more accessible. News could be transmitted instantly, long distances could be covered relatively rapidly, and around this time, both newspapers and “dime novels” became more readily available throughout the country. All of these factors helped open the American frontier and encouraged the spreading of stories about larger-than-life frontier characters who rapidly gained popularity with readers around the country. The still relatively unknown and “new” theatrical genre of frontier drama (sometimes known as “border drama”) combined a melodramatic style with legendary plots and characters from the new frontier. As Kato Buss explains in Cowboy Up: Evolution of the Frontier Hero in American Theatre, 1872–1903, If the popular theatre of 1850s whispered at an ideology of heroic melodrama to come, [. . .] then frontier melodrama of the 1870s, was shouting in the halls. Border plays gave the audience what it wanted: action-packed displays of frontier life, featuring genuine heroes, horses, guns, and outlaws from the west.10

Frontier Drama In March of 1870 a “western” play called Kit, the Arkansas Traveler was presented at the Walnut Street Theatre in Philadelphia, which had been established as a

Frontier Equestrian Drama 121

significant home to equestrian drama earlier in the nineteenth century. The melodramatic play presented the story of a resourceful farmer who must rescue his family after they are kidnapped. The play’s depiction of key elements that became associated with western life make it significant as an early example of the frontier drama, which would develop into a popular form that would make significant use of the horse in various roles, both realistic and symbolic. It was followed by the New York debut of Oliver Doud Byron’s play Across the Continent, which Odell says also occurred in 1870, reporting that “another of those sensational frontier melodramas, now becoming so popular, started a career of success at Niblo’s.” Odell continues, saying the play had been “seen previously at Mrs. Conway’s Park Theatre and at Wood’s Museum” and that on 13 March 1871 it was “a great success.”11 The play featured a spectacular final act, in which a locomotive appeared on stage and the hero thwarted an attack on his family by a tribe of “Piegan Indians.”12 Another significant early play in the development of frontier drama as a distinct genre of American theatre is Davy Crockett; or, Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead. A melodrama that most likely debuted in New York in September 1872, this play was written by Frank Murdoch and, more notably, starred Frank Mayo as Davy Crockett.13 An extant script is not found, but Davy Crockett became popular in the United States (after a slow start and numerous ongoing revisions throughout its existence). It helped cement the identity of the frontier hero and the genre of frontier drama. The character of Davy Crockett, the “frontier hero” of the play, significantly fulfills the requirements of his type in a few ways, notably through excellent hunting skills (attested to early in the play by reports of his having killed a bear), a reputation as a “frontier hero” that has already spread and which precedes him onto the stage (evidenced by the bear story), a powerful and commanding voice, along with an imposing physical presence suitable for life on the frontier (demonstrated by the actor in the title role, mainly through robust delivery of dialogue and recognizable costuming), and a clear understanding of right and wrong (established early and cemented by the character’s actions throughout the play). All of these characteristics also serve to provide a degree of authenticity (or perceived authenticity) to characters of this type and to the play as a frontier drama. Odell reports that Davy Crockett; or, Be SureYou’re Right,Then Go Ahead played numerous other times in New York during the 1872–1874 seasons, referring to the “epidemic of border drama” and devoting a full page to an 1874 production: After having been seen at Wood’s Museum and in Brooklyn, that very fine drama of the American Frontier, Frank Murdoch’s Davy Crockett, came to the attention of more fastidious playgoers on March 9th, when Frank Mayo brought it to Niblo’s and at once established his portrait of the brave pioneer as one of the gems of the American theatre of that day. [. . .] the charm of Mayo’s acting and the beauty of what the bills truly called Murdoch’s “charming backwoods idyl” carried Davy Crockett continuously to April 18.14

122  Frontier Equestrian Drama

The play continued to play with popular success throughout the nineteenth century, with Frank Mayo’s son Edwin sometimes playing Davy Crockett.

Buffalo Bill Cody in Frontier Drama Another significant figure in the development of frontier drama (and later the Wild West show) is William “Buffalo Bill” Cody. Cody was a legendary buffalo hunter and horseman. He rode for the Pony Express and as part of the cavalry fighting in the Civil War. He was also an active self-promoter. In late 1869, a “dime novel” written by Ned Buntline and entitled Buffalo Bill, King of the Border Men featured Cody as the central character. Two years later, the novel was adapted for the stage by Fredrick G. Maeder. Cody was in the audience when the play opened in February 1872 in New York at the Bowery Theatre. It was an immediate success and ran for six weeks. Although based on real people and events, Buffalo Bill, King of the Border Men can be described as only loosely historical. In Hall’s words, “Maeder’s play demonstrates how a writer could employ actual frontier incidents as the germ for a play, but then wrench those incidents into an unrecognizable conglomeration.”15 Despite its historical inaccuracies, audiences embraced the Buffalo Bill character so enthusiastically that Ned Buntline was inspired to develop a follow-up play that would star Cody playing himself onstage. This idea may have originated on the opening night of Buffalo Bill, King of the Border Men, which Buntline had attended with Cody, whom the theatre manager recognized and invited to address the audience; it was an invitation that Cody is reported to have enthusiastically accepted. The resulting play, Scouts of the Prairie, debuted to mixed critical reactions in Chicago in late December 1872. A third Buffalo Bill play, The Red Right Hand; or, Buffalo Bill’s First Scalp for Custer, focused on a dramatized retelling of a real conflict from the Great Sioux War of 1876. In November 1873, Scouts of the Plains opened in New York. The play did not always include horses, but sometimes did.16 Study of the plays in which Cody appeared is limited by the lack of extant scripts, but the reports of the plays in production provide details. The plays themselves remain significant for introducing Cody as a character and actor in the American theatre. He did not find a long-time home here, but it did provide the necessary experience and inspiration for his later theatrical collaboration with Steele MacKaye, The Drama of Civilization, as well as for the Wild West shows Cody developed (both of which are discussed later in the chapter). Before turning to these productions though, examination of another significant frontier drama is appropriate. Jesse James, the Bandit King

The next frontier play to premiere is the most significant in terms of equestrian drama; this is Jesse James, the Bandit King (the title of which is often shortened to The Bandit King). Written by James McCloskey, produced by S. H. Barrett, and starring James H. Wallick, this play was one of numerous dramas about James

Frontier Equestrian Drama 123

that emerged soon after his death; it remains the most successful and significant of the bunch. Hall records that the play debuted on 29 January 1883 at the Lee Avenue Academy of Music in New York and was successfully performed for many years, and with revivals as late as 1902.17 The Bandit King is a significant equestrian frontier drama. No extant script for the play is found, but accounts of performances provide a good understanding of the play. The play in production featured two real horses that ­Wallick claimed had previously belonged to Jesse James (who had been murdered in 1882). The truth of this claim is impossible to determine, but evidence supports the conclusion that Wallick had indeed attained the horses, named Bay Raider and Roan Charger, from Jesse James’ estate. Whether or not they were James’ main, favorite, or last horses, as advertising implied, is unclear. The public was fascinated by the perceived authenticity of the horses, and they were a major focus of both the advertising for and the popular reaction to the play. As Buss states, “Nearly all of the available source material on Jesse James, the Bandit King mentions the performing horses: Bay Raider and Roan Charger.”18 On 8 February 1883, soon after the play opened, an announcement ran in the New York Herald describing the play as follows: THE GREATEST SENSATION OF THE AGE The original melodramatic and equestrian drama, JESSE JAMES THE BANDIT KING INTRODUCING THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY HORSES IN THE POSSSESSION OF JESSE JAMES AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, BAY RAIDER AND ROAN CHARGER, the most wonderful animal actors on earth. They Pick Pockets, Tear Down Bills, Shake Hands with Friends, Drink at the Bar, &c.19 Many of these actions are depicted in a poster advertising the play and were performed onstage by the real horses acting in the play (Figure 6.1). The Herald reported on the play again in August, relating, “The horses that, it is said, belonged to Jesse James, played a prominent part in some of the scenes, and did their work very cleverly and more than once brought down the house.”20 On 4 March 1885, the play was still enjoying popular success and the New York Times reported, “The two horses, Bay Charger and Roan Charger, figure extensively in the stirring scenes of the play, and perform their parts with much more intelligence than the majority of the human actors.” The play was produced at Niblo’s Gardens, New York in 1886. It was described in the New York Times as “a sensational piece [. . .] in which Mr. J.H. Wallick sustains the principal character, assisted by two intelligent horses.”21 Odell also reports on the production, saying, “The thrills on February 8 were provided by J. H. Wallick, in the Bandit King, with a bowie-knife combat on horseback, a quartet of acting horses—Charger, Raider, Texas and Arabian Jim, and an Irish donkey, Calamity Jane.”22

Figure 6.1 Poster: Jesse James, the Bandit King Credit: Jesse James, the Bandit King theatre poster, HSP theatre posters collection [V06], call number: V6–0857

Frontier Equestrian Drama 125

The popularity of the play, and its horses, endured for years, as a related account from a review of the 1902 revival of the play, in the New York Dramatic Mirror, illustrates: After all of the time that Mr. Wallick has had during this period in preparing and training the horses that are used in this play, [he] has brought them to that state of perfection where their work is really remarkable. The horses are of as much importance as the human actors, for without them the play could not be given. Mr.Wallick is undoubtedly the greatest trainer of horses for stage purposes in the world.23 The horses were a major attraction and focal point within the play; the plot and human characters are also relevant. Without an extant script, it is impossible to examine these elements in great detail, but it is clear that the main focus of The Bandit King is on the life of Jesse James as he is portrayed onstage by ­Wallick in the role of the protagonist “Joe Howard” (aka Jesse James). Joe/ Jesse is a Robin Hood type of character, turned by the unfair circumstances of his life into a well-intentioned “bandit.” Howard/James faces multiple melodramatically drawn villains and horrible circumstances (based in degrees of accuracy on real-life figures and occurrences) throughout the play, beginning with those who murder his mother in the first act and inspire his quest for vengeance. The horses figure most prominently toward the play’s conclusion. As Buss describes it, The Bandit King is finally cornered by Sharpleigh and Kansas Jake in a deserted tavern on the outskirts of town. At the moment of his impending capture, Howard’s horse jumps through a window and rescues his rider. Upon their escape, the horse tears a wanted poster from the tavern wall, which advertises a $10,000 reward for the capture of Howard: Dead or Alive. The amount and conditions of the reward in the play are the same as the actual reward placed on Jesse James in 1881. The fifth act features “the great duel on horseback, the weapons are bowie knives, and the duel is thrilling.”24 The use of horses within The Bandit King is significant. Horses were also featured prominently in advertisements for the play throughout its long production history. James’ horses in the play not only perform significant actions; they are also developed as individualized characters who are recognizable to the audience both as characters in the play and actors known by name (Bay Raider and Roan Charger) outside the theatre. Following the debut of The Bandit King, a new form of equestrian entertainment emerged. This was the Wild West show. Due to the close relatedness of the Wild West show to the equestrian frontier drama, and to the essential nature of horses to the Wild West show, the form merits a concise investigation within this study.

126  Frontier Equestrian Drama

Wild West Shows The Wild West show emerged as a distinctly identifiable form with the first performance of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West (Figure 6.2) in Omaha, Nebraska, on 19 May 1883. The Wild West show became a distinct form of which there are many examples. Cody’s is the main example cited here for a few reasons: because it is first; because it built on and was, to a degree, an extension of, Cody’s work in frontier drama featuring horses on the theatrical stage; and because the show was adapted and produced as an equestrian drama in 1886. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West, and other Wild West shows, developed from earlier forms, including frontier drama, into vibrant outdoor “open-air” performances that viscerally depicted life on the American Plains or “frontier” (which promoters warned was fast disappearing).25 Advertised as riveting entertainments that were also “living history lessons,” Wild West shows were marketed toward and attended by people of all ages. The form delivered its “education” through performances that were greatly enlivened by the presence and performance of horses. The Wild West show, like the frontier drama, developed within the United States, based on distinctively American figures and experiences, and for presentation before American audiences (although major companies also toured Europe). The Wild West show presents a narrative of life in the American West that unfolds episodically. It has elements of theatre, but also of circus, and is not a “play” in the traditional sense. It may feature narration, or even dialogue, but it lacks a detailed written script, and the performance relies primarily on the enactment of a series of action-based scenes. As Joy S. Kasson describes it in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West: Celebrity, Memory, and Popular History, Buffalo Bill’s Wild West brought an enormously successful performance spectacle to audiences throughout the United States and Europe between 1883 and 1916. With its demonstrations of skills such as riding, roping, and shooting and its dramatic narratives like “The Attack on the Deadwood Stagecoach” and historical re-enactments like “Custer’s Last Stand,” it blurred the lines between fact and fiction, entertainment and education. [. . .] The performers’ enacted memories of the “real” West were always intermingled with spectators’ memories of the West as it had been portrayed for years in literature, art, and popular culture.26 The Wild West show relies mainly on familiar characters and incidents from history, along with mythologized interpretations of them, to present the story of the “Wild West” to the audience. Although there were many different Wild West shows throughout the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, the most familiar and significant figure contributing to the development of the Wild West show is Buffalo Bill Cody. Cody had made significant contributions to the development of the frontier drama and his work there, and his inclusion in related published stories

Credit: Buffalo Bill Center of the West, Cody, Wyoming, U.S.A.; p. 69.1878

Figure 6.2 Poster: Buffalo Bill’s Wild West

128  Frontier Equestrian Drama

meant that his name and persona were familiar to American audiences by the 1880s. Like frontier dramas, Wild West shows are recognizable by their inclusion of identifiable “frontier” characters, most notably a frontier hero. Cody provided the embodiment of this stock character in his own person. This leading frontier character was supported by other indispensable elements of the Wild West show, including Native Americans (often advertised as and portrayed by “real Indians”), expert marksmen/women (both wing and sharp shooters), cowboys (and sometimes cowgirls), and animals including cattle, buffalo, and horses. Cody portrayed himself in the show and advertised this as part of his campaign of authenticity, which extended to Cody’s contention that his Wild West show was more aptly described as an accurate reenactment or representation of life in the Wild West than a “show”; thus, it is intentional not to advertise it as a Wild West “show,” but instead as Buffalo Bill’s Wild West.This was further enhanced by the inclusion of “authentic” participants. Real horses, and other animals, along with human performers who had firsthand experience in the Pony Express, on the range, or in other aspects of the West were highlighted in promoting the performances. In reality, Wild West shows presented, as frontier dramas did before them, a mixture of truth and myth. Despite this, they were widely promoted as being both authentic and educational. The desire for authenticity extended to the depictions of horses within the shows. Horses were essential to the Wild West show, as they had been to the development of the West, and they were represented as such, contributing verisimilitude to most of the acts and forming the focus of others. A large Wild West show would typically employ hundreds of horses in the various acts.27 Many additional working horses were also used to pull equipment and literally transport the traveling shows from town to town (at least until the advent of touring by train, which occurred around 1895). Paul Reddin explains the appeal of horses in Wild West shows: They appealed to Americans because many people had personal experiences with these animals. Horses in the Wild West show were extraordinary, however—not plow horses, swaybacked mounts, or pullers of peddler’s wagons, but glistening, galloping, and ornamented steeds and truculent buckers. These animals raced around the arena, and like the people atop them, looked wild and fierce. Horse races illustrated that westerners prized fast horses and spent a great deal of time on that pursuit. Native Americans often appeared in these contests; those from different tribes raced against one another, and against cowboys and vaqueros. [. . .] White women, billed as “lady riders,” raced. During contests, each person rode a horse characteristic of his or her group and used the tack of that culture, allowing spectators to compare styles of riding. [. . .] “The Wonderful Pony Express” offered more galloping horses and linked Buffalo Bill with frontier history. [. . .] Galloping horses added romance to Indians, “lady riders,” and pony express men.28

Frontier Equestrian Drama 129

Furthermore, he reports, The huge number of horses—five to eight hundred—contributed significantly to a portrayal of a simpler preindustrial time. Observers saw equestrianism as the heart of the Wild West show and praised its variety: “beautiful, high strung animals ridden by Colonel Cody,” “fine chargers” belonging to soldiers, “bucking broncos,” trained animals that feigned death in battle scenes, and draft animals that pulled equipment from depots to showgrounds. [. . .] When the show traveled to England after the turn of the century, people there appreciated the horses and equated them with independence.29 The Wild West show included horsemanship as one of its five main categories of acts, which are horsemanship, marksmanship, plains animals exhibitions, variety acts, and Plains Indians acts.30 Each act purports to present one essential (and exciting) aspect of life in the “Wild West.” The diverse functions of the horse in the Wild West show are illustrated by the “American Cowboy” poster. Here the horse is depicted in a variety of typical “working” situations that would be enacted in the Wild West show where, as here, the “American Cowboy” is the central figure, but is surrounded by horses. The horse is shown working alongside the cowboy “at home” (driving cattle),“in prairieland” (rounding up and capturing wild horses), in a “roundup” (roping and tying cattle), at a buffalo hunt (teaming up against the buffalo), and as “buckers” (where the as yet untamed “broncs” resist the civilizing efforts of the cowboy). The text of the poster highlights the authenticity of the show’s “ACTUAL SCENES—GENUINE CHARACTERS.”31 After debuting in 1883, the Wild West show gained popularity and remained popular throughout the remaining years of nineteenth century and into the first two decades of the twentieth. The largest Wild West show, that of Cody, continued to thrive through the first decade and a half of the twentieth century (after which Cody moved successfully to film).32 Other Wild West shows continued to perform, but did so with decreasing popularity and eventually as part of some other, larger entertainment like a circus or a rodeo.33 In 1886, the decision was made to bring the Wild West show inside theatres and turn it into a true equestrian drama. The resulting production was Buffalo Bill Cody’s The Drama of Civilization. It debuted in late 1896 when it was realized in production thanks to the practical genius of Steele MacKaye working in collaboration with Cody. The Drama of Civilization

Steele MacKaye was an American theatre artist with diverse interests, including that of pictorial illusionism, which presents a “pictorial illusion” of reality onstage or, as J. K. Sokalski describes it in Pictorial Illusionism:The Theatre of Steele MackKaye,

130  Frontier Equestrian Drama

MacKaye saw theatre as a mirror of life. [. . .] early in his career, MacKaye created small imitations of life on the canvas of his easel, so, when he moved to theatre, he created larger imitations on the canvas of the stage.34 MacKaye became well-known for his work on the Madison Square Theatre, where he served an active managerial role and developed a groundbreaking stage elevator, as well as innovations in both the theatre’s ventilation and lighting systems. He collaborated with Cody on The Drama of Civilization, and the pair worked together to devise what was, essentially, a reworking of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West adapted for presentation within a theatre setting. The resulting production bore the stamp of MacKaye’s preferred style of presentation, pictorial illusionism accompanied by a scripted narrative, along with that of Cody’s horse-centered Wild West. The content was organized into a four-act structure that presented in “coherent form the history of the conquest of the wilderness by the heroic pioneers of civilization.”35 Horses were included throughout the production, as Cody and the rest of the cast enacted dramatic and emotional scenes of life on the American plains that featured frontiersmen facing all manner of challenges as they struggled to tame the wilderness. The production was housed at the Madison Square Garden. It was envisioned as a companion production that could attract audiences when the outdoor production of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West was not in season. The show opened on 24 November 1886, and details of the premiere performance were described in the New York Times the following day: Patriotic playgoers crowded Madison-Square Garden last evening to applaud the first performance of Mr. Steele Mackaye’s last great drama, which was acted with great spirit and power by Buffalo Bill, several dozen cowboys, cowgirls, and genuine greasers, besides a hundred and fifty Indians of various tribes in full fig and feather. Mr. Mackaye’s drama is divided into four “epochs,” named on the bill as follows: 1. The Primeval Forest. 2. The Prairie. 3. The Cattle Ranch. 4. The Mining Camp. [. . .] Taken as a whole the show is excellent. The scenery is more than good, the incidents of frontier life are realistic, the dances and ceremonies of the Indians are spirited and effective, and the pictures presented upon the vast stage, or, rather, in the vast scene, are full of interest and beauty. The most prominent drawback to enjoyment is afforded by the “orator,” who prepares each scene with a pompous and insufferably long and unnecessary description of what is to be. The orator should be boiled down or lassoed. He speaks well, but there is too much of him. The pantomimes describe themselves and need no assistance.36 As the reviewer makes clear, the Drama of Civilization was an action-based production with accompanying narration.The particulars of the production’s staging are similar in many ways to those typically found in an outdoor Wild West show. The production included a ring, as well as a stage, with both on the same

Frontier Equestrian Drama 131

level plain, and the space was in some ways designed in emulation of Astley’s Amphitheatre in London. The technical details of the production are described by Sokalski as follows: An extremely deep set (necessitated by all the animals included in the show). [. . .] The Stage and Arena should be on the same level—so that all the racing can start from the stage—and run around the arena—also the stage coach effect can thus be obtained. [. . .] Audience boxes were at the back of the arena, and in front of these were seats in a horseshoe arrangement. The inner open area of the horseshoe was the performance arena, with a “speaker’s stand” in the centre (later placed at one side of the curtains). At the tips of the horseshoe seating, there was a large curtain, which could be drawn across the entire width of the building. [. . .] There were seven panoramas, each two hundred feet long, worked on drums thirty feet high; the drops inside the cycloramic effects were ninety feet wide; the stage was one hundred and thirty feet deep, the opening being eightyseven feet. [. . .] The floor was laid in fresh hard tan bark and from its eastern edge the stage proper opened, on which the four scenes in ‘The Drama of Civilization’ were set.37 Sokalski goes on to comment specifically on MacKaye’s indebtedness to earlier producers of equestrian drama and pantomimes, concluding that his production successfully updated the presentation of equestrian drama from its style of presentation at Astley’s to a style that was both more realistic and more effective for its audience. Specifically, by lowering the level of the stage to equal that of the main ground level, MacKaye furthered the pictorial illusionism of the show in an auditory sense by removing the echo typically made by a horse walking on a raised theatrical stage. Since the sound would not be heard in “real life,” so it should not be heard in the realistic presentation of an equestrian drama. Sokalski explains, MacKaye’s concept of a “great play” with the acts on stage separated by interludes in the arena allowed him to fully incorporate many of the equestrian stunts and races from Cody’s outdoor exhibition. While the horse races featured during the interludes would have been considered a necessary part of any type of horse exhibition, they also signaled the production’s similarity to other equestrian-based events. Significantly, in his layout for the Garden, MacKaye duplicated the staging practices of equestrian dramas performed at both Astley’s Royal Amphitheatre in England and the French Cirque-Olympique, fifty and twenty-five years earlier. [. . .] While the “horse show”-iness of the piece was still evident, MacKaye’s revision had succeeded in turning Cody’s exhibition into the recognizable form of a play. Indeed, MacKaye’s incorporation of theatrical equestrian staging ideas inevitably moved the horse show closer to the suspended reality of a play featuring horses. [. . .] MacKaye modified the equestrian drama tradition for an 1880s audience.38

132  Frontier Equestrian Drama

The modifications were successful. The Drama of Civilization was embraced by audiences. On 28 November 1886, two days after it opened, the New York Times reported that “on Thanksgiving afternoon and night no less than 19,800 persons attended.”

Conclusions on Horses in Frontier Drama and Wild West Shows The representations of frontier heroes in later plays in American theatre (as well as in American film, radio, and television) are indebted to The Bandit King, and other early frontier plays, for helping to establish the cowboy character and the frontier genre, all of which are part of the American ideology of the “west.” The horse is an essential element of this ideology, and the symbolic power of the American horse, as of the West itself, derives from a combination of fact and legend shaped over decades and honed onstage in theatres.The theatre provides an apt delivery system for the imagery of the American West, especially when combined with horses and human heroes, as Hall explains: “The theatre offered its images in a particularly compelling manner in that the elements it employed were so tangible—genuine heroes, horses, guns, and natives.”39 As the popularity of frontier drama continued on the theatrical stages of the United States, similar (and sometimes nearly identical) representations of frontier figures were also found in the emerging form known as the Wild West show. The Drama of Civilization provides a good illustration of how the Wild West show could be adapted as an equestrian drama; it also shows how the two forms coexisted and shared numerous elements. In frontier drama (and Wild West shows), the horse is cultivated and presented as a symbol of the disappearing frontier lifestyle and the freedom that accompanies it. The symbolic associations of the horse gained power and significance with the coming of the mechanical/industrial age and the urbanization that threatened and finally destroyed the horse-centered life on the frontier that was depicted in, and glorified by, the frontier drama (and Wild West show). At the turn of the twentieth century, the horse remained a multi-faceted symbol that held different meanings for different elements of American society, and the inclusion of horses in frontier drama was full of nostalgia for an idealized American frontier. The Drama of Civilization brought elements of the Wild West show into the theatre as a dynamic equestrian drama; however, the unification of the two related forms remained an exception rather than the rule (perhaps due to the extensive requirements for producing such a show inside a theatre), and they remained, for the most part, distinct forms.40

Notes 1. Richard Slotkin examines this in his dissertation, Regeneration through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600–1860. 2. Readers should please note that the study, or even listing of the contributions and significance of the horse in these areas of American history, would fill many books. This

Frontier Equestrian Drama 133 discussion, and others like it elsewhere in the text, are intended to provide only concise overviews or fundamental introductions to key concepts upon which an understanding of the functioning of the horse in American theatre is dependent. 3. Slotkin, p. 123. 4. More information on the Pony Express is available at the National Park Service website’s Pony Express National Historic Trail. 5. A detailed study of frontier drama is found in Roger Hall’s Performing the American Frontier, 1870–1906. Another good source of information is Kato M. T. Buss’s dissertation, “Cowboy Up: Evolution of the Frontier Hero in American Theatre, 1872–1903,” in which Buss presents a detailed study of representations of the American Cowboy in American Theatre. 6. Hall, p. 3. 7. In his David Crockett: The Lion of the West, David Wallis reports (p. 237) that the play The Lion of the West was “the most-often performed play on the American stage before a dramatization of Uncle Tom’s Cabin premiered in 1852.” This play, and others that followed, owe a debt to Edwin Forrest for his establishment of a contest in 1828 offering a cash prize of $500 for the best original play about native or “aboriginal” American character. John Augustus Stone’s play Metamora; or, The Last of the Wampanoags won the contest and became a popular success, with Forrest in the title role. This helped pave the way for The Lion of the West, and later frontier dramas, which built on the idea of presenting audiences with patently “American” characters in new American plays. 8. Hall explains (p. 28) that while Wildfire is from the frontier, the play is not set there, “but in New York as the man from the backwoods—‘half horse, half alligator, and a touch of airthquake’—rescues his relatives from the evils of the city.” 9. Wallis, p. 234. 10. Buss, p. 58. 11. Odell, 9:30 and 33. 12. Roger Hall summarizes the action, pp. 23–24. 13. Although most sources cite the June 1873 production of the play at the Woods Museum as the premiere, Buss cites the earlier date of 1872 for a production at the New Opera House in Rochester, New York as the play’s premiere, citing an article in the Rochester History Vol. XVI, Number 3, held by the Rochester Public Library, 1954), pp. 1–2. 14. Odell, 9:407–408 and 501. 15. Hall, p. 52. 16. Sagala reports on numerous examples of Cody incorporating horses onstage in the production of his frontier dramas in Buffalo Bill on Stage. 17. Hall, pp. 128–129. 18. Buss, p. 136. Buss also details the evidence for the horses coming from James’ estate, pp. 136–137. 19. New York Herald. 8 February 1883, p. 11. America’s Historical Newspapers. 20. New York Herald. 21 August 1883, p. 11. America’s Historical Newspapers. 21. New York Times. Sunday, 7 February 1886. 22. Odell, 13:36. 23. Buss, p. 138, citing an “Untitled clipping dated 1883 (handwritten in pencil), James Wallick Collection, Billy Rose Theatre Archive, New York Library of the Performing Arts.” 24. Buss, p. 147, citing a clipping from the Billy Rose Collection. 25. The promoter’s claim was not as frivolous as it may appear. In 1890, the U.S. Census bureau declared the frontier “closed.” 26. Kasson, p. 5. 27. Reddin, pp. 62–63, p. 139. 28. Reddin, p. 68, citing the following sources: Wild West (1883 Chicago Driving Park program); William F. Cody Collection, Western History Department, Denver Public Library; Buffalo Bill’s Wild West (1884 program); Burlington (Vt.) Free Press and Times, 6 August 1885, vol. I, NSS; New York Times. 29 June 1886.

134  Frontier Equestrian Drama 29. Reddin, p. 139. 30. Reddin, p. 67. 31. “American Cowboy—Actual Scenes—Genuine Characters Buffalo Bill’s Wild West and Congress of Rough Riders.” Poster for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show (c. 1896) ­(Courtesy of Buffalo Bill Historical Center; Cody, Wyoming; P. 69.771). 32. The New York Times reported on 10 June 1917: “Buffalo Bill Show Sold” and cited the purchase price as $105,000. 33. In Rodeo: An Anthropologist Looks at the Wild and the Tame, Elizabeth Atwood Lawrence examines (44–82) the connection between the Wild West show and the rodeo, suggesting that the rodeo grew, in part, out of the Wild West show. Kristine Fredricksson examines the development of the rodeo in-depth in American Rodeo. 34. Sokalski, p. 55. 35. Sokalski, p. 150. 36. “Amusements.” New York Times. Thursday, 25 November 1886, p. 5. Odell (13:339) also reports on the production, saying, “Buffalo Bill’s Wild West, which had thrilled Staten Island, in the summer of 1886, moved into the Madison Square Garden, on 24 November, as a ‘Grand Drama of Civilisation,’ by Steele MacKaye, even then beginning his career as a maker of huge spectacles that in many ways anticipated the reach of ­Hollywood. Nelse Waldron invented the mechanical devices of the show. Of course Buffalo Bill and Nate Salsbury were still gods of the machine.” 37. Sokalski, pp. 154–155, citing Parker, Odd People I Have Met, p. 84 in regard to the details of the panorama. 38. Sokalski, pp. 155–156. 39. Hall, p. 3. 40. R. C. Carlisle’s Wild West Company presented a scaled down version of a Wild West show onstage at the New York Hippodrome as part of the February 1913 production of Under Many Flags.

7 The Plays Stage Machinery in Racing and Related Equestrian Drama

In the late decades of the nineteenth century, theatre audiences witnessed the intersection of their fascination with the horse, and the coming mechanization of society. Specialized stage machinery was developed for use in conjunction with the production of equestrian dramas; it was incorporated into various new plays, and used to depict in them a variety of equine action ranging from simple, slowspeed horse and buggy rides, to diverse acts of circus equestrianism, to high-speed horse races onstage. These equestrian dramas quickly gained popularity. These plays were produced with a primary focus on the scene or scenes featuring horses and using related stage machinery.The specialized scenic machinery was first, and most simply, used to enable the presentation of a horse-drawn carriage or buggy ride onstage. More sophisticated machinery was developed over time to depict more complex scenes of action, including horse racing and, in some plays, circus riding. This stage machinery facilitated the illusion of movement at speed across distance onstage. While many of the equestrian melodramas and military equestrian dramas discussed in earlier chapters were written by English playwrights and first produced in England, these new plays, like the frontier equestrian dramas, were written mainly by American authors and the subject matter of the plays was also, in most cases, American rather than English or European, which had often been the case with the earlier equestrian dramas. The most popular and successful of these plays were racing plays, which are identifiable by their inclusion of onstage horseracing. Horse racing may have come to the colonies from England, but it evolved significantly in the United States. In order to best understand these plays, it is useful to understand the broad history of horse racing as it relates to the plays.

Horse Racing The origins of horse racing cannot be definitively dated but are generally accepted to date back so far as to be nearly simultaneous with the domestication of the horse. Horse racing was certainly established by the time of

136  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

the classical societies of Ancient Greece and Rome, and developed in Libya, Gaul, Germany, and on the Iberian Peninsula at about that same time. Horse racing was included in the ancient Greek Olympic games beginning in 680 bce, so certainly the sport was formalized by then and perhaps much earlier. Evidence indicates horses were used in chariot races from as early as the mideighth century bce when races began in Ancient Rome immediately upon the founding of the city by Romulus (753 bce). The kings who followed Romulus raced sporadically, but under Tarquinius Priscus, who ruled Rome in late seventh to early sixth century bce, horse racing was scheduled regularly, and the Circus Maximus was built. In The Iliad, Homer tells of a chariot race initiated by Achilles as part of the funeral service in honor of Patroclus, and this took place near the fall of Troy in the twelfth century bce. Racing continued to develop throughout history and participation was not limited to kings and emperors. Ovid writes of attending chariot races, as does Ammianus Marcellinus, who Tyrwhitt-Drake quotes in The English Circus and Fairground as saying in regard to the enthusiasm for chariot racing and equestrian games during his visit to Rome in 359 “when the wished-for day of the equestrian games dawns, before the sun has risen, they all rush out with headlong haste, as if with their speed they would outstrip the very chariots which are going to race.”1 In more modern times, within the Americas, horse racing emerged early, with the first formal racetrack being built on Long Island in New York State in 1665. Horse racing developed as a uniquely polarized equestrian sport, which has come to embody both highbrow and lowbrow associations simultaneously. As a spectator sport, it remains both accessible and potentially familiar to virtually all Americans, as it was in the nineteenth century; as an endeavor to participate in directly, it remains prohibitively expensive and thus financially out of reach for almost everyone.2

Equestrian Racing Plays Equestrian drama provides a unique forum for exploring (and exploiting) the horse race.3 Racing plays are, most simply, plays featuring live horses in onstage races.These have been produced since the early nineteenth century, if we allow for races that extended beyond the stage; but, they were first produced using specialized stage machinery in the late decades of the nineteenth century.4 An example of an early, non-mechanized, theatrical horse race (and an onstage foxhunt) is found in an 1815 English production of The Life, Death and Restoration of the High-Mettled Racer at Astley’s Amphitheatre: During this piece there was a correct representation of a horse race. The pit was railed through the centre, and the horses started from the back of the stage at a long distance from the audience, and passed through the pit.

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 137

A fox chase was also admirably done, from the starting of the fox until his death, the dogs and horses in full speed after the little animal.5 This is not the only example of a horse race being staged inside the theatre without stage machinery. Such scenes in plays were unusual, but not unheard of. Typically, they featured some variation of the staging described above, with the race beginning and/or ending offstage or even outside the theatre, and simply having the horses run on, across, and then off the stage or whatever part of the theatre they had run through. Horse race scenes have also been performed onstage using horse puppets or other representations, often on upstage wires, so as to show the action as if from a distance. It is fair to say that theatre artists have used a variety of creative designs to stage horse races in theatres over the years. These are best traced though accounts of the performances because details in the text are typically scant. An example of the high level of control given to producers of such plays is illustrated by the scene directions about the race in the early play, The Jockey Club: Equestrian Tattersallian T.Y. C. Extravaganza, In Two Acts, written by Edward Stirling in 1846. This play features a fairly unremarkable plot and characters, save for its inclusion, in act 2, of a “horse race.” The race scene is described on page 22 of the 24-page script in one simple stage direction: “The Horses pass.”6 Since scenes of horse racing had been depicted in both theatre and circuses prior to the emergence of the racing play as a distinct genre that utilized specialized stage technology in the 1880s, it is interesting to consider why they emerged with such increased popularity at this point. The racing play became a popular genre and one for which many new plays were written. The plots and characters of most of these plays faded from memory soon after they were performed, while the impact of the staged horse race remained.7 The presence of the horse onstage accelerated the development of scenic design and stage machinery by providing the opportunity for both great spectacle and the lifelike presentation of numerous illusions onstage. The examination of some significant horse-related innovations in scenic design, along with the specific patented designs that facilitated them, illustrates the contributions of equestrian drama to stage design and technology, especially when considered as part of the larger history of theatre and considering that the technologies developed are not only precursors to film, but also are still in use in some theatrical productions today.

Treadmills and Panoramas The various mechanisms designed to stage scenes including horses are examined in detail in this chapter; but first, it is useful to know that the main components of such scenes (moving panoramas and treadmills) existed before they were combined for this purpose. Treadmills, or at least the basic design of a rotating mechanism moving around a central vertical axis, have been in

138  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

use for centuries. The treadmill as it is known today was first seen in 1818, when Sir William Cubitt created a “treadwheel” for use as a punishment for prisoners, who were forced to walk on the “eternal staircase” as part of their punishment. The effort of the prisoners generated energy that could be used to grind grain or pump water, and similar devices soon found use on farms, where they could be powered by animals. Panoramas are wide-angle, large scale paintings or other images that can be exhibited independently as works of art, or incorporated into the scenic design of theatrical plays. They can be displayed in their open state and viewed as complete works (in large settings) or can be progressively unscrolled. Robert Barker, an English painter who found success at the turn of the eighteenth century exhibiting his panoramic paintings, is generally credited both as the originator of the term “panorama,” and also as the first person to popularly exhibit such images. Panoramas were first exhibited as stand-alone attractions, rather than in conjunction with the production of plays. Odell reports that in October 1804, a panorama of the “Battle of Alexandria in Egypt” was exhibited in New York and that another depicting the “Battle of Lodi” opened for viewing on 3 December.8 Panoramas continued to proliferate, and in November 1818, Odell observed, “I dwell. I repeat, on cosmoramas and panoramas and painting on large scale because of the subtle effect such things are bound, I believe, to have on stage scenery.”9 The mechanization of panoramas was key to their inclusion in equestrian drama. Mechanized, or “peristrephic,” panoramas are unrolled by a mechanized device in order to depict a changing background.The first known use of a moving panorama as part of the onstage scenery of an American theatrical production came in 1828, when Paris and London, or a Trip to Both Cities opened at the Park Theatre in New York and utilized a primitive “moving” panoramic background to depict parts of the title journey.10 In 1831, a production of Mazeppa utilized a similar panorama at Astley’s London Amphitheatre. In 1833, a production of Mazeppa at the Bowery Theatre in New York (and another of St. George and the Dragon at Drury Lane, featuring Ducrow and his horses) used the same effect.11 It was around this time that peristrephic panoramas, which were unrolled slowly and could be used to depict an unfolding narrative or landscape, became quite popular as independent exhibitions.12 The combination of a moving panoramic background in use behind an onstage horse is significant as a stage innovation and as a precursor to later design technology. Technically speaking, however, the combination of moving horse and panorama is not very complex. Aside from the (then) unique combination of horse and panoramic background, there was no major innovation to distinguish the design. Scenic backgrounds evolved from a single, unchangeable permanent background (first documented and probably originating with the “skene” used during the golden age of Ancient Greece).These evolved into something that could

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 139

be changed through the addition of painted panels called “pinakes,” which were placed in front of the skene, also in Ancient Greece. Later, even greater diversity became possible through the introduction of three-sided scenic devices called “periaktois” that the Greeks developed so that three different scenic backgrounds could be shown with a single, rotatable, periaktoi device (so simple and effective was this device that similar designs continued in widespread use in advertising through the late twentieth century and many are still in use today). Design technology was further developed during the Renaissance, most significantly by Italian designers who also introduced theatre audiences to perspective, which creates the illusion of depth and of distance in two dimensions (another aspect of the illusion of movement).The moving panoramic background developed out of these earlier advances, providing a background that appears to change in relation to progressive stage action. There are two basic types of moving theatrical panoramas: the endlessly repeating panorama and the progressive roller-type panorama. The simpler of the two is the “endlessly repeating” panorama that runs continuously around two vertical rollers. Since it is seen repeatedly by the audience, and since its size is limited by the available room for it to run and by the size of the rollers, suitability is limited. This type of panorama simply shows a “moving” background and can effectively depict movement through (relatively) monotonous terrains. It provides a novel and somewhat realistic effect, especially when compared to a static background, and can be quite useful and realistic if it is being used to depict movement around a set path such as, for example, a racetrack. The other type of panorama is a progressive “roller-type” panorama that scrolls, not repetitiously around two rollers, but from one roller to the other. This type of panorama can depict virtually any degree of detail, as no part of it will ever repeat and be re-seen by the audience. When the panoramic background was used in productions of Mazeppa during the 1830s, it was a simplistic one, probably of neither of these common types, but instead a predecessor that utilized individual moving background panels, and there is no evidence that a treadmill was incorporated. Instead, the horse was apparently trained to march in place or proceed slowly from one side of the stage to the other, sometimes exiting and returning to cross again in the other directions while in front of the panorama. It is interesting to consider why the horse and moving panorama should have been combined for the first-known time with the productions of Paris and London, or a Trip to Both Cities in 1828 and of Mazeppa in 1833. It is especially puzzling when we take into consideration that the technology required to produce the effect (and even to build and operate the moving panorama) was relatively simple and could have been utilized much earlier; the explanation lies partially in the emergence of the equestrian drama as a popular entertainment, in the earlier years of the century, which can, in turn, be attributed to a number of factors, most significant of which were the emergence of a new working class and the significant role of the horse in the development of human civilization and American

140  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

culture. In nineteenth century American society, with theatre audiences that now included growing numbers of working-class Americans, visually spectacular plays had become the most popular type of dramatic entertainments. Since audiences craved spectacle, visual elements of production became increasingly spectacular and realistic. As the nineteenth century progressed and the twentieth century approached, the novelty of onstage horses and the appeal of melodramatic equestrian drama waned somewhat; when this combined with the fact that civilization was simultaneously experiencing a rise in mechanization, it is not surprising that the desire for spectacle combined with these technological advances and resulted in a unique form of entertainment. It reignited the interest of American theatregoers and theatre artists in equestrian drama; as a result, many new equestrian dramas were written in this period. Once the moving background and the horse were combined, the next major innovation in spectacular realism for the equestrian drama was the combination of the treadmill with the panorama. An examination of relevant patented machinery designed for specific plays illustrates how the development of treadmill and panorama stage machinery (and some related designs) facilitated the realistic illusion of forward motion (sometimes at great speeds) on the American theatrical stage. The development of the genre and the significant contributions the plays made to stage technology and design in American theatre can be traced through analysis of representative plays and related stage machinery, specifically those created by Neil Burgess.13

Neil Burgess In 1882, American stage actor, playwright, and inventor Neil Burgess (aka Nelson Burgess, Neilson Burgess, James W. Knell, and J. W. Knell; Figures 7.1 and 7.2) produced, for the first time, a play utilizing specially designed and patented stage machinery that enabled the realistic illusion of a horse moving at speed in real time across the stage; this was the precursor to the mechanized onstage horse race. In creating this machinery and producing the plays that utilized it, Burgess made huge advances in theatre design and technology. Burgess was a distinctly American actor who specialized in the presentation of comic female roles, most specifically, cranky “Yankee” female roles based on a comic American stock character stemming from regional prejudices and stereotypes that Burgess (who was born in Boston and spent much of his professional life in New York) embodied and parodied onstage.14 Burgess tended to write plays that showcased each of his patented advances in stage machinery (or perhaps vice versa). The first of his significant plays was Josiah Allen’s Wife. Originally credited to Olivia Lovell in 1882, the play was sometimes called My Opinions; it later came to be known as Vim and as A Visit to Puffy Farm in 1883, and its authorship was then credited to Neil Burgess.15 It played mainly as Vim from February 1883 through August 1888 with overall success. The play, under various titles and in various stages of development,

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 141

Figure 7.1  Neil Burgess

tells the story of a country picnic and concludes with its most noteworthy element: an exciting and visually spectacular buggy ride home. This is enabled by a real horse, playing the role of “Old Critter (the Horse)” and the onstage “buggy.” Josiah Allen’s Wife utilized a “buggy ride device” to give the realistic illusion of the forward movement of an onstage horse-drawn buggy. U.S. Patent 256,007 was granted to J. W. Knell (later and better known by his stage name “Neil Burgess”) on 4 April 1882 for the buggy ride device that was officially termed an “apparatus for producing illusionary dramatic effects.”16 It is the first of many significant patents Burgess received for such designs (Figure 7.3). The written portion of the patent provides detailed information on the buggy ride device, its makeup, and the details of its use. Burgess clearly states the purpose of his device: “The object of the invention is the production on the theatrical stage of the appearance of a person, animal, or vehicle, any or all of these, traveling along a road, course, or path of considerable length.”17 Later

142  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

Figure 7.2  Neil Burgess in Character

designs by Burgess and others, which were patented over approximately the next 30 years, built and improved upon this original idea. The patent detail includes “a panoramic scene” that moved “lengthwise” behind the action of the actors. This is represented at “a” in the illustration. Burgess suggests that it be painted on canvas and scrolled between two vertical rollers, depicted in the patent’s illustration as “b” and “c.” An “endless belt or path” is also described and marked “d” in the illustration. The belt hangs in “a suitable frame, e, which rests upon the stage floor.”18 The “endless belt or path” is what I refer to as the treadmill, and it must be strong enough to support the horse, vehicle, occupants and other contents, and Burgess says so in the patent

Figure 7.3  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 256,007

144  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

specifications. A hidden restraining device, “i,” runs “from the vehicle to the stage [. . .] to prevent the vehicle from moving forward when the horse walks.”19 Burgess summarizes the overall effect desired from this device in his patent: When the horse is started up he will continue to walk, and the wheels of the device will continue to revolve, but neither will move forward; both will remain stationary. At the same time, the panoramic scene is moved along in the direction opposite to that in which the horse is faced, and the whole will produce a very good appearance of horse, vehicle, and occupant traveling along past the objects depicted in the canvas.20 Burgess improved on his original design and a new apparatus was patented by him, again under the name J. W. Knell, on 8 May 1883.21 This was the first of many subsequent improvements that Burgess designed and patented. U.S. patent 277,137 (Figure 7.4) added “suitable natural objects” to “guard or screen the ends” of the endless belt/path which could be arranged either “singly, as at c, or upon an endless chain or belt, as at d, as indicated in Fig. 2 of the drawings.”22 Either way, the “objects” serve to conceal the place where moving and stationary elements meet; this improves the overall appearance of reality. The illusion of motion created by the use of this device was further enhanced by what looked like a breeze caused by forward motion and achieved through a design in which: one or more pipes from a blower are led to suitable concealed positions back of screen b, and currents of air from the open ends turned upon the figure or person supposed to be progressing across the stage, and the hair or parts of the dress, as ribbons, are caused to flutter and flap.23 Finally, at “e,” a large, scrolling “grass mat” was added to cover the otherwise stationary stage floor in front of the treadmill and thus complete the illusion of motion.24 Using treadmills, horses could move onstage, directly before the audience, with no other special effects needed. Combining this with the panorama and other related elements made the movement look like realistic forward progression. It was the addition of the panorama that facilitated the next major innovation in theatrical spectacle involving realistic stage movement, the onstage horse race. The Country Fair was written by Charles Barnard for (and with apparent influence from) Burgess.25 It included a staged horse race scene that was accomplished in production by the combined use of treadmills and panoramas onstage. In the fall of 1888, The Country Fair opened, most probably premiering in Philadelphia.26 In March 1889, after playing in Philadelphia, it began a long run in New York City as the first production at F. F. Proctor’s new TwentyThird Street Theatre.27 The New York Times reviewed the play twice during its

Figure 7.4  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 277,137

146  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

opening week. Both reviews commented positively on the horses, but neither recommended the play. The equine performers in Burgess’ plays (and others like them) were much beloved by audiences, and this certainly contributed to the speedy development of the stage machinery that was utilized in many equestrian dramas and racing plays.28 Odell and Recklies report that The Country Fair moved to the nearby Union Square Theatre on 11 November 1889, where it played for the remainder of that season and continued into the next. In 1892, it was revived and played, with an expanded circus scene added, under the new title Neil Burgess’ Circus.29 The play proved popular and played on a regular basis at various theatres in the United States through 1895.30 The preceding innovations in stage design showcased and necessitated by early plays starting with A Trip to Paris and New York and including Vim, in its various forms, facilitated the development (both technical and creative) of the onstage horse race. As the main spectacular effect of Vim had come from the buggy ride and, later, the circus ride, the most significant feature of The Country Fair was its staged horse race, incorporated into which were (of course) horses and several related and noteworthy advances in stage effects and machinery. Although the machinery itself was the most important element in creating the illusion (and thus in the overall success of the play), the staging and presentation of the horse race also contributed to its powerful effect and should be clarified. The race (and most staged horse races) utilized either a blackout or, in some cases, a curtain to allow the audience’s view of the race to begin and end “in progress.”This technique of presenting only a fraction of the race “onstage” was central to its success and became standard practice for racing plays; it worked because it allowed the stage machinery, as well as the equine actors, to get up and (literally) running while offstage and out of the audience’s gaze. For the audience to see the extensive set up of equipment, and the careful positioning and tethering of horses required for the race to take place would certainly have detracted from its illusion of reality; therefore, the race both began and ended in progress by utilizing either a blackout or a curtain to conceal both the beginning and end of the race. In this way, the audience saw only horses in motion, running toward the (out of sight) finish line.31 This contributed significantly to the audience’s suspension of disbelief because all that the audience saw was the spectacular effect of horses galloping onstage. Burgess patented three new designs for theatrical racing machinery around the time that The Country Fair was produced. It can be reasonably inferred that the designs were incorporated into productions of the play.The earliest of these three patents is U.S. Patent No. 286,709 (Figure 7.5), issued to J. W. Knell on 16 October 1883. The primary innovation of both U.S. Patent No. 286,709 and The Country Fair was the use of multiple treadmills with assistance of the windlass and braking devices that facilitated the “racing” of the horses. Having the treadmills of multiple horses on moveable tracks, or having the horses controlled by restraining devices set upon individual cradles or “carriages” that were moved by winches,

Figure 7.5  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 286,709

148  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

added both realism and drama to the effect of the scene as they appeared to ebb and flow in a desperate battle for the lead. To further the verisimilitude of this onstage horse race, a moving panorama could be incorporated as it had been in earlier productions and designs as a moving background to the horses. Burgess explained that, with this new design, the effect of forward movement could be achieved “with or without the aid of the moving panoramic scene described in my previous patent.”32 Burgess considered this design to be not only effective but also diverse in its applications. He explained that it could be used to present other effects in addition to the horse race, including “circus performances aboard a single horse—as bareback riding and the like—or that races between animals other than horses may also be skillfully represented.”33 The design in the second patent Burgess received for racing machinery used in The Country Fair is U.S. Patent No. 418,372 (Figures 7.6 and 7.7), issued on 31 December 1889. In this design, Burgess further improved the effect by adding a second moving background canvas behind the previously single panorama (k’ and k). The “compound panoramic scenes of unequal heights and adapted to be moved at different rates of speed” drew on the artistic technique of perspective and were designed to enhance the illusion of movement across distance while enhancing the reality of the motion of the horse on the treadmill.34 The movement of the horse and carriage were also adjusted in this design by means of the innovation of placing individual horses on their own treadmills and individual treadmill carriages. This made it easier and less risky to produce the illusion of a race onstage. Previously, the horses had been on their own treadmills, but there were no carriages (as in Patent No. 418,372). The key is attaching the horses securely to the carriages. Previously, the horse would have to progress or be restrained upon the “endless belt” or treadmill and could win or lose the race accordingly. With this new design, the individual carriages could simply be moved forward and/or back to make it look as if the race was being won or lost.35 Burgess’ third patent for this type of stage machinery, U.S. Patent No. 423,171 (Figures 7.8 and 7.9), granted on 11 March 1890, detailed a moving picket “fence” added in the foreground of the stage. Both the fence and the panorama/s moved in one direction, while the treadmills (and horses) ran in the other. Here again it was possible for the horses to run either directly on the treadmill or atop individual carriages that were mounted on the treadmills and moved by means of the multiple winch arrangement. The addition of the picket fence is the most obvious improvement to Burgess’ effect, but Burgess also allowed for the inclusion of one or more additional “objects” onstage moving at a desired rate of speed to complement the illusion of the horses passing by at great speed.36 Another type of racing machine that developed in the last decade of the nineteenth century is the revolving stage (aka turntable stage). A revolving stage design was patented by Burgess, but he was not the originator of this type of machinery. Burgess’ design was preceded by that of Frank M. Chapman, who was granted U.S. Patent No. 423,372 (Figure 7.10) for such a device on 11 March 1890.37

Figure 7.6  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 418,372

Figure 7.7  Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 418,372

Figure 7.8  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 423,171

Figure 7.9  Image 2 from U.S. Patent No. 423,171

Figure 7.10  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 423,372

154  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

Chapman’s design allows for a stage with a cut-away section that reveals the part of a rotating turntable on which a horse or horses either stand or move; their movement is controlled by means of a breastplate-type restraining device that can be made slack to allow for forward movement or tightened to control the same (shown in Chapman’s Figures 1 and 2 at a19 through a23). The restraining device can be utilized to create the appearance of a “race.” The uncovered section of the turntable is advanced or turned by the motion of the horse. Behind the horse/s is a panorama (A7 in Chapman’s Figures 1 and 3) moving in the opposite direction of the horse. Aside from the difference between an onstage endless belt/path and a revolving disc, this design functions similarly to earlier treadmill and panorama machinery. Burgess allows for the use of a revolving stage in his U.S. Patent No. 442,796, issued on 16 December 1890, in which he describes “a moving carriage” that “supports on suitable rollers the endless path or revolving stage” on which it is running. In this design, which is essentially an intended improvement on his existing race mechanisms, the “carriage” is attached to a pulley or drum that can be used to move the carriage; Burgess explains: By regulating the size of the drum and length of rope or like connecting means with reference to the movement of the path it is evident that any desired time may be consumed in causing the carriage to be moved across the stage while the horse is in motion on the endless path, and a race either against time or between several horses mounted on different carriages may be run. Burgess also explains that the carriage must be of sufficient width to support a horse, with: the main requisite being that the path shall be properly supported on the carriage to enable it to move rapidly underneath the feet of the horse and move backward as the horse steps, something in the same manner as the belt on a treadmill operates. Burgess’ design for a rotating stage device was patented two years later and is similar to Chapman’s. This patent, U.S. Patent No. 471,126 (Figure 7.11), was granted on 22 March 1892, and it is interesting to note that one of the witnesses to sign the document was David I. Towers, who would later create and patent some significant designs for stage apparatuses himself. The revolving stage as patented by Burgess again functioned in a manner similar to the treadmill design, except that instead of setting the horse on a treadmill, it located him (or another object to be moved) on an uncovered segment of a large revolving disc located under the stage. This is shown at e and d in Burgess’ illustration and by a horse tethered at a22 in Chapman’s. Multiple horses, people, or objects could be accommodated in Burgess’ design simply by having more than one revolving disc “borne on a common central shaft gin

Figure 7.11  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 471,126

156  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

such manner that the two disks can rotate independently of each other.” This is slightly different than Chapman’s design, as Chapman does not use multiple discs, but instead says that multiple horses can be accommodated on the single “turn table” he utilizes in his design.38 Whereas Chapman’s device, which utilized individual wire harnesses to control the forward motion of the horse/s moving on the single turntable, was limited to a single speed, different speeds could be presented using Burgess’ design by revolving the discs at different speeds. The discs could also be slowed down or speeded up during a race scene to further enhance the verisimilitude of the scene. As in Chapman’s design, the “runners” (Burgess actually used two human figures in his patent illustration at—d and e—and refers to them as “runners” in the written description, while also allowing that horses, bicycles, or other objects can be substituted) are attached to a windlass that can be used to control their rate of speed. Burgess intended this new design as an easier means of presenting the “race” illusion onstage. In the patent description, he states,“The object of my invention is to provide a device by which these effects may be produced by a somewhat simpler mechanism than has heretofore been employed by others or me.”39 Despite these intentions, the rotating stage design never quite caught on as the treadmill and panorama combination had. It was the treadmill and panorama design that would be utilized in later (and greater) racing plays.40 These plays, however, required another creative leap. Having mastered the basics of perceived forward motion in the staged horse race either by utilizing a revolving stage or by combining treadmills, panoramas, and fencing combined with other suitable objects for the horses to run “past,” the producers of hippodrama next sought to increase the spectacular impact of the staged horse race in a different way. For this, they needed new machinery. The Country Fair and other racing plays had pushed the boundaries of the mounted horse race by increasing the numbers of horses involved, but Burgess was not satisfied. His next equestrian play was The Year One, a comedy written by Charles Barnard.41 Burgess raised the stakes with this play by “racing” horses in pairs and, even more audaciously, in front of chariots and charioteers. The Year One premiered on 2 November 1895. Recklies reports that this opening had been postponed several times “due to mechanical difficulties with the new racing machines.”42 When the play did open, the race scene was still hampered by “difficulties” not unlike those that had, at least occasionally, hindered the race scene in The Country Fair. The scene was intended to include two chariots, each of which was pulled by four horses, each running on their own treadmill. An account in the New York Dramatic Mirror described the components of the intended illusion, and the largely ridiculous effect that was actually created by the flubbed race scene in an early production: On the left of the stage was a chariot drawn by four coal black horses, which were dashing along toward the audience at breakneck speed. On the right was another chariot, drawn by four white steeds, one of which was

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 157

dashing madly on to victory, while his three companions looked at him in mute surprise. [. . .] That one horse should run, while his three assistants, attached to the same vehicle, stood stock still, was so remarkable that the audience simply sat and gasped. Then they had a laugh, but the laugh was at the expense of Mr. Burgess.43 Although this problem was remedied in later performances, The Year One remained a failure both critically and commercially. The play ran at the Star Theatre for six weeks, during which time reviews improved but never enough to make the play a success. Burgess soon revived its more popular predecessor, The Country Fair, and the newer play was forgotten by most. The Year One remains significant, however, to the development of stage machinery designed and patented to facilitate the onstage chariot race it included, which featured eight horses running full blast on onstage treadmills. Appearing in 1892, and bearing a strong resemblance to Vim, Burgess’ next play, Neil Burgess’ Circus, was first produced in Boston. This play is notable mainly for its expanded circus portion, which featured a collection of bona fide circus acts, including a bareback riding act.44 The bareback scene, now a well-established staple of this play in its various forms, was impossible to present realistically or accurately on most stages because the horse would not have had sufficient room to move. Using a treadmill apparatus (such as those designed by Burgess for earlier plays), such a scene became possible, although not perfect. In order to understand why this scene could not be perfected using existing machinery, it is first necessary to remember the very nature of equestrian circus performance; unlike racing, in which the rider or jockey relies mainly on the speed of the horse for balance (by leaning against the reins and literally balancing him/herself atop the moving horse), the rider or acrobat in bareback or circus “riding” relies mainly (and quite significantly) upon the centrifugal force generated by the movement of the circus horse around the circus ring. Therefore, even when utilizing Burgess’ earlier machinery that had been specifically designed for enabling circus performance on the theatrical stage, the potential for authentic effect remained quite limited. Burgess sought to remedy the problem of presenting authentic-looking circus equestrianism onstage with two patents. The first of these is U.S. Patent 924,632 (Figures 7.12 and 7.13), which was granted on 15 June 1909; the second is number 996,452, which was granted posthumously on 27 June 1911. Both designs represent Burgess’ attempts to stabilize the horse and rider without the benefit of the centrifugal force usually generated by the dimensions of the circus ring.The first patent is a complex design for which Burgess included numerous detailed illustrations. The design most significantly includes various supports for both the horse and rider/s. This design also included a number of components that had been found in earlier designs and combined them with new and unique elements. Burgess designed the device to produce circus riding, or as he phrased it, “entertainments or amusements given under canvas,” and so he was focused on the

Figure 7.12  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 924,632

Figure 7.13  Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 924,632

160  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

elements of the design relevant to that purpose. Burgess provides for a motordriven treadmill, which is innovative but also potentially dangerous, Burgess provides a measure of safety with a “lever” and “idler” shown at numbers 7 and 8, respectively. These measures seem to be useful, although not foolproof, but no reports of injuries resulting from the motor-driven treadmill have been found. The horse/s are held in place by both a breastplate and a girth-like tether (at 11 and 13). They are further locked in place by external locking and supporting bars (at 10 and 14). The riders are likewise securely supported in their positions by wires and straps (at 21 and 22 respectively). A platform is provided (at 26) so that the person manning the wire supporting the rider/s can keep it properly vertically aligned (of course this person is out of audience view). Essentially, the design allowed even unskilled riders to give the illusion of authentic circus riding onstage.45 For those in search of theatrical spectacle, the advantages of U.S. Patent No. 924,632 are obvious. The support allowed the “rider” to perform what looked like expert feats of mounted acrobatics, while the treadmills and harnesses allowed the horses to move realistically although “in place.” The second design, U.S. Patent No. 996,452 (Figure 7.14), also catered to those desirous of spectacular, but not necessarily authentic, equestrian performance onstage. This inspired design featured a treadmill (at 5) on which a moving horse was to be tethered via a girth-like band (at 12) so that it appeared that the horse was wearing a saddle that was actually an independently supported platform masquerading as a “pad saddle” (at 14) and was completely unattached to the horse directly beneath it. The girth-like tether kept the horse in place, allowing neither forward nor backward movement. It also gave the appearance of holding the “saddle” in place on the horse. Burgess described this device as “a means whereby a realistic semblance of riding under actual conditions is obtained.”46 Ben-Hur

Before the end of equestrian drama’s great period of popularity in the nineteenth century, there was to be one last great racing play—a play that surpassed all others in terms of spectacle. This play best illustrates the heights to which spectacular theatrical realism rose in its attempts to present the illusion of exciting high-speed forward motion onstage, and it is Ben-Hur; specifically, Klaw and Erlanger’s 1899 production of William Young’s stage version of Lew Wallace’s Ben-Hur. The story of Ben-Hur had previously attracted theatrical attention in April 1874 when Barnum’s circus entertained audiences at a 10,000-seat hippodrome with a dynamic interpretation of its great chariot race. This race, run around the hippodrome’s huge track in Barnum’s presentation, became the climactic scene and most memorable of the play when the story was dramatized on the American theatrical stage nineteen years later in Klaw and Erlanger’s production of Ben-Hur. The spectacular effects in this latter production were facilitated by the designs of Claude L. Hagen, which adapted and improved the staged chariot race mechanism originally developed by Burgess for The

Figure 7.14  Image 1 from U.S. Patent No. 996,452

162  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

Year One. Klaw and Erlanger had both worked on productions of The Country Fair and it is reasonable to assume that they were both familiar with Burgess’ stage machines and their workings.47 Hagen also had experience in this area and had previously patented his own design for a revolving stage. The adaptation of Burgess’ machinery by this team for Ben-Hur was made through “special arrangement with” Neil Burgess and was obviously influenced by the earlier design and its use in preceding theatrical productions.48 The mechanical apparatuses enabling the race are detailed in the various patents that facilitated it, as well as in newspaper accounts of the scene. Hagen received U.S. Patent No. 653,997 (Figure 7.15) for a design featuring a number of treadmills designed to: assist in the creation of the illusion on a stage of an object passing over a surface for example, the ground, water, or ice. It is particularly adapted for use in connection with the reproduction of horse, chariot, and like races. In attaining this end I employ a number of narrow endless belts or aprons arranged on the floor of the stage and between which chariots or other objects supposed to be moving are placed.49 The first image included in this patent shows “a plan view of the invention, showing it fitted to a stage.” Hagen also received another patent, U.S. Patent No. 656,969 (Figures 7.16 and 7.17), for his Ben-Hur designs.This patent details “Stage Machinery” enabling: The reproduction of horse, chariot, and other races on the stage; and it embodies means for mounting and driving one or more traveling aprons at the rear of the stage, so as to represent the background of the scene, which gives the audience the impression of changing, as in the illusion, the eye of the spectator follows the racing horses.50 Hagen explained in the patent, “Figure l is a plan view of the preferred form of the invention. Fig. 2 is an enlarged plan view of the driving-gear. Fig. 3 is an enlarged front view of the invention.” Ben-Hur premiered on 29 November 1899 at the Broadway Theatre in New York City.The production, and in particular the chariot race scene, were widely praised. Brown reports that it “easily surpassed old limits as a theatrical spectacle.”51 The Broadway Theatre required a major overhaul in order to produce the play. The New York Times reported in detail on many aspects of this production, including the necessary renovations at the Broadway: The building of the mechanism into the Broadway Theatre stage required, comparatively, its entire reconstruction. Each of the cradles weighs 4,000 pounds. The impact of the four horses in running is the equivalent of at least two tons additional weight, making each cradle with the race in action weigh about four tons.52

Figure 7.15  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 653,997

Figure 7.16  Image 1 From U.S. Patent No. 656,969

Figure 7.17  Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 656,969

166  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

The chariot race scene was designed, in many of its elements, to mirror a preexisting painting of the famous scene, Alexander von Wagner’s 1893 painting The Chariot Race.53 This imagery was used successfully both in advertising the play and in creating the huge panoramas that rolled behind the action in production.54 It can be assumed that audiences, who had of course never experienced an actual Roman chariot race, became so familiar with this particular vision of the race that when they saw elements of it incorporated into a theatrical production, it seemed and felt not only “real” but also historically accurate to them (Figure 7.18). In further regard to authenticity, the producers of the play sought to make the horses fit the descriptions given in the original book. Finding horses who are willing and able to perform on the theatrical stage was rarely “easy,” but finding such horses who also looked the part, as described by Wallace, was perhaps just as challenging. The account in the New York Times also addressed this aspect of the production, explaining that the process of securing the ”right” horses: required trips to several cities noted as “horse centres” to obtain animals which physically answered the requirements. [. . .] to secure horses to play the parts Rigal, Antares, Atair, and Aldebaran was no easy task. But after two months’ search of the horse markets of America, the equine actors who “looked their parts” were secured. Once acquired, the horses at the Broadway commenced rehearsals, as the piece goes on to explain: The cradles and the entire chariot race apparatus were built into the Broadway Theatre three weeks ago, and daily since then twelve horses have been trained in running the race. The animals step into their places without prompting, their traces are snapped and, on the raising of a hand, start off at a run which would carry them a mile in much less than two minutes. Marc Klaw, who has supervised all the details of the chariot race effect, stands near the cradles with a stopwatch in his hand. When the indicator shows the horses have run for sixty seconds, he makes a signal. The trainor raises his hand, and the horses come to a full stop and stand calmly in their places until the traces are unsnapped, when they leave the cradles as if running mimic races had been their daily custom since the time of their colthood. The horses are only allowed to run sixty seconds each day, as their physical endurance is being trained, as well as their familiarity with their tasks.55 Beyond this, the specifics of setting the stage for the chariot race are detailed in the article, as well as in other sources. First, the treadmills needed either to be brought in or uncovered (depending on the theatre and stage design). Next, the horses had to be brought and harnessed onstage. The chariots and fans were readied, and the multiple panoramas (or “traveling aprons”) were brought

Figure 7.18  Poster: New York Production of Ben-Hur, 1899

168  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

into place. This could all be accomplished onstage behind a drop, before which other action proceeded.56 During the original production, two chariots drawn by teams of four horses each were featured in the onstage race; in later productions, more were added and eventually it included five teams of four horses each, for a total of 20 galloping horses onstage in Chicago in 1905, where all the treadmills were winched for movement during the race.57 The number of horses, as well as a myriad number of other factors affected how long it took to set the scene. A 1901 (Figure 7.19) production in Illinois’ Powers Theatre included a note in the program advising audience members, “Between acts five and six the curtain will remain down twelve minutes.”58 Young’s stage directions relating to the race are scant, and the scene (as written) is quite short. At the end of act 5, scene 1 comes “the thunder of hoofs and wheels,” which is followed by a change in scene to the “interior of circus—race in progress.”The entire written text of the scene from start to finish of the race, including the “winners circle” presentation, is as follows: BEN-HUR [shouting to his steeds]: On,Air! On, Rigel! Antares! Oho,Aldbaran! [The wheel rolls from MESSALA’s chariot, and MESSALA falls as BEN— HUR draws past him. Stage dark. Change: Lights up. BEN-HUR, standing in his chariot before Consul’s seat, receives the victor’s crown; ILDERIM caressing his horses; MALLUCH also near horses. SIMONIDES, ESTHER, IRAS, BALTASAR, and SANBALLAT in box above, in characteristic attitudes. Shouting— cheering—trumpet-calls. Curtain] 59

Figure 7.19  Poster: Touring Production of Ben-Hur, 1901

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 169

The lights in the theatre were then dimmed, and a drop was lowered.When the lights come back up on a large crowd cheering around Ben-Hur, the race in Ben-Hur has both begun and ended with horses galloping and the race in progress (like the racing scenes in many of the equestrian dramas that preceded it). A detailed description of the race scene’s design as it was produced at the Broadway Theatre was published in Scientific American in August 1900. The lengthy (although condensed) excerpts that follow provide an overview of the scene and the main components of its design: This scene is one of the most realistic every produced. It is a combination of many effects, some of them old and many of them entirely new.The new effects were invented by Mr. Claude L. Hagen, of the firm McDonald & Hagen, New York city, who is also the master machinist of this splendid production of “Ben-Hur.” When first introduced upon the stage, the horse race was a decided novelty, and it is doubtful if any stage illusion is more ingenious. The two principal plays in which the horse race has been used are Neil Burgess’ production of the popular play “The Country Fair,” and the French play “Paris Port de Mer.” In both of these plays, three horses, each ridden by a jockey, race upon the stage without going out of sight of the spectators. We have in these plays an illusion true to nature; the horses, appearing to be free from all restraint, are really galloping, the ground disappearing under their feet and the landscape as well as the fences fly past in the direction contrary to the forward motion of the horse. This is accomplished by means of a treadmill, which the horses themselves actuate. In “Ben-Hur” many radical improvements have been introduced, even in this part of the performance. [. . .] A large part of the illusion depends upon the background [. . .] the one invented by Mr. Hagen, is very novel. It embodies means for mounting and driving traveling aprons at the rear and sides of the stage, so as to prevent any break in the scene and this, of course, gives the audience the impression of a change of scenery, as in the illusion the spectator follows the racing horses. At the rear of the stage is an endless apron, flanked on each side by smaller endless aprons. [. . .] Upon these aprons are painted representations of the background of the scene. [. . .] the electric motor which actuates all three aprons of the panorama [. . .] is a five-horse power Landall motor, and is operated at the proper time by the assistant, who stands at the switchboard and who receives the signal of the stage manager by a flash of the colored electric lamp. [. . .] to the spectator the three aprons appear to be a continuous, unbroken scene. Notwithstanding the fact that the panorama itself is 96 feet wide and 25 feet high, the three panoramas are all rotated at a speed of 2,000 feet per minute by a two horse power motor. [. . .] To make the illusion complete, Mr. Hagen has provided an exceedingly ingenious means for representing the ground, causing the chariots to appear to actually be moving over it. This illusion is affected by a number of narrow, endless canvas belts [. . .] to give proper perspective to this effect

170  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

the speed at which the belts are driven is gradually decreased toward the rear of the stage. [. . .] The treadmills are placed immediately beneath the stage and are covered by sections of planking which are removed and carried out to the wings when the race is to take place. There are eight treadmills, one for each horse, and the horses are brought up from the stables, a few blocks away, a short time before they are needed, and they take their places with the artists and the supernumeraries awaiting their cue to go upon the stage. They seem to take huge delight in the performance, and seem to know to the minute the time when they are to run.The chariots are two in number and each is supposed to be drawn by four horses [. . .] The chariot of Messala is arranged so that at the critical moment when Ben-Hur strikes Messala’s chariot by dropping a catch, powerful springs on the axel throw the wheels off and the body of the chariot drops upon a yoke which is provided with springs. Of course, it is necessary to make one of the chariots appear to go ahead of the other. This could, of course, be managed by allowing the horses to really advance, but with four horses this might prove dangerous. The same means is accomplished by having the four treadmills and the place upon which Messala’s chariot rests on an independent section of flooring, which can be moved back a distance of 15 feet. [. . .] A stop is provided so that the treadmill cannot be operated by the horses until the treadmill has begun to move [. . .] The horses are very securely fastened, so that there is little danger of an accident. To stimulate the dust raised by the chariot wheels, a combination of powders is forced out underneath the horses’ feet and behind the chariot wheels. This is accomplished by a blower in the cellar [. . .] The dust is fed into a hopper and is blown through fourteen ducts.60 Having clarified the workings of the treadmill and panoramas, attention should be paid to the chariots used in Ben-Hur.The chariots used in the race combined elements of Burgess’ earlier designs and seem to be similar to the stage chariot design patented on 29 January 1901 by David Towers. This design, U.S. Patent No. 666,714 (Figures 7.20 and 7.21), seems compatible with the other stage machinery used in Ben-Hur. It clearly builds on earlier designs and acknowledges indebtedness to Burgess, with whom Towers had probably worked in the past.61 Tower’s treadmill/panorama patent features two panoramas and a means for blowing “dust” between them to create the illusion of having the horses actually run forward (and to mask the meeting of the two panoramas). It also features a novel projecting device (not used in Ben-Hur) and, finally, has the horses positioned to move toward the audience instead of parallel with the audience, as was typical with earlier devices.Towers’ patent elaborates the details of his chariot device, which was designed to “lose” a wheel. While Tower’s chariot design may or may not have been the one used in BenHur, it is certain that this was not the first time a chariot with a “trick” wheel was used in a stage spectacular. In 1879, the Hanlon-Lees (aka the Hanlons),

Figure 7.20  Image 1 from U.S. Patent No. 666,714

Figure 7.21  Image 2 From U.S. Patent No. 666,714

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 173

a family troupe of acrobats who enjoyed great popular success for presenting theatrical spectacles of various types in Europe and the United States, utilized a similar device in their pantomime, Le Voyage en Suisse (The Trip to Switzerland).62 It featured a spectacular entrance by the Hanlon-Lees, in which their horsedrawn carriage loses a wheel and thus is caused to overturn violently, allowing the Hanlon-Lees to perform an acrobatic escape.63 Although the Hanlon-Lees did patent numerous other diverse designs, there is no patent found for this carriage. Ben-Hur played fairly regularly for 20 years in the United States and was also produced on three different continents. The run began at the Broadway Theatre in November 1899 with subsequent tours that concluded in 1920, at which time the original epic 1925 silent film version of the story (directed by Fred Niblo) was in the beginning stages of production. Ben-Hur, although it only has one small mention of horses in its written script, remains the most spectacular racing play and mechanized equestrian drama in the history of the American theatre, and represents the height to which the use of stage treadmills and panoramas rose with its famous chariot race scene that incorporated more horses at greater speeds and with more spectacular effect than has been seen before or since.

Conclusions These plays and effects capitalized on both the popularity of the horse in theatre and of horse racing in general. Specialized stage machinery was developed over the course of decades to enable the realistic illusion of forward motion, at speed, across distance, and in real time onstage.This not only revolutionized the production of equestrian drama, these advances (which include the turntable or revolving stage, as well as the combination of the treadmill and panorama) enable illusions that can be viewed as precursors to the coming age of film. Also, some aspects of the designs and technology patented for use in the latenineteenth and early twentieth-century mechanized equestrian dramas are still in use today, and the influence of others is seen in related technology.64 The stage machinery and subject matter opened up a new genre of equestrian drama at a time when the melodramas and military plays of previous decades were losing some of their appeal. In doing so, the racing plays, along with frontier equestrian dramas, helped extend the era of equestrian drama for decades, and aspects of both genres transitioned into film: the characters and situations from frontier equestrian drama featured significantly in early films, and the technology of the racing plays foreshadowed actual moving pictures. Ironically, the various attempts to create the appearance of actual horse races and equestrian circus performances onstage resulted not only in creating realistic illusions but also in eliminating most of the actual equestrianism and athleticism, which were sacrificed in the creation of these illusions. In a very real sense, this progression into realistic illusion at the expense of reality itself foreshadows the transference of spectacle from the live stage to film.

174  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama

Notes 1. Tyrwhitt-Drake, p. 5. 2. Garner examines aspects of the horseracing culture of early nineteenth century England in relation to equestrian drama in his essay “A Matter of Turf.” 3. There are also many American plays that include horse racing as an element central to the plot, but not one that is enacted onstage. These are not examined here, as they are not truly equestrian dramas. 4. A brief overview of notable early racing plays on the English stage is presented by Saxon, mainly in the notes accompanying his conclusion to Enter Foot and Horse, pp. 223–224. These early plays presented horse races in which the horses actually ran across stage and, sometimes, in other areas of the theatre. 5. England in 1815: A Critical Edition of the Journal of Joseph Ballard, edited by A. Rauch. Google Play Books. It should be noted that this play, while a significant equestrian melodrama, as well as in some productions a racing play, is not considered in depth as part of this study due to a lack of information on its production history within the United States. 6. Stirling, Edward. The Jockey Club: An Equestrian Tatersallian Extravaganza in 2 Acts. Proquest. 7. A sampling of racing plays includes Dion Boucicault’s The Flying Scud (produced in London at the Holborn Theatre in 1866); A Run of Luck (see the New York Herald from 29 August 1886 for an article discussing this production, “A Sporting Drama. Race Courses and Hunting Fields, with Live Horses and Hounds on the Stage”); The Derby Winner, a play by Albert Spink that featured seven thoroughbred race horses onstage (see the New York Times “Theatrical Gossip” section, from 9 April 1894); Victoria Cross (see the New York Times 28 August 1894); The Prodigal Daughter, Checkers (which was produced at the American Theatre and ran for several weeks in fall of 1903, then moved to Chicago at a “large theatre,” then to Boston, then in January 1904 to the Academy of Music in New York, and then in 1919 was adapted for film); Thoroughbred (written by Ralph Lumley and produced “with unmistakable success” at the Garrick Theatre in January 1904; see a review in the New York Times 24 January 1904); Wildfire (by Broadhurst and Hobart; see the New York Times from 12 July 1908 and 08 September 1908, page 9); Blue Grass (written by Paul Armstrong and produced at the Majestic Theatre in New York in November 1908; see the New York Times of 10 November 1895 for review of the play that starred a “real race horse”); The Whip (which played at Drury Lane and then in New York); His Last Dollar (written by David Higgins; see the Salt Lake Telegram/Evening Telegram from 13 April 1910); Dark Rosaleen (written by Whitford Kane and W.D. Hepenstall, produced in March 1919 in New York); Weather Clear, Track Fast (written by Williard Mack); The Field Against the Favorite (available online at New York Public Library); and Dandy Dick (written by Arthur Wing Pinero in 1887 and adapted for film in 1935). 8. Odell, 2:239. 9. Odell, 2:538 10. Odell, 3:320, 378. 11. Morning Chronicle. 27 December 1833 and Saxon, Enter Foot and Horse, pp. 105–106. 12. Two examples illustrating the details of the panoramic exhibitions that occurred in New York during the summer of 1835 unconnected with any theatrical productions are found in Odell (4:43 and 48–49). Odell reports that on 7 May 1835, a moving panorama featuring a moving picture of the “Battle and Village of Waterloo” was advertised as having been brought to New York from London and, on 22 June, the Sun announced peristrephic dioramas to be presented along with a “Chinese Lady” and “Harrington, the magician.” Odell also quotes the Star, from 30 July, regarding a huge panorama to be exhibited: A building 70 feet in length is now being erected at the foot of Pierpont street in this city, for the purpose of exhibiting a panoramic view of the Liverpool and Manchester

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 175 Railroad. . . . The field of view will be from 40 to 50 feet long, and 24 high, the miniature cars and trains will be moved by steam power. [. . .] Immense paintings, embracing 15,000 feet of canvass, exhibiting a miniature view of the whole road between the two cities, are kept in motion, at the same time that the train of cars are moving on the railroad—thus giving up to the untraveled observer a correct view of that most celebrated road. The whole is kept in motion by a steam engine. 13. Recklies reports that Burgess obtained his first plays of this type from Olivia Lovell and asserts that Burgess most likely paid Lovell for a series of sketches and then developed them for his unique performances; the details of the transaction are unclear. 14. Burgess lived and worked in the United States, mainly in the northeastern United States, for all of his professional life. Donald Fred Recklies presents a concise biographical overview of Burgess’ life (pp. 26–28) as part of his 1985 dissertation “Spectacle and Illusion: The Mechanics of the Staged Horse Race on the Theatrical Stage 1883–1923.” Recklies also traces a detailed history of the stage machinery used for racing plays in his dissertation and has inspired my research in this area. 15. Neil Burgess’ New Play entitled:Vim; or, A Visit to Puffy Farm. In Three Acts (& a Nightmare). By the Author of “Widow Bedow.” Copyright, 1878, by Neil Burgess. Included on the title page is also the following statement: “Mr. Burgess has been granted Letters Patent No. 256,007 by the U.S. Government, for the mechanical effects used in ‘Vim.” 16. J. W. Knell, “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects” (U.S. Patent No. 256,007), United States Patent and Trademark Office, 4 April 1886. Google Patents. 17. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 256,007, p. 2, lines 11–15. 18. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 256,007, p. 2, lines. 30–31. 19. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 256,007, p. 2, lines. 46–47. 20. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 256,007, p. 2, lines. 51–60. 21. J.W. Knell, “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects” (U.S. Patent No. 277,137), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 8 May 1883, available from Google Patents. 22. Knell, U. S. Patent No. 277,137, 2, lines. 42–46. 23. Knell, U. S. Patent No. 277,137, 2, lines. 46–53. 24. A similar design was patented a little over ten years later by William H. Lytell. Lytell’s patent is U.S. Patent No. 498,669, and it was issued on 30 May 1893. Available from Google Patents. 25. An extant script dating from 1921 is found published by Samuel French; it credits authorship to “Charles Barnard and Neil Burgess,” noting that the play has been: “Revised, 1921, by Neil Burgess” and “Copyright, 1921, by Neil Burgess” and “Copyright, 1922, by Neil Burgess.” Charles Barnard patented his own design for a “Theatrical Appliance.” The patent for his design is U.S. Patent No. 422,362. It was issued on 4 March 1890 and depicts a device that is similar to Burgess’ buggy, but in which “a pedal-wheel vehiclesuch as a bicycle or velocipede” is substituted for the buggy.The “vehicle” is mounted in a frame in or on which it appears to move and must be “capable of being mounted and having its pedals free to be operated by the actor, but having its wheel or wheels raised from contact with the ground surface on which the vehicle appears to run by means of a traveling sled or slide on which the vehicle is mounted.” On 17 May 1892, F. Wohlgemuth received U.S. Patent No. 475,226 for his design, enabling a bicycle race onstage using a mechanism similar to Barnard’s and to those of Burgess. On 21 May 1895, W. Fessler received U.S. Patent No. 539,731 for a “Theatrical Appliance” enabling the appearance of an onstage locomotive using a design that Fessler says is also applicable “to other forms of devices such as wagons, boats and similar conveyances.” The design utilized a panorama and steam, along with the locomotive. 26. Advertisement from The Philadelphia Enquirer. 8 October 1888, cited in Recklies, p. 37. 27. “The Brightest Star of a Constellation in the Highlands Hills.” Our Theatrical Playground. n.d. Theatrical Gossip, New York Times, Thursday 27 December 1888, p. 8. 28. It should also be noted that the horses in these plays did not always have their onstage action limited to race scenes; for example, in The Country Fair, the horse character, Cold

176  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama Molasses, is often referenced and appears in numerous scenes, including the last, in which he eats a marriage license to end the play. 29. Recklies, pp. 28–29. 30. This is confirmed in various newspaper reports and by Recklies, p. 38. 31. On 21 January 1908, Samuel Birnbaum received U.S. Patent No. 877,286 for a “Theatrical Appliance” that he purported would enable an appropriate means for starting and stopping an onstage horse and rider in full view of the audience without detracting from the effect. In Birnbaum’s description, “According to my improvement, it is possible to bring the animal or vehicle to rest upon the stage in full view of the audience, and to again start the animal or other traveling object on its journey without detracting at all from the illusory effect.” Birnbaum achieves his goal by having the horse (or other moving object) on the treadmill in front of a scrolling panorama that is either painted or projected. When the “object” comes to rest, the background is left blank or so as to depict a stationary background. Birnbaum does not address the effect of having the horse or “object” start and stop on the treadmill; he only addresses the issue of the background. 32. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 286,709, 2, lines. 85–86. 33. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 286,709, 2, lines. 81–84. 34. J. W. Knell, “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 418,372), U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 31 December 1889, p. 4, lines. 91–93. Google Patents. 35. David I. Towers also sought to address the issue of how to make one horse or another “win” an onstage horse race. Towers solution is detailed in his U.S. Patent No. 494,043, granted to him on 21 March 1893. In this design, Towers explains, “My invention is designed to permit the carriage to be moved forward and to hold it at a definite, certain point of travel made or advantage gained, by the movement of the endless apron, and I believe I am the first to invent means for attaining this purpose.” 36. J.W. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 423,171, 3–4, lines. 95–103. A similar design was issued to Jefferson Patten on 11 July 1893. This design, U.S. Patent No. 501,099, sought “to provide a fence or like part that may be used on a substantially flat surface in connection with an apparatus for the representation of a race effect on the stage, the fence being arranged so as to change the palings or slats passing it from a horizontal to a vertical position, the latter being the position of the slats that is requisite as the fence moves along in front of the moving animals that are engaged in the race.” 37. Interestingly, this is the same date that Burgess’ moving picket fence design was granted U.S. Patent No. 423,171. A similar design, U.S. Patent No. 748, 116, was patented a few years later by Oswald Stoll on 29 December 1903. Stoll’s design consisted of “two or more concentric sections or platforms” that could be revolved independently in either the same or opposite directions simultaneously. 38. Chapman, U.S. Patent No. 423,372, 3, lines. 43–49, 68–69, 80–84 and 86–99. 39. Knell, U.S. Patent No. 471,126, 2, lines 16–20. A design similar to the revolving stages of Burgess and Chapman was later created by H.Thurston, who was granted U.S. Patent No. 1,104,846 on 8 December 1913. Thurston’s design calls for a stage with a circular track that is to be combination with a number of other elements (including a painted landscape, motion picture technology, dummies, racecars or other “objects,” and/or a steep, speed-generating, incline) and used for the depiction of onstage automobile races or “the movements of other vehicles and races between men and animals and hence the term object is used herein in its broadest sense and as including vehicles of the auto type, bicycles, vehicles drawn by horses, men and animals, and boats.” 40. The greatest racing play, in terms of spectacle, was the 1899 New York production (and subsequent tour of) Ben-Hur, and it featured stage machinery designed by Claude L. Hagen. Prior to his work on Ben-Hur, Hagen received U.S. Patent No. 546,528 for “Construction of Theaters.” This design featured a revolving stage but, ironically, it was not intended for the depiction of an onstage horserace, but instead to facilitate a system of theatre construction that allowed for a number of complete stage settings to be built

Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 177 and placed on individual sections of a revolving stage that would then be able to turn each stage to the forefront as needed to display it at the appropriate time to the audience. Such stages are still in use today. 41. Recklies, p. 54. 42. Recklies, p. 56. 43. “Star-The Year One,” New York Dramatic Mirror, 16 November 1895, p. 16. 44. It is unclear exactly when the circus scene was added, but some degree of circus riding was in place within the play by 24 April 1888, when the New York Times commented on it in the following report of a production of Vim that had opened the night before at the Standard Theatre: Mr. Neil Burgess’s caricature of the Yankee woman is irresistibly amusing. Her thrift, energy, and volubility are depicted with bold strokes. Her traits are all exaggerated, of course, but there are scenes in the farce of Vim, [. . .] that are amazingly like the truth of everyday life. [. . .] The third act is of a very slender texture, [. . .] for Josiah Puffy, having eaten too much pie at a picnic, falls asleep and dreams a dream which is pictured before the spectators. He is at the circus playing clown and eluding the ringmaster’s whip, while his portly wife figures as a rider in abbreviated skirts. The device by which a live horse is made to go through the motions of running without changing his position in the scene has at least the merit of originality. (New York Times, 24 April 1888, p. 5) 45. An interesting side note is found in Burgess’ acknowledgment that this mechanism, and the horses it incorporates in performance, are noisy; therefore, he suggests incorporating another of his designs, U.S. Patent No. 784,919, an applause machine, to conceal the unwanted noise generated by the primary device. 46. N. Burgess, Dec’d. C. V. Pallister & G. W. Swan, Administrators, “Device for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects” (U.S. Patent No. 996,452), U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, 27 June 1911, 1, pp. 34–35. Burgess also patented another related device, an “Apparatus for Exercising Horses or Other Animals on Shipboard or Other Places.” This device is similar to the treadmills he designed for use onstage and received U.S. Patent No. 736,360 on 18 August 1903. Google Patents. 47. Hagen’s machinery was also used onstage in the 1908 production of Sporting Days at the New York Hippodrome. This production included various “sports” onstage, including a horse race, which was initiated by a plot twist involving the “kidnapping” of a jockey. The action was set in Saratoga, New York, where the racehorses waited in their stalls before the race, which was accomplished utilizing, with spectacular effect, the treadmills created by Hagen for the presentation of the race (which began in progress) with eleven horses galloping on treadmills before a moving panorama. The race is mentioned, but not described in much detail in the New York Times article “Looking Forward in a Hippodrome Show” from 11 September 1908. Epstein (1:205– 206) discusses it in more detail. Epstein also reports (1:297) that treadmills were again employed onstage at the New York Hippodrome for the September 1913 production of America, in which treadmills and panoramas assisted the illusion of a team of real horses appearing to rush through the streets, pulling a fire engine at full speed en route to a fire. 48. Recklies (p. 62) cites an acknowledgment of indebtedness to Burgess found in a theatrical program for Ben-Hur held in the Billy Rose Theatre Collection at the New York Public Library. The connection is also clear from the circumstantial evidence surrounding the machinery and the working proximity of its creators. 49. Claude L. Hagen. “Theatrical Appliance” (U.S. Patent No. 653,997). Google Patents. 50. Claude L. Hagen. “Stage Machinery” (U.S. Patent No. 696,969). Google Patents. Hagen invented numerous other theatrical designs that received patents between the years of 1900 and 1913. 51. Brown, 3:418.

178  Stage Machinery in Racing and Equestrian Drama 52. New York Times. “The Ben-Hur Chariot Race.” Sunday, 5 November 1899. Productions in other cities reportedly required similar renovations, as in the 1901 production at the Mason in Los Angeles, of which the Los Angeles Herald reported, “For Klaw and Erlanger’s production, ‘Ben-Hur,’ which comes to the Mason for two weeks beginning November 20, the stage of the theater must be almost entirely rebuilt.” 53. Alexander von Wagner, The Chariot Race. Manchester City Art Museum, 1893. Mayer credits this painting to “Leopold von Wagner.” 54. Mayer, p. 194. 55. “The ‘Ben-Hur’ Chariot Race.” New York Times. 5 November 1899, p. 18. 56. More information is found in Recklies, pp. 139–140 and in the New York Herald. 5 November 1899, sec 4, p. 7. Various other newspaper accounts of the performance also exist. 57. The Inter Ocean (Chicago, Illinois) Sunday 12 February 1905, p. 29 and Recklies, p. 165. 58. Playbill. Illinois Theatre, Ben-Hur. 21 October 1901. 59. Mayer, pp. 273–274. 60. Scientific American. 25 August 1900, p. 119. 61. D. I. Towers. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 666, 714), 3, lines 16–33. As stated earlier, David Towers was also a “witness” to Burgess’ U.S. Patent No. 423,171. Also, both men cite New Jersey as their place of residence on their patents. It seems clear Towers was influenced by Burgess’ design. 62. McKinven, pp. 47–50. 63. The Hanlon-Lees Action Theatre website includes a color picture of this. McKinven also includes two pictures of this scene. One is presented on page 50 as “Figure 15” and the other is included twice, both as the cover illustration and as “Plate 3.” 64. Turntable and revolving stages remain in use as of this writing and are seen with relative frequency in major theatres and productions. Examples of plays that have recently utilized these stages are many, and include: the 2008 Broadway revival of Equus, the Broadway production of War Horse, and also the enormously popular Hamilton. Video and LED screens are also being utilized with increasing frequency as elements of stage design, and these new technologies can be viewed as developments of the moving panoramic background.

8 Epilogue and Conclusions

During the nineteenth century, which was an age of melodrama and theatrical spectacle in the United States, the horse reached the zenith of his importance in both theatre and society. The horse at this time was exceptionally useful, providing transportation, enhancing commerce, and serving as an essential element of the military machinery of virtually every country in the world. At the same time that the horse reached this pinnacle of utilitarian importance in human society, the horse also achieved his greatest popularity in the theatre. The decline of equestrian drama roughly paralleled the decline of society’s dependence on the horse, a period in history whose hallmark was increasing mechanization. As human dependence on the horse for labor, transportation, and warfare diminished, so did the demand for and production of equestrian drama. This parallel is not mere coincidence; on the contrary, it results from the very nature of theatre, which, as Walter Merserve observed, provides “a ready mirror for a country’s faults and foibles, a constant source of opinion on any topics of any day, the theatre of a free society provides one of the most reliable reflections of that society.”1 With the 1899 production of Ben-Hur, equestrian drama in the United States reached its absolute peak. This is not to say that no more equestrian dramas were ever produced, but instead to say that the great (and mainly nineteenth century) heyday of equestrian drama in America was over. Actual “real” horses, who had appeared onstage enlivening equestrian drama in the nineteenth century moved off the stage and transitioned into film at the turn of the twentieth century. They were no longer commonly seen onstage as actors; nor did they continue to appear there often as aspects of the background and spectacular realism, or as contributors to verisimilitude.The equine actor, who had enjoyed great popularity in theatres throughout the nineteenth century in equestrian drama, along with the popular presentation of spectacular realism, moved from the theatrical stage to a new venue, the movie screen. The evolving preferences of American theatre audiences can be said to partially account for this shift; for instance, the creation of the Drama League of America in 1910 embodied a growing sentiment of “improving” art, part of which involved judging and dividing art into high and low forms. While this was not a completely new philosophy, it now gained widespread acceptance in

180  Epilogue and Conclusions

the United States, and spectacular and melodramatic forms of entertainment came to be seen by some as less worthy than more cerebral forms. A new, less spectacular style of realism emerged on the main stages of the American theatre. While this may have been a contributing factor, it is not the major reason that horses, like spectacular realism in general, moved from live theatres into film at this time. The change occurred mainly because the same characteristics that had drawn nineteenth-century audiences desirous of spectacular realism into theatres to attend equestrian dramas also drew the new audiences into movie theatres to see films featuring horses. In both instances, the audiences came for spectacular realism and to experience the power of the horse in all of the horse’s motifs. Through film these could be experienced in a different, but no less effective medium, and one that suited the new realities of the twentieth century. It was not the same experience as live theatre, but it was equally attractive in its own way. With film, the immediacy of sharing space with real horses inside the theatre was lost, but other advantages were gained. Most obviously, film performances can be captured and enhanced through editing and on a scale that is not limited by the need to present the performance in real time or to create it using the resources presently at hand. Film also presented audiences with a new way of experiencing spectacular realism, as equestrian drama had done for theatrical audiences a century earlier. In film, horses embody the same motifs and carry the same symbolic and archetypal associations that they conveyed to earlier American audiences in theatres. Real horses continued to appear onstage in theatres in the twentieth century, but they did so much less often, coming instead to be represented there through some means other than a “real horse.” Examples of such representations include the masked human actors enlivening the “horses” in Peter Shaffer’s Equus and the human-operated puppets bringing to life the horses of Nick Stafford’s War Horse.2 Dramatic representations of equine characters are also crucial elements found in some plays for young audiences, prime examples of which are Strider and Johan Padan and the Discovery of the Americas.3 Horses portrayed in this way retain much of their symbolic power and function effectively onstage. Such plays have enjoyed both critical and popular success, but the horse characters in them do not add to the verisimilitude or spectacular impact of the plays, nor are the plays themselves truly equestrian dramas. If we look for a “new” or twenty-first century incarnation of the “equestrian drama,” we do not find one that completely fits the nineteenth-century model; however, a new, related theatrical form has emerged, first appearing toward the end of the twentieth century. This is “equestrian theatre,” which can be defined as a contemporary form of live performance that combines elements of equestrian drama and circus equestrianism into a hybrid form of para-theatre that includes horses playing an essential role. There are numerous companies and venues presenting entertainments that can be described as equestrian theatre.The existence of such companies suggests that in many ways people are still drawn to, entertained by, and inspired by live horses in theatrical entertainments. Two major examples of this type of performance are found in

Epilogue and Conclusions 181

the productions of Zingaro Theatre and Cavalia.4 These companies and their performances reflect not only aspects of earlier equestrian drama in their use of horses to tell a story in live performance but also contemporary ideas about the shifting nature of theatre, as well as about the roles and rights of equine actors and performing horses, with each group demonstrating, encouraging, and promoting a respect for horses as active participants in both the creation and presentation of performances.

Notes 1. Merserve, p.VII. 2. Equus was written by Peter Shaffer and debuted at the National Theatre in London in 1973. It moved to Broadway in 1975 and won numerous awards, including the New York Drama Critics Circle, Outer Critics Circle, Drama Desk, and Tony Awards for “Best Play.” It was revived in the West End in 2007 and, from there, transferred to Broadway, where it ran through 2009. In 1978, Equus was adapted as a feature film, directed by Sidney Lumet. War Horse was adapted for the stage by Nick Stafford from Michael Morpurgo’s 1982 novel. The play debuted in October 2007 at the National Theatre in London. In 2009, it moved to the West End, where it became enormously popular. War Horse opened on Broadway in 2011 and won numerous awards, including the Tony for “Best Play.” Since then, it has enjoyed a successful international tour and continues to tour as of this writing. War Horse has also been made into a feature film, directed by Steven Spielberg. 3. Johann Padan and the Discovery of the Americas was written by Nobel-Prize winner, Dario Fo. Fo performs the play as a one-man show. Strider is based on a short story by Leo Tolstoy and was adapted for the stage by Mark Rozovsky. It debuted on Broadway in 1979 and ran for over 200 performances before closing in May 1980. 4. Both of these companies currently have shows in production. Zingaro’s current production is titled Ex Anima and, of it, creative director, Bartabas says, “For this ultimate creation, I would like to celebrate them as the true actors of this original “Equestrian Theatre” . . . To set up a ritual without memory, a ceremony where the audience will see the animal such as the mirror of humanity.” Cavalia’s current production, Odysseo, is described as a show at which, “Audiences of all ages are passionately rediscovering the centuries-old relationship between human and horse.” A related form is found in the work of American dance group, the Equus Projects: Dances with Horses, founded in 2001 and based in New York. This company works with horses and has presented some works that could be considered to fall into the genre of equestrian theatre. Theatre du Centaure, which was founded in 1989 and which is currently based in Marseille, also presents diverse theatrical acts featuring horses.

Bibliography

Adubato, Robert A. “A History of the WPA’s Negro Theatre Project in New York City.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1978. American and Commercial Daily Advertiser. Baltimore, MD. 16 December 1822. American Cowboy‑Actual Scenes‑Genuine Characters Buffalo Bill’s Wild West and Congress of Rough Riders. Poster for Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show (c. 1896) Cody, WY: Buffalo Bill Historical Center. “Amusements.” The Chicago Tribune. 23 January 1883. Anglo American: A Journal of Literature, News, Politics, the Drama, Fine Arts, Etc. Edited by A. D. Patterson. New York: E. L. Garvin and Co.Vol. 3, No. 18, 1844, p. 429. Google Play Books. Astley, John. The Art of Riding. London: Henrie Denham, 1584. Accessed online. Early English Books Online. Astley, Philip. Astley’s System of Equestrian Education: Exhibiting the Beauties and Defects of the Horse, with Serious and Important Observations on His General Excellence, Preserving Him in Health, Grooming, &c. Dublin: T. Burnside, 1802. Archive.org ———. The Amazing Exhibition of the Little Conjuring Horse: Also a General Display of All Sorts of Manly Activity on Horseback: Likewise a Curious (Mechanical) Sympathetical Clock, the Magical Table, and Several Magnetical Experiments, Operations, &c. Astley’s New Entertainments (Consisting of Divers Feats of Activity) at the Riding-School, Westminster-Bridge, . . . S.n. 1775. Accessed online. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. ———. The Modern Riding-master: Or, a Key to the Knowledge of the Horse, and Horsemanship: With Several Necessary Rules for Young Horsemen, 8 vols. London, 1774–1775. Ballard, Carol, dir. The Black Stallion (Film). Omni Zoetrope, San Francisco, 1979. Ballard, Joseph. England in 1815: A Critical Edition of the Journal of Joseph Ballard. Edited by A. Rauch. Basingstroke, UK: Palgrave McMillan, 2009. Barnard, Charles. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 422,362) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 4 March 1890. Barrymore, W. The Blood Red Knight, or the Fatal Bridge: A Grand Melo Dramatic Romance in 2 Acts. Circulating Library and Drama Repository, 1823. Hathitrust Digital Library. “Beautiful Jim Key Collection.” Tennessee Virtual Archive, Tennesee State Library and Archives, 2016. “The ‘Ben-Hur’ Chariot Race.” New York Times. 5 November 1899, p. 18. Birnbaum, Samuel. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 877,286) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 21 January 1908. Bishop, Morin, Jeff Labrecque, and Theresa M. Deal, eds. Sports Illustrated Greatest Feats: Sport’s Most Unforgettable Accomplishments. New York: Bishop Books, 2002.

Bibliography 183 Blake, Charles. An Historical Account of the Providence Stage; Being a Paper Read Before the Rhode Island Historical Society, October 25th, 1860. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1971. Boeden, James. Memoirs of the Life of John Philip Kemble, Esq: Including a History of the Stage, from the Time of Garrick to the Present Period,Vol. 2. Google Play Books. Boston Commercial Gazette. 30 June 1817. Boston Intelligencer, and Morning & Evening Advertiser. Boston, MA. 5 July 1817. Brown,T. Allston. A History of the New York Stage: From the First Performance in 1732 to 1901, 3 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1902–1903. Google Play Books. ———. The Showman’s Guide, 3rd ed. New York, 1874. Brown, T. Allston, author, and William L. Stout, ed. Amphitheatres and Circuses: A History from Their Earliest Date to 1861, with Sketches of Some of the Principal Performers (Clipper Studies in the Theatre, book 9.) San Bernadino: Borgo Press, 1994. “Builds Stage for ‘Ben-Hur’.” Los Angeles Herald. 24 October 1905. California Digital Newspaper Collection. Burgess, Neil. Neil Burgess’ New Play Entitled: Vim; or, A Visit to Puffy Farm: In Three Acts (& a Nightmare): By the Author of “Widow Bedow.” Copyright, 1878, by Neil Burgess. Burgess, Neilson. “Amusement Device for Producing Illusory Effects.” (U. S. Patent No. 924,632) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 15 June 1909. ———. “Apparatus for Exercising Horses or Other Animals on Shipboard or Other Places.” (U.S. Patent No. 736,360) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 18 August 1903. ———. “Device for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U. S. Patent No. 996,452) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 27 June 1911. ———. “Stage Apparatus.” (U. S. Patent No. 442,796) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 16 December 1890. ———.“Stage Apparatus.” (U.S. Patent No. 784,919) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 14 March 1905. Buss, Kato M. T. “Cowboy up: Evolution of the Frontier Hero in American Theatre, 1872– 1903.” Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, 2012. Butsch, Richard. The Making of American Audiences: From Stage to Television, 1750–1990. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Butterworth, Philip. Magic on the Early English Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Byron, Henry J. “Mazeppa! A Burlesque Extravaganza.” London: Lacy, n.d. Caprilli, Federico, and Major Piero Santini, trans. and ed. The Caprilli Papers. London: J. A. Allen, 1967. Carson, William G. B. The Theatre on the Frontier: The Early Years of the St. Louis Stage, 2nd ed. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1965. Carver, Sonora Webster, as told to Elizabeth Land. A Girl and Five Brave Horses. Eastford, CT: Martino Fine Books, 2009. Cavendish, William. General System of Horsemanship. New York: Winchester Press, 1970. Chapman, Frank M. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 423,372) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 11 March 1890. “Cheer up Show at the Hippodrome.” New York Times. Friday 24 August 1917, p. 9. Clarke, Norman. The Mighty Hippodrome. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co, 1968. Columbian, The. New York. 1809–1817. Columbian Herald. South Carolina. 17 December 1793. Cook, Edward Dutton. A Book of the Play. 1876. “The Country Fair: A New Theatre.” New York Times. 6 March 1889, p. 4.

184  Bibliography Cowell, Joe. Thirty Years Passed Among the Players in England and America. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1844. Archive.org Cuvelier, J. G. A. La Fille Hussard, ou, Le Sergent Suédois, Pantomime En Trois Actes Et A Spectacle, Nouvelle éd. 1805. Google Play Books. Dando, John. Maroccus Extaticus; Or, Bankes Bay Horse in a Trance A Discourse Set Downe in a Merry Dialogue, Betweene Bankes and His Beast: Anatomizing Some Abuses and Bad Trickes of This Age:Written and Intituled to Mine Host of the Belsuage, and All His Honest Guests: By Iohn Dando the Wierdrawer of Hadley, and Harrie Runt, Head Ostler of Bosomes Inne. Early English Books Online. Davis, Andrew. America’s Longest Run: A History of the Walnut Street Theatre. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2010. DeCastro, Jacob. The Memoirs of J. Decastro, Comedian: In the Course of Them Will Be Given Anecdotes of Various Eminently Distinguished Characters. . . London: Sherwood, Jones, and Co, 1824. Dibdin, Charles the elder. The Professional Life of Mr. Dibdin,Written by Himself. London: np, 1803. Dickens, Charles, and Richard Findlater, eds. Memoirs of Joseph Grimaldi, Rev. Version. ­London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1968. Dimarco, Louis A. War Horse: A History of the Military Horse and Rider.Yardley, PA: Westholm Publishing, 2008. Disher, M.Willson, and George Sanger. Greatest Show on Earth: As Performed for over a Century at Astley’s (Afterward Sanger’s) Royal Amphitheatre of Arts, Westminster Bridge Road. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1937. Durang, Charles. Philadelphia Stage. Durang, John, and Alan S. Downer, ed. The Memoir of John Durang, American Actor, 1785–1816. Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. Dutton, Thomas. Dramatic Censor, The, or Weekly Theatrical Report: Comprising a Complete Chronicle of the British Stage, and a Regular Series of Theatrical Criticism, in Every Department of the Drama. London, 1800–1801. Early American Playbills, 1750–1812 (MS Thr 479). Harvard Theatre Collection. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Library, Harvard University. Eckstein, Lars. “Monk Lewis’s Timour the Tartar, Grand Romantic Orientalism and Imperial Meloncholoy,” in Reflections on Literary and Cultural Criticism. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann, 2013, pp. 113–128. Epstein, Milton. “The New York Hippodrome: Spectacle on Sixth Avenue from ‘A Yankee Circus on Mars’ to ‘Better Times,’ a Complete Chronology of Performances, 1905–1939.” 2 vols. Dissertation, New York University, 1993. Examiner,The. London. 1808–1865. Fahrne, Robert. “The Theatre Career of Charles Dibdin the Elder (1745–1814).” American University Studies, Series XX Fine Arts,Vol. 8. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Faucit, John Savill. The Secret Mine: An Equestrian Melo-Drama, in Two Acts. London: Forgotten Books, 2015. Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser. 3 April 1793. Fessler, Walter. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 539,731) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 21 May 1895. Fugsig, Nicolai. 12 Strong. Warner Bros. Pictures, Alcon Entertainment, Black Label Media, and Jerry Bruckheimer Films. 2018. Garner, Michael. “A Matter of Turf: Romanticism, Hippodrama, and Satire.” Nineteenth-­ Century Contexts,Vol. 28, No. 4, December 2006, pp. 305–334. Gasey, Edmond M. The San Francisco Stage, a History. Ontario: Praeger, 1970.

Bibliography 185 Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser. London. 1764–1796. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. Girard, Clet Anthony Jr. “The Equestrian Drama of the Nineteenth Century.” Dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1939. Granqvist, Raoul. Imitation as Resistance: Appropriations of English Literature in Nineteenth Century America. Madison, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1995. Grisone, Federico, and Elizabeth Tobey, trans. The Rules of Riding: An Edited Translation of the First Renaissance Treatise on Classical Horsemanship. Tempe: ACMRS Publications, 2014. “Gypsy Life at Hippodrome: New Dramatic Spectacle Introduces Thrilling Race by Diving Horses.” New York Times. Tuesday 4 February 1913, p. 5. Hagen, Claude L. “Construction of Theatres.” (U.S. Patent No. 546,528) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 17 September 1895. ———. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 653,997) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 17 July 1900. ———. “Stage Machinery.” (U.S. Patent No. 656,969) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 28 August 1900. Hailstone, Edward. “Playbill for a performance in Hull Theatre Royal on Monday Evening, August 24, 1812.” Hailstone Collection, 1891. Held by the University of York. Hall, Roger. Performing the American Frontier, 1870–1906. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hamlet and El Hyder at American Theatre, New Orleans, 1844. Poster/playbill. Duke University Libraries Digital Repository. Hanlon, William. “Improvement for Velocipedes.” (U.S. Patent No. 86,834) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 7 July 1868. ———. “Theatre Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 293,324) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 7 July 1868. ———. “Theatrical Scenery and Appliances.” (U.S. Patent No. 263,900) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 5 September 1882. Hawkins, Frederick. Annals of the French Stage: From Its Origins to the Death of Racine, 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall, 1884. Herald,The. New York. 1835–1837. Hillenbrand, Laura. Seabiscuit: An American Legend. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. “Hindoo Romance Takes Hippodrome Stage: Real Princess and Rescuer Narrowly Escape Horses’ Hoofs.” New York Times. Thursday 19 October 1905, p. 9. “ ‘Hippodrome Facts and Figures: Some Interesting and Thought-Compelling Statistics Compiled About the Largest Theatre in the World,’ ‘Under Many Flags’.” New York Hippodrome Souvenir Book. New York: Comstock and Gest, 1912. “Hippodrome Shows a New Pageant ‘Marching Through Georgia’ Depicts Southern Scenes and War Episodes.” New York Times. Tuesday 7 March 1911, p. 11. “Hippodrome’s Opening Seen by Thousands.” New York Times. 13 April 1905, p. 11. Homer. The Iliad. Theoi Classical Texts Library. Available at http://www.theoi.com/ Horwell, Veronica. “Don’t Spare the Horses: How the Battle of Waterloo Became a Stage Sensation, 18 June 2015.” The Guardian.com Houtchens, Lawrence Huston, and Carolyn Washburn Houtchens, eds. Leigh Hunt’s Dramatic Criticism 1808–1831. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949. Ireland, Joseph. Records of the New York Stage from 1750–1860, 2 vols. New York: B. Franklin, 1968. James, Reese Davis. Cradle of Culture: 1800–1810, The Philadelphia Stage. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1957.

186  Bibliography ———. Old Drury of Philadelphia: A History of the Philadelphia Stage 1800–1835, Including the Diary or Daily Account Book of William Burke Wood, Co-Manager with William Warren of the Chestnut Street Theatre, Familiarly Known as Old Drury. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. Jung, Carl G. “Approaching the Unconscious,” in Man and His Symbols. New York: Dell Publishing, 1968. Kasson, Joy S. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West: Celebrity, Memory, and Popular History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2000. Kendall, John S. The Golden Age of the New Orleans Theater. New York: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1968. Knell, J. W. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 256,007) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 4 April 1886. ———. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 277,137) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 8 May 1883. ———. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 286,709) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 16 October 1883. ———. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 418,372) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 31 December 1889. ———. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 423,171) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 11 March 1890. ———. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 471,126) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 22 March 1892. Knickerbocker, The: Or, New-York Monthly Magazine. Vol. XVI. New York: William Osborn, 1840. Kotar, S. L., and J. E. Gessler. The Rise of the American Circus, 1716–1899. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011. Lawrence, Elizabeth Atwood. Rodeo: An Anthropologist Looks at the Wild and the Tame Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1982. Lewis, M. G. Timour the Tartar: A Grand Romantic Melo Drama: In Two Acts. Clayton’s ed. NewYork: E.B. Clayton, n.d. Lijsen, H. J., and Antony Hippisley Coxe. Trick-riding and Voltige. London: J. A. Allen, 1956. Litto, Frederick Michael. “Edmund Simpson of the Park Theatre, New York, 1809–1848.” Dissertation, Indiana University, 1969. Lobell, Jarrett A., and Erica A. Powell. “The Story of the Horse: Horses and the Heavens.” Archaeology. 4 June 2015. Lytell, William H. “Apparatus for Producing Illusory Dramatic Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 498,669) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 30 May 1893. Mayer, Cassie and David Mayer. “Exit with Dead Horse.” Nineteenth Century Theatre and Film, Vol. 39, No. 1, Summer 2012, p. 78. Mayer, David. Playing out the Empire: Ben-Hur and Other Toga Plays and Films, a Critical Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. McKinven, John A. The Hanlon Brothers: Their Amazing Acrobatics, Pantomimes, and Stage Spectacles. Glenwood, IL: David Meyer Magic Books, 1998. McShane, Clay, and Joel A. Tarr. Horse in the City: Living Machines in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007. Merserve, Walter J., ed. On Stage America! A Selection of Distinctly American Plays. New York: Feedback Theatre Books, 1996. Milner, Henry M. Mazeppa, or The Wild Horse of Tartary: A Romantic Drama in Three Acts. London: Thomas Haliles Lacey, n.d. Archive.org

Bibliography 187 ———. “Turpin’s Ride to York: Or, Bonny Black Bess: An Equestrian Drama, in Two Acts: H. M. Milner,” in Nineteenth Century Collections Online. London: J. Dicks, 1836. Milner, Steve, dir. Wild Hearts Can’t Be Broken (film). Walt Disney Pictures, 1991. Mirror,The. New York. 1823–1842. Montague, Charles W. Reflections of an Equestrian Manager. London: W. and R. Chambers, 1881. Monthly Mirror. London. July 1810. Google Play Books. Montilla, Robert B. “The History of the Lafayette Theatre, 1825–1829.” Dissertation, Indiana University, 1974. Moody, Jane. Illegitimate Theatre in London, 1770–1840. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Morning Chronicle,The. London. 1769–1862. Morning Post. London. 1772–1937. Morosetti, Tiziana. “From Byron to Byron: Mazeppa and the Tartars in Nineteenth Century British Theatre.” Nineteenth Century Theatre and Film,Vol. 42, No. 2, 2015, p. 228. Morris, Clara. Life on the Stage: My Personal Experiences and Recollections. London: Isbister and Co, 1902. Moses, L. C. Wild West Shows and the Images of American Indians: 1883–1933. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996. Moy, James S. “John B. Ricketts’ Circus, 1793–1800.” Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1977. National Advocate. New York. 26 August 1824, p. 2. National Gazette. 31 October 1792. Chronicling America. National Gazette and Literary Register. Philadelphia, PA. 20 November 1823. Nettl, Paul, and Theodore Baker. “Equestrian Ballets of the Baroque Period.” The Musical Quarterly,Vol. 19, No. 1, January 1933. Newport History: Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society,Vols. 61–64. Google Play Books. New-York Commercial Advertiser. Wednesday Evening, 1 June 1808, No. 4055. New-York Evening Post. 7 July 1809, No. 40. New York Gazette and Daily Advertiser. 3 March 1797. Odell, George Clinton Densmore. Annals of the New York Stage. 15 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1927–1949. O’Quinn, Daniel. “Anticipating Histories: Emotional Life at Covent Garden Theatre, February 1811.” Studies in Romanticism,Vol. 54, No. 2, 2015, pp. 211+. The Original Hanlon-Lees Part I, II, and III. Accessed online at Hanlon-lees.com Outram, Alan, Natalie A. Stear, Robin Bendrey, Sandra Olsen, Alexei Kasparov,Victor Zaibert, Nick Thorpe, and Richard P. Evershed “The Earliest Horse Harnessing and Milking.” Science,Vol. 323, No. 5919, 2009, p. 1332. doi:10.1126/science.1168594 Patten, Jefferson. “Stage Apparatus.” (U.S. Patent No. 501,099) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 11 July 1893. Payne, John Howard. Mazeppa; or, the Wild Horse of Tartary, in Trial without Jury and Other Plays by John Howard Payne, Codman Hislop and W.R. Richardson, eds. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1940. Proquest. “Peace Demonstration at Hippodrome Opening.” New York Times.Thursday 31 August 1905, p. 7. Pennsylvania Gazette. 1728–1800. Accessible.com Pincott delt, H., and R. Dodd pinxt. The Blood Red Knight, or the Fatal Bridge (Etching). British Museum. 1810. Charing Cross, for I. Astley Esqr.

188  Bibliography Playbill. Astley’s Theatre, Wednesday, the 14th of September, 1791, Announcing the Viscious Tars, or, the South Sea Islands. Wikimedia Commons. ———.“Federal Theatre Horse Play.” Federal Theatre Project Records, George Mason University. ———. “Federal Theatre, Maxine Elliot’s Theatre, Horse Eats Hat.” Federal Theatre Project Records, George Mason University, 1936. ———. “Illinois Theatre, Ben-Hur.” Chicago Public Library Special Collections and Preservation Division. 21 October 1901. “Plunging Horses Again: Sensational Act Reintroduced at the Hippodrome.” New York Times. Thursday 29 March 1906, p. 9. Pluvinel, de Antoine, and Hilda Nelson, trans. The Maneige Royale. London: J. A. Allen, 1989. Poppiti, Kimberly. “Pure Air and Fire: Horses and Dramatic Representations of the Horse on the American Theatrical Stage.” Dissertation, New York University, 2003. Public Advertiser. London, 1752–1793. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection. ———. New York, 1807–1813. 17th‑18th Century Burney Collection. Raulff, Ulrich. Farewell to the Horse:The Final Century of our Relationship. London: Allen Lane Publishing, 2017. Recklies, Donald Fred. “Spectacle and Illusion: The Mechanics of the Horse Race on the Theatrical Stage 1883–1923.” Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1985. Reddin, Paul. Wild West Shows. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Reynolds, Frederick. The Life and Times of Frederick Reynolds, 2 vols. London, 1826. Rhode Island Gazette. 16 July 1774. Rhode Island Mercury. 20 and 23 May 1774. Rivas, Mim Eichler. Beautiful Jim Key. New York: William Morrow, 2005. Robinson, Gil. Old Wagon Show Days. Cincinnati: Brockwell Company, 1925. Rogers, Albert R. The Story of Beautiful Jim Key. Boston, 1901. Archive.org Ross, Gary. Seabiscuit. Universal Pictures, 2003. Rozovsky, Mark. Strider. New York: Samuel French, 1981. Sagala, Sandra K. Buffalo Bill on Stage. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2008. Sanger, ‘Lord’ George. Seventy Years a Showman. New York: EP Dutton and Company, 1926. Saxon, Arthur Hartley. “Enter Foot and Horse: A History of Hippodrama in England and France.” Ph.D. dissertation,Yale University, 1967. Saxon, Arthur Hartley. Enter Foot and Horse: A History of Hippdrama in England and France. New Haven:Yale University Press, 1968. ———. The Life and Art of Andrew Ducrow & the Romantic Age of the English Circus. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1978. Schwartz, Jane. Ruffian: Burning from the Start. New York: Ballantine Books, 1991. Seilhamer, George Oberkirsh. History of the American Theatre: Before the Revolution. Philadelphia: Globe Printing House, 1888. Sentilles, Renée M. Performing Menken: Adah Isaacs Menken and the Birth of American Celebrity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Shaffer, Peter. Equus. New York: Penguin, 1977. Shank,Theodore.“The Bowery Theatre, 1826–1836.” Dissertation, Stanford University, 1956. Shockley, Martin Staples. The Richmond Stage, 1784–1812. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1988. Simpson, George Gaylord. Horses:The Story of the Horse Family in the Modern World and Through Sixty Million Years of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951. Slotkin, Richard. Regeneration through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600– 1860. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1973. Smith, James L., ed. Victorian Melodramas Featuring Seven Sensational Dramas. Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Littlefield, 1976.

Bibliography 189 Sokalski, J. A. Pictorial Illusionism: The Theatre of Steele MacKaye. Montreal: McGill-Queens Univeristy Press, 2007. Some Selected Reports from Wheelers Manchester Chronicle. Saturday, 7 November 1812. “Some Stage Effects in Ben-Hur.” Scientific American. 25 August 1900. Spielberg, Steven. War Horse. Dreamworks, 2011. Spritz, Kenneth. Theatrical Evolution, 1776–1976. New York: Hudson River Museum, 1976. St. James Chronicle or British Evening Post. London. 1761–1899. St. Leon, Mark Valentine. “Dying to Save the Colours: Military Themes in Australia’s Circus History [Online].” Sabretache,Vol. 51, No. 1, March 2010, pp. 33–46. Stanton, Doug. Horse Soldiers: The Extraordinary Story of a Band of US Soldiers Who Rode to Victory in Afghanistan. New York: Scribner, 2009. “Star‑The Year One.” New York Dramatic Mirror. 16 November 1895, p. 16. Stevenson, Dawn Michelle. “Equine Images and the Process of Mechanization.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, 1989. Stirling, Edward. The Jockey Club: An Equestrian Tatersallian Extravaganza in 2 Acts. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest. Stokes, William. The Vaulting-Master, or, The Art of Vaulting Reduced to a Method, Comprized Under Certaine Rules, Illustrated by Examples, and Now Primarily Set Forth by Will: Stokes. Printed for Richard Davis in Oxon, 1652. Stoll, Oswald. “Stage or Platform Appliance for Producing Scenic or Other Displays.” (U.S. Patent No. 748,116) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 29 December 1903. Sutcliffe, Barry, ed. “Blue Beard.” Plays by George Coleman the Younger and Thomas Morton. Google Play Books. Swortzell, Lowell. Gulliver’s Travels: A New Play. New Orleans: Anchorage, 1992. ———. Here Come the Clowns: A Cavalcade of Comedy from Antiquity. New York:Viking, 1978. ———. International Guide to Children’s Theatre and Educational Theatre: A Historical and Geographical Sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1990. ———, ed. Six Plays for Young People from the Federal Theatre Project (1936–1939): An Introductory Analysis and Six Representative Plays. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986. ———. The Little Humpback Horse. New Orleans: Anchorage, 1984. Tait, Peta. Fighting Nature: Travelling Menageries, Animal Acts and War Shows. Australia: Sydney University Press, 2016. Thayer, Stuart. The Annals of the American Circus. Manchester, MI: Rymack Printing Co, 1976. “The Theatres.” New York Times. 10 March 1889, p. 3. Thurston, Howard. “Apparatus for Producing Stage Effects.” (U.S. Patent No. 1,104,846) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 8 December 1913. Tolstoy, Leo, Louise Maude, and Aylmer Maude, trans. “Strider,” in Nine Stories, 1855–63. London: Oxford University Press, 1954. Towers, David I. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 666,714) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 29 January 1901. Towers, David I. “Theatrical Stage Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 494,043) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 21 March 1893. Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: Penguin Books, 1986. Tyrwhitt-Drake, Sir Garrad. The English Circus and Fairground. London: Methuen and Co Ltd., 1946. “Unable to Make the Mare Go.” New York Dramatic Mirror. 10 February 1883, p. 7. United States Gazette. Baltimore. 2 February 1809. Valladares, Susan. Staging the Peninsular War: English Theatre 1807–1815. New York: Routledge, 2015. Vaughn, Jack. Early American Dramatists. New York: Frederick Unger Publications, 1981.

190  Bibliography Waddell, R.“Moving Uptown: Nineteenth Century Views of Manhattan; Section IV Including Theatres and the Crystal Palace.” New York Public Library. Wagner, Alexander von. The Chariot Race. Manchester: Manchester City Art Museum, 1893. Wallace, Lew. Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ. New York: n.p., 1880. Wallis, David. David Crockett: The Lion of the West. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. “War at the Hippodrome: Battle of Port Arthur Realistically Reproduced‑Long Waits.” New York Times. Tuesday 7 January 1908, p. 7. Watanabe-O’Kelley, Helen. “The Equestrian Ballet in Seventeenth-Century Europe‑Origin, Description.” German Life and Letters,Vol. 36, 1983, pp. 198–212. White, Charles. Mazeppa. An Equestrian Burlesque, In Two Acts. Proquest. Wilson, Arthur Herman. A History of the Philadelphia Theatre 1835–1855. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. Wohlgemuth, Frederick. “Theatrical Appliance.” (U.S. Patent No. 475,226) United States Patent and Trademark Office. 17 May 1892. Worrall, David. Harlequin Empire: Race, Ethnicity and the Drama of the Popular Enlightenment. New York: Routledge, 2015. Google Play Books. Wroth, Warwick. The Pleasure Gardens of the Eighteenth Century. London: Macmillan and Co Ltd, 1896. Google Play Books. Wyndham, Henry Saxe. Annals of Covent Garden Theatre, from 1732–1897. Archive.org Xenophon, M. H. Morgan, trans. The Art of Horsemanship. London: J. A. Allen & Co, 1979. Xenophon, Rex Warren, trans. A History of My Times. New York: Penguin, 1979.

Index

Academy of Music (New York) 123, 174n7 Achilles 98, 136 acrobatic equestrianism 4, 24, 28 – 29, 55 Adams, John 40n37 Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,The (Twain) 27 – 28 Afghanistan 98, 113n1 America 13, 24, 28, 30 – 31, 37, 43, 56, 63n23, 71 – 72, 90, 99, 106, 111, 117, 120, 135 – 136, 166, 179; see also United States American Civil War 98, 113, 117, 118, 122 American colonies 3, 19, 23 – 25, 28, 29, 40n27, 61 American cowboy 117 – 118, 128 – 130, 132, 133n5 American Revolution 98, 109 American Theatre (New Orleans) 75, 89, 174n7 American West 116 – 117, 119 – 120, 126, 128, 132 Amherst, J. M. 94n18, 100 – 101, 103 – 105; see also Battle of Waterloo,The; Napoleon Bonaparte’s Invasion of Russia Ancient Greece 98, 136, 138–139 Ancient Rome 12, 98,  136, 166 archetype 68 – 69; equine 69, 92 Astley, Philip 13, 15 – 18, 20n23, 20n24, 20n25, 21n29, 21n34, 21n37, 27, 30, 58, 93n3; Quixote and Sancho; or, Harlequin Warrior 18; see also Astley’s Amphitheatre Astley’s Amphitheatre (London) 18, 44, 53 – 56, 71, 76, 82, 90, 94n18, 100 – 101, 105 – 106, 114n4, 114n13, 131, 136, 138 Atlantic Ocean 69 Australia 20n24 Baltimore 51, 53, 59, 88, 115n22 Bannister, Nathaniel Harrington 100, 107–108, 115n19; see also Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76

bareback riding 53 – 55, 57, 60, 64n34, 64n36, 77, 148, 157 Barnard, Charles 144, 156, 175n25; see also Country Fair,The;Year One,The Barnum, P. T. 160 Barrymore, William 73, 94n18; see also El Hyder, or the Chief of the Gaut Mountains Bates, Jacob 25 – 26, 28; see also Taylor Riding to Brentford,The Battle of Port Arthur,The: A Historical Spectacle in Two Scenes 113 Battle of the Alma,The (Stocqueler) 100, 106 Battle of Waterloo 114n13 Battle of Waterloo,The (Amherst) 100 – 105, 109, 114n10, 114n13 Ben-Hur: Klaw and Erlanger’s 1899 production of 160, 162, 166, 168 – 170, 173, 176 – 177n40, 177n48, 178n52, 179; William Young’s stage version of 160 Ben-Hur (Wallace) 160 Big Apple Circus 21n37 Blanchard’s Amphitheatre (New York) 60 Blood Red Knight, The 57 – 58, 76 – 77, 94n18 Blue Beard; or, the Female Curiosity (Coleman the Younger) 44 – 49, 52 – 53, 55, 60, 61 – 62n4, 62n11, 63n14, 75 border drama see frontier drama Boston 19n3, 24, 31, 35, 37, 60, 63n23, 99, 108, 115n22, 140, 157, 174n7 Bowery Amphitheatre (New York) 101, 104, 105, 114n10 Bowery Circus 75 Bowery Theatre (New York) 65n55, 80 – 81, 87 – 88,  108, 111,  115n19, 122, 138 Breschard, Jean Baptiste Casmiere 37 – 39, 42, 50 – 51, 61, 63n17, 63n18, 63n20 Britain 49; see also England; United Kingdom

192 Index Broadway Circus (New York) 52, 57, 59 – 60, 64n34, 73, 76, 93n10 Broadway Theatre (New York) 57, 80, 89, 111, 162, 166, 169, 173 Buffalo Bill see Cody, Buffalo Bill Buffalo Bill, King of the Border Men (Buntline) 122 Buffalo Bill’s Wild West 126, 128, 130, 134n36 Buntline, Ned 122; see also Buffalo Bill, King of the Border Men Burgess, Neil 140 – 142, 144, 146, 148, 154, 156 – 157, 160, 162, 169 – 170, 175n13, 175n14, 175n15, 175n25, 176n37, 176n39, 177n44, 177n45, 177n46, 177n48, 178n61; see also Josiah Allen’s Wife; Year One,The burlesque 47, 57, 62n11, 94n35 Byron, Lord (George Gordon) 78, 81; “Mazeppa” 78, 81 California 118; Los Angeles 178n52 Camp Theatre (New Orleans) 60, 82 Cataract of the Ganges,The (Moncrieff) 58, 60, 75, 77 – 81, 88 – 89, 111 cattle drives 117 – 118 Chapman, Frank M. 148, 154, 156, 176n39 Chariot Race,The (von Wagner painting) 166, 178n53 chariot races  136; on stage 156 – 157, 160, 162, 166, 168 – 170, 173 Charles II 21 – 22n40 Charleston, South Carolina 33, 58 – 59, 63n23 Chatham Theatre (New York) 89, 94n35, 108 Cherokee Nation 9 Chevy Chase or, the Battle of the Borders: A Grand Equestrian Spectacle (Somerset) 100, 106 Chicago 122, 168, 174n7 circus 1, 6, 13, 17, 24, 29 – 31, 37 – 38, 39 – 40n12, 42 – 44, 49, 57, 61, 61n2, 66 – 67, 99, 126, 129, 137; modern 12 – 13; ring 13, 15, 17, 42 – 43, 61, 89, 99, 157; “three-ring” 15; see also circus equestrianism; equestrian circus circus equestrianism 21n37, 31, 33, 37 – 38, 43, 157, 180 Circus Maximus (Rome) 12, 136 Cirque-Olympique (France) 131 clowning 25, 27, 36; see also equestrian clown clown riding 36

Cody, Buffalo Bill 91, 119, 122, 126, 128 – 131, 133n16, 134n36; see also Buffalo Bill’s Wild West; Drama of Civilization,The Coleman, George, the Younger 44; see also Blue Beard; or, the Female Curiosity collective unconscious 68 colonial America see American colonies Connecticut 109; Hartford 63n23 Cornwallis, Charles 109 Country Fair,The (Barnard) 144, 146, 148, 156 – 157, 162, 169, 175 – 176n28 Covent Garden Theatre (London) 21 – 22n40, 43 – 50, 62n11, 63n14, 69, 71, 88; “Old Price” riots (1809) 44 Cowell, James 55 – 57, 59 Cowper, William 31; The Diverting History of Johnny Gilpin 31 Crockett, Davy 119 – 122 Davy Crockett; or, Be Sure You’re Right,Then Go Ahead (Murdoch) 121 – 122 DeCastro, J. 21n34, 31, 61 – 62n4, 94n18 Dekker, Thomas 5 Dibdin, Charles, the Elder 17, 21n33 Dibdin, Charles, the Younger 18 Dibdin, Thomas 62n11, 93n4 Dickens, Charles 26; Hard Times 26 Dnieper River 85, 87, 96n47 Don Quixote 38, 41n50, 50 – 51, 53 Don Quixote (character) 38 Drama League of America 179 Drama of Civilization,The (Cody and MacKaye) 122, 129 – 132 Drury Lane Theatre (London) 21 – 22n40, 44, 138 Ducrow, Andrew 18 – 19, 21n36, 21n37, 82, 88, 114n13, 138; The Chinese Enchanter 18; The Courier of St. Petersburg 18, 21n37; The Indian Hunter 18 Durang, Charles 51, 54, 64n36 Durang, John 31, 34, 36 – 37, 40n31 elephant(s) 58, 74, 106 El Hyder, or the Chief of the Gaut Mountains (Barrymore) 55, 57 – 58, 73 – 75, 81, 89, 93n10, 93n11 England 2 – 3, 4 – 5, 7, 9 – 10, 12 – 13, 18 – 19, 20n24, 21 – 22n40, 23, 24, 28, 37, 39, 43, 49 – 50, 53 – 54, 56, 61 – 62n4, 62n11, 65n55, 66 – 67, 69, 71, 73, 90, 98 – 100, 111, 114n13,  115n19, 129, 135, 174n2; see also Britain; United Kingdom

Index  193 equestrian ballet 4, 6 – 7, 18, 20n4, 98; equestrian carousels 7; mounted quadrilles 7, 98 equestrian circus 1, 3, 4, 12 – 13,  17, 20n24, 24, 26 – 28, 34, 36, 39, 88, 157, 173 equestrian clown 25 – 27; non- 29 – 30 equestrian drama 1 – 3, 4, 6, 11, 12 – 13, 17 – 19, 20n24, 21 – 22n40, 28, 36 – 39, 42 – 55, 57 – 61, 61n2, 61 – 62n4, 62n11, 62n12, 63n26, 64n42, 64n44 , 66 – 71, 75 – 82, 85, 87 – 90, 92, 93n3, 93n10, 93n11, 95n40, 95n42, 96n60, 97 – 101, 104 – 106, 108, 111, 113, 116, 118 – 119, 121 – 123, 126, 129, 131 – 132, 135 – 140, 146, 156, 169, 173, 174n2, 174n3, 179 – 181; definition 1; frontier 2, 61, 116 – 132, 173; melodramatic 2, 27, 39, 52, 58, 60 – 61, 67, 69 – 70, 76, 78, 81, 90, 92, 96n60, 97, 135, 140, 173, 174n5; military 2, 20n24, 43, 61, 97 – 113, 135, 173; pantomime 18, 24 – 28, 31, 36 – 39, 42 – 44, 50 – 51, 61, 67, 99, 131; racing 2, 61, 135 – 173 equestrian games 136 equestrianism 7, 13, 24, 28 – 30, 36, 38, 52, 64n36, 86, 89, 129, 173; feminine 88; theatrical 19; see also acrobatic equestrianism; circus equestrianism equestrian melodrama 2, 52, 60, 67, 69, 78, 81, 90, 97, 99, 111, 135, 174n5; see also equestrian drama equestrian pantomime 18, 25 – 26, 28, 31, 37 – 38, 42 – 43, 50, 53, 61, 67, 99; see also equestrian drama equestrian theatre 93n10, 180 – 181, 181n4; definition 180 Equus (Shaffer) 178n64, 180, 181n2 Equus Projects: Dances with Horses 181n4 Erlanger, A. L. 160, 162, 178n52 Europe 1, 7, 13, 17, 21 – 22n40, 37, 43, 116, 126, 173 Faulks, Mr. 23 – 24 Fawcett, John 71; see also Secret Mine,The First World War 97 Flying Mercury 33, 35 Forty Thieves,The 53, 57 – 58, 60, 64n42, 89 France 20n24, 35, 41n46, 61 – 62n4, 100, 102, 106; Marseille 181n4; Paris 90 Franconi’s Hippodrome (New York) 20n24, 115n27 frontier drama 116 – 122, 126, 128, 132, 133n5, 133n7, 133n16; equestrian 2, 61, 123, 125

Gardner, Christopher H. 28, 39n11, 62n7 Garrick Theatre (New York) 174n7 Gaul 136 Germany 11, 136 Giraud, Clet Anthony 1, 61 – 62n4, 62n7 Godfrey, Thomas 3; The Prince of Parthia 3, 3n2 Great Sioux War 122 Greek Olympic games 136 Green Street Theatre (Albany, New York) 89, 90 Hagen, Claude L. 160, 162, 169, 176 – 177n40, 177n47, 177n47, 177n50 Hamilton (Miranda) 178n64 Herodotus 98 hippodrama see equestrian drama Holcroft, Thomas 66 Homer 98, 136 horse drama see equestrian drama horsemanship 1, 3, 4, 7 – 12, 15, 17, 21 – 22n40, 23 – 26, 28 – 29, 34 – 36, 39, 40n14, 43, 50 – 54, 57 – 58, 60 – 61, 63n18, 64n29, 64n34, 67, 77, 93n3, 98, 104, 129 horse racing/races 128, 131, 135 – 137, 173, 174n3, 174n4, 174n5; on stage 144, 146, 148, 154, 156, 162, 174n4, 174n7, 175 – 176n28, 176n35, 176n36, 177n47 horses: as archetypal image 68 – 69, 92, 180; connection with humans 67 – 68, 179, 181n4; as symbol 68, 73, 77, 80, 92, 98, 105, 113, 132, 180; in United States 116 – 120, 132 – 133n2; in war 97 – 98, 105, 113 Hughes, Charles 16 – 18, 21n29, 21n33, 21n34, 27, 31, 39 – 40n12, 58 Hunt, Leigh 46 – 48 Hunter, James 53 – 55, 57 – 58, 60, 64n34, 64n36, 77 Hunter, Richard 2; Androboros 2 Iberian Peninsula 136 Iliad,The (Homer) 98, 136 Illinois 118 India 74; Delhi 74, 79 James, Jesse 119, 122 – 125, 133n18 Jesse James, the Bandit King (McCloskey) 122 – 125, 132 Jonson, Ben 5 Josiah Allen’s Wife (aka My Opinions;Vim; A Visit to Puffy Farm) (Burgess) 140–141, 146, 157, 175n15, 177n44 Jung, Carl 68

194 Index Kean, Edmund 58 Kemble, John 44 – 46, 48 Klaw, Marc 160, 162, 166, 178n52 Knell, James W. (J. W.) see Burgess, Neil Lafayette Circus (New York) 58, 65n48, 75, 93n10, 93n15; as Lafayette Amphitheatre 58; as Lafayette Theatre 58, 65n50, 65n51, 75, 77, 100 La Fille Hussard (Cuvelier) 43, 50, 99 Lailson, Philip 35 – 36, 41n45 Lailson and Jaymond’s Circus 35 – 36, 41n45 learned horse 4 – 6, 18, 19n3, 26 – 27, 53; Beautiful Jim Key 6, 19n3, 26; Clever Hans 6, 19n3, 26; Maroccus Extaticus, or Bankes’ Bay Horse in a Trance 5, 19n2; Morocco 5 – 7, 19n1, 26; “observerexpectancy effect”/“Clever Hans Effect” 19n3 Lee Avenue Academy of Music (New York) 123 Lewis, Matthew Gregory 48 – 50, 63n13; see also Timour the Tartar liberty act 29 – 30 Libya 136 Lion of the West,The, or a Trip to Washington (Paulding) 119 – 120, 133n7 Lodoiska 52, 55, 57, 63n26, 64n44, 75 London 8, 9, 18 – 19, 25, 30, 31, 43 – 45, 49 – 50, 52, 54 – 56, 61 – 62n4, 63n23, 76, 81, 90, 96n47, 131, 138, 174n7, 174n12, 181n2 MacKaye, Steele 122, 129 – 131, 134n36; see also Drama of Civilization,The Madison Square Garden (New York) 19n3, 130 – 131, 134n36 Madison Square Theatre (New York) 130 Maeder, Fredrick G. 104, 122 Majestic Theatre (New York) 174n7 Manfredi, Signor 43, 44, 50, 99 Marching Through Georgia (pageant) 113 Maryland 34, 53 Massachusetts: Charlestown 37 – 38; colony 24, 39n3; Essex 39n3; Salem 39 – 40n12; state 37 Mazeppa, or The Wild Horse of Tartary: A Romantic Drama in Three Acts (Milner) 62n11, 81 – 92, 95n37, 95n39, 95n40, 95n42, 96n57, 96n60, 100, 108, 111, 138 – 139 McCloskey, James 122; see also Jesse James, the Bandit King

melodrama 66 – 67, 91 – 92, 119 – 121; see also equestrian melodrama Menken, Adah Isaacs 89 – 90, 96n57, 96n60; see also Mazeppa Metamora; or,The Last of the Wampanoags (Stone) 133n7 Milner, Henry (H. M.) 81 – 82, 84, 95n38, 95n44; see also Mazeppa Missouri 60, 65n59, 88, 118 Moncrieff, William Thomas (W. T.) 77 – 79 Moody, Jane 45, 61 – 62n4, 62n5, 62n7 Mount Pitt Circus 75 Murdoch, Frank 121; see also Davy Crockett; or, Be Sure You’re Right,Then Go Ahead Napoleon 100 – 101, 103 – 105 Napoleon Bonaparte’s Invasion of Russia, or, the Conflagration of Moscow: A Grand Military and Equestrian Spectacle in Three Acts (Amherst) 100, 105 – 106 Napoleonic Wars 69 National Theater (New York) 88 National Theatre (London) 181n2 Native American Indian tribes 117 Nebraska 126; Omaha 126 Neil Burgess’ Circus 146, 157 New Jersey 95n38, 178n61 New Orleans 60, 75, 82, 89 New York: Albany 89, 90; colony 2 – 3; Rochester 133n13; Saratoga 177n47; state 89 – 90, 133n13, 136, 177n47 New York Circus 50, 59, 63n18 New York City 3, 20n24, 24, 26, 31, 34 – 36, 38, 40n16, 41n45, 41n46, 44, 51, 53, 55 – 60, 63n18, 63n23, 64n29, 65n49, 65n50, 72 – 73, 75 – 78, 80 – 82, 87 – 89, 93n10, 93n11, 94n19, 95n39, 99 – 101,  108, 111, 113n1, 115n22, 121 – 123, 133n8,  138, 140, 144, 162, 169, 176 – 177n40, 174n7, 174n12, 181n4; Broadway 56, 57, 181n2, 181n3; Brooklyn 52, 121; Long Island 136; Staten Island 134n36 New York Hippodrome 111 – 113, 115n28, 115n29, 115n30, 134n40, 177n47 Niblo’s Gardens (New York) 121, 123 North America 2; see also America Odell, George Clinton Densmore 24, 35 – 36, 38, 40n25, 43, 50 – 53, 55, 57 – 58, 60, 64n34, 65n45, 72, 75, 78, 80 – 82, 87 – 88, 99 – 101, 105 – 106, 114n10, 121, 123,  138, 146, 174n12

Index  195 Old Broadway Theatre (New York) 62n12, 80 Olympic Theatre (New York) 50 – 51 Olympic Theatre (Philadelphia) see Walnut Street Theatre (Philadelphia) Ovid 136 panorama 137 – 140, 174n12, 175n25; “Battle of Alexandria in Egypt” 138; “Battle of Lodi” 138; see also panorama, moving panorama, moving (mechanized/ peristrephic) 85, 87, 95n43, 96n47, 137 – 140, 144, 148, 154, 156, 166, 169 – 170, 173, 174 – 175n12, 176n31, 177n47, 178n64; endlessly repeating  139; Paris and London, or a Trip to Both Cities 138 – 139; progressive roller-type 139 pantomime 18, 22, 24, 27 – 28, 35, 38 – 39, 42 – 44, 51, 61, 66, 99, 130, 173; circus 99; see also equestrian pantomime Park Theatre (New York) 43, 44, 50 – 53, 55 – 56, 65n48, 78, 80, 99, 121, 138 Parliament 21 – 22n40 patent theatres 21 – 22n40 Patroclus 98 Patton, George 98 Paulding, James Kirke 119 – 120; see also Lion of the West,The Pennsylvania 38, 39 – 40n12 Pepin,Victor 37 – 39, 41n46, 50 – 53, 61, 63n17, 63n18, 63n20, 64n29; see also Pepin and Breschard’s Circus; Pepin’s Circus; Walnut Street Theatre (Philadelphia) Pepin and Breschard’s Circus 37 – 39, 42, 50; The Battle and Death of General Malbrook 38; Don Juan 38; Don Quixote de la Mancha 38, 41n50; The Escape of Adelina, or The Robbers of the Pyrenees 39; Tartarian Princess 38, 41n50 Pepin’s Circus 52 – 53 Philadelphia 3, 29, 30, 31, 34 – 38, 39 – 40n12, 41n45, 50 – 53, 55, 57 – 60, 63n20, 63n23, 71, 77, 87 – 88, 90, 93n10, 94n20, 99, 100, 144 Philadelphia Theatre (Philadelphia) 88 pleasure gardens 4, 7 – 8, 10 – 13 Pliny 98 Poland 82 Pony Express 117 – 118, 122, 128, 133n4 Pony Races,The, or Tom and Jerry at Epsom 57 – 58, 64n44, 75, 77

Pool, Thomas 29 – 30, 39 – 40n12 Powers Theatre (Illinois) 168 Price, Stephen 53, 55 – 58, 61, 65n55 Price and Simpson’s Circus 53,  55, 59 – 60, 93n10 Putnam, Israel 109 Putnam, the Iron Son of ’76 (Bannister) 81, 100, 107 – 111,  115n19 racing plays 2, 61, 135, 137, 140, 146, 156, 160, 173, 174n4, 174n5, 174n7, 175n14, 176 – 177n40 Raiders,The 112 Raleigh, Sir Walter 5 Recklies, Donald Fred 146, 156, 175n13, 175n14, 177n48 Renaissance 139 revolving/turntable stage 148, 154, 156, 162, 173, 176n39, 176 – 177n40, 178n64 Rhode Island: colony 28; Newport 28, 39n11; Providence 39n11 ribbon leaping 31 Richmond Hill Theatre (New York) 82, 87, 95n40, 95n41 Richmond Theatre (Richmond) 41n52 Ricketts, John Bill 30 – 37, 39 – 40n12, 40n16, 40n20, 40n21, 40n31, 40n37, 41n45, 61; The Cannibal’s Farce 34; Johnny Gilpin, in Stile 31 riding school 13, 15, 17, 30 Roman riding 18, 31 Romulus 136 Roosevelt, Theodore 98 Royal Circus and Philharmonic Academy (London) 17 – 18, 21n29, 21n32, 21n33, 21n34, 44, 63n23; The Magic Flute; or, Harlequin Champion 18 Royal Coburg Theatre (“The Old Vic”) (Lambeth, England) 73, 81, 93n9, 95n38; as New Victoria Palace 93n9; as Royal Victoria 93n9 Sandford, Charles W. 58, 75 San Francisco 90, 118 Savannah, Georgia 59 Saxon, Arthur H. 1, 18, 20n24, 20n25, 21n35, 21n36, 26, 61 – 62n4, 62n7, 62n11, 63n14, 71, 81, 94n18, 94n36, 95n37, 95n38, 95n42, 96n60, 100 – 101, 114n13, 114n14, 174n4 Scotland 31, 90 Second World War 97 – 98

196 Index Secret Mine,The (Fawcett) 52 – 53, 55, 57, 71 – 73, 93n4, 93n6 Shaffer, Peter 180, 181n2; see also Equus Shakespeare, William 5, 21 – 22n40, 49, 62n12, 66, 79, 97; The Comedy of Errors 49; Henry V 97; The Merchant of Venice 3; Richard III 3, 58, 75 Sharp, J. 24 – 25, 39n3, 39 – 40n12 Simpson, Edmund 53, 55 – 59, 61 Somerset, C. A., Esquire 100, 106; see also Chevy Chase or, the Battle of the Borders: A Grand Equestrian Spectacle South Carolina: colony 3; Charleston 33; state 33 Southwark Theatre (Philadelphia) 34, 40n27 Spanish American War 98 Spaulding and Rogers Circus 89 Spielberg, Steven 181n2; see also War Horse Stafford, Nick 180, 181n2; see also War Horse stage machinery 135 – 173, 175n14, 176n31, 176n35, 176n36, 176n37, 176n39, 176 – 177n40, 177n45, 177n48, 178n64; “buggy ride device”  141, 146; see also panorama, moving; revolving/turntable stage; treadmill Star Theatre (New York) 157 St. George and the Dragon 88, 138 St. Louis 60, 65n59, 88, 90, 95n42; World’s Fair 19n3 Stocqueler, J. H. 100; see also Battle of the Alma,The Stokes, William 4, 7, 8, 20n5, 20n6, 24, 93n3 Stone, John Augustus 133n7; see also Metamora Strabo 98 Tartary 82 – 83, 85 – 87, 91, 95n44 Tatnall, Mrs. 53, 55 Tatnall, Sam 55, 58, 64n36, 76 Taylor Riding to Brentford,The (Bates) 26 – 28, 31, 33, 34, 42, 53 Tekeli 55, 57 – 58, 60, 64n42, 75, 89 Texas 118 Theatre Royal, Drury Lane (London) 44, 49, 78 Thomas Swann’s Circus 41n45 Tiger Horde,The 52, 55, 58, 60, 63n26, 75, 93n11 Timour the Tartar (Lewis) 44 – 45, 48 – 58, 60, 61 – 62n4, 62n11, 65n59, 69 – 71, 75, 81, 89, 93n10, 111 Tolstoy, Leo 181n3 Towers, David I. 154, 170, 176n35, 178n61

Transcontinental Railroad 120 treadmill 95n43, 137 – 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 154, 156 – 157, 160, 162, 166, 168 – 170, 173, 176n31, 177n47; motordriven 160 trick riding 1, 8, 13 Trip to Paris and New York, A 146 Troy 53, 136 Turnpike Gate,The 57 – 58, 64n44  Twenty-Third Street Theatre (New York) 144 Uncle Tom’s Cabin (Stowe) 78, 133n7 Union Square Theatre (New York) 146 United Kingdom 31; see also Britain; England United States 1 – 3, 4, 13, 18, 20n24, 30 – 31, 34, 37 – 39, 41n46, 42 – 43, 49 – 53, 55 – 57, 61 – 62n4, 62n12, 64n44  65n55, 67 – 71, 73, 75 – 77, 81 – 82, 98 – 100, 111,  115n19, 116 – 121, 126, 132, 135 , 146, 173, 174n5, 175n14, 179 – 180; see also America Valentine and Orson 57 – 58, 64n42, 75 vaulting 4, 7, 8, 23, 29 – 31, 54, 65n55, 93n3 Vauxhall Gardens (New York) 87 Victoria, Princess/Queen 93n9 Vim see Josiah Allen’s Wife Virginia: colony 2 – 3, 3n1; Richmond 41n52; state 34, 41n52; Williamsburg 3 Visit to Puffy Farm, A see Josiah Allen’s Wife von Blucher, Gebhard 102, 104 – 105 von Wagner, Alexander 166, 178n53 Wallace, Lew 160, 166; see also Ben-Hur Walnut Street Theatre (Philadelphia) 38, 41n48, 52, 71, 87 – 88, 120; as “The New Circus” 38, 52; as Olympic Theatre 38 – 39, 51 – 53, 57, 63n17, 63n20 War Horse (Stafford) 178n64, 180, 181n2 Washington, D.C. 59 Washington, George 35, 36, 40n21, 40n37, 98, 109, 111 Washington, Martha 40n21 Wellington, Duke of 59, 103, 105, 114n13 West Indies 37 West, James 51 – 57, 59, 61, 63n23, 64n32, 71 – 72 Wild West show(s) 61, 116 – 119, 122, 125 – 130, 132, 134n33, 134n40 Wood’s Museum (New York) 121, 133n13 Year One,The (Barnard) 156 – 157, 160–162 Ye Bare and Ye Cubb 2, 3n1