The theatre in America during the Revolution 9781139085939, 9780521495370

Citation preview

The Theatre in America during the Revolution

The Theatre in America during the Revolution is a first comprehensive attempt

to assemble all that is known of theatre at the time of America’s political birth. Because many plays performed during the Revolution served mainly as vehicles for partisan politics, they were not always aesthetically enticing; yet this was one of the only historical eras in which the theatre was used by both sides to help achieve military and political objectives. Whether

moralistic or satirical, the plays of the Revolution offer unique insights into the sympathies and fears of both loyal and dissident parties, and so serve as a telling document of a socially turbulent age. Jared Brown’s extensive research coheres into an invaluable theatrical chronicle that should prove a useful resource for students, scholars, and the general reader.

CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN AMERICAN THEATRE AND DRAMA

General Editor Don B. Wilmeth, Brown University

Advisory Board C. W. E. Bigsby, University of East Angha Errol Hill, Dartmouth College C. Lee Jenner, [ndependent Critic and Dramaturge, New York City Bruce A. McConachie, College of William and Mary Brenda Murphy, University of Connecticut Laurence Senelick, Tufts University The American theatre and its literature are attracting, after extended neglect, the crucial attention of historians, theoreticians, and critics of the arts. Long a field for isolated research, yet too frequently marginalized in the academy, the American theatre has always been a sensitive gauge of social pressures and public issues. Investigations into its myriad shapes and manifestations are relevant to students of drama, theatre, literature, cultural experience, and political development. The primary aim of this series is to provide a forum for important and original scholarship in and criticism of American theatre and drama in a cultural and social context. Inclusive by design, the series is intended to accommodate and attract leading work in areas ranging from the study of drama as literature (but without losing sight of its theatrical context) to theatre histories, theoretical explorations, production histories, and readings of more popular or paratheatrical forms.

The series welcomes work grounded in cultural studies and narratives with interdisciplinary reach, encompassing books and monographs aimed at a more strictly scholarly audience as well as titles that will also appeal to

the general reader. With a specific emphasis on theatre in the United States (although worthy studies in the whole of the Americas will be considered), Studies in American Theatre and Drama provides a crossroads where historical, theoretical, literary, and biographical approaches meet and combine, promoting imaginative research in theatre and drama from a variety of new perspectives. Books commissioned for the series include:

African American Theatre, Samuel Hay * The Revistonist Stage: American Directors Reinvent the Classics, Amy Green * The Other American Drama, Marc

Robinson * Edwin Booth and the Gilded Stage, Daniel Watermeier ° First Person Theatrical, Misha Berson (American solo theatre) * The Theatre in America during the Revolution, Jared Brown ¢ Joseph Papp’s Theatrical Empire

(provisional title), Foster Hirsch

The Theatre 1n

America during |

the Revolution | JARED BROWN Illinois Wesleyan University

CAMBRIDGE G6) UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sio Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/978052 1495370 © Cambridge University Press 1995

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1995 This digitally printed first paperback version 2006

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data The theatre in America during the Revolution / Jared Brown. p. cm. — (Cambridge studies in American theatre and drama) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-521-49537-7 (hardback) 1. Theater — United States — History — 18th century. 2. United States — History — Revolution, 1775—1783 — Literature and the

revolution. I. Title. II. Series

PN2237.B76 1995

792’ .0973'09033 —dc20 94-49685 CIP

ISBN-13 978-0-521-49537-0 hardback ISBN-10 0-521-49537-7 hardback ISBN-13 978-0-521-03382-4 paperback ISBN-10 0-521-03382-9 paperback

ey

Preface Vil Prologue I SETTING THE STAGE: BEFORE THE REVOLUTION 9

1 The Drama of the Approaching Revolution II

2 British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 22

Boston, 1775-1776 22 New York, 1777 29

The Theatre 46 The Meschianza 51

3 Mi§scellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 45

1778 57 Valley Forge 57 Philadelphia GO Portsmouth 65

4 American Military Theatre and “Entertainments,”

SETTING THE STAGE: BRITAIN ASCENDANT 69

5 The Drama of the Revolution 71 V

vl Contents 6 British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 85

New York, 1778 86 New York, 1779 96 7 British Military Theatre, 1779-1782 109 Staunton, 1779 109 Savannah, 1781 110

New York, 1779-1780 113 New York, 1780-1781 120

New York, 1782 127 SETTING THE STAGE: AMERICA ASCENDANT 133

Reading, 1781 135 Philadelphia, 1780-1782: The Theatre 138

8 American Plays and Amusements, 1780-1782 135

John Henry 143

Philadelphia, 1782: The Dauphinade 14]

SETTING THE STAGE: AMERICA TRIUMPHANT 145

9 American Professional ‘Theatre, 1781-1783 147 Baltimore and Annapolis, 1781 and 1782 147

Baltimore and Annapolis, 1782-1783 154

New York, 1782-1783 162

Epilogue 166

Appendix 173 Notes 189

Index 221

Bibhography 211

fi

S32 os

‘4 Ps

Preface

I NFORMATION CONCERNING the theatre in America during the Revolution is available in many sources, but — with the exception of George O. Seilhamer’s nineteenth-century study of the American theatre — it has not been collected in a single volume, as in the present book. Seilhamer’s work, however, contains many factual errors; this book attempts to set the record straight. George C. D. Odell’s multivolume history of the theatre in New York, completed more than sixty years ago, also contains a great deal of information; yet it, too, is limited, because Odell’s chronicle is restricted primarily to New York City, whereas the history of the theatre during the period was far more widespread. More recent studies, such as Kenneth Silverman’s A Cultural History of the American Revolution, are more accurate than Seilhamer’s and more wide-ranging than Odell’s; however, because they do not focus specifically on the theatre, they omit many details concerning the theatrical productions of the time. Articles in scholarly journals (nine of which have been written by the present author) offer specific details, but are often difficult to locate and, by their nature, offer only fragments of the total picture. I hope that this volume will satisfy the requirements of thoroughness and scope as well as accuracy. Vil

Vill Preface I attempt in this book to describe the story of the theatre in America during the Revolution. All the known theatrical performances that took place in America during the conflict (and until British soldiers evacuated the country) are chronicled — in detail, where details are available. In addition, two chapters describe many of the significant plays written in America between 1773 and 1784 that took the War of Independence as their subject. Furthermore, -some of the most lavish social entertainments of the time (although not, perhaps, accurately described as “theatre”) were highly theatrical in nature; those, too, are described in the text. Obviously, the American Revolution was a cataclysmic event with far-reaching social, political, military, and cultural consequences and implications. I do refer to some occurrences that are militarily or politically significant, but only when they affected (or were affected by) the theatre in America during the Revolution. Similarly, the link be-

tween the theatre in Great Britain and the performances given in America is acknowledged to be strong, but this book is not fundamentally about that connection. It is quite intentionally focused upon and limited to the theatre in America during the Revolution. I gratefully acknowledge the journals in which some of the mate-

rial in this book originally appeared, albeit in somewhat different form, and thank the editors for their permission to reprint it. The original articles, and the journals in which they appeared, are as follows:

“The Theatre in Boston in 1775 and 1776,” Players, 51 (3) (Feb./March 1976): 82-5.

““Howe’s Strolling Company’: British Military Theatre in New York and Philadelphia, 1777 and 1778,” Theatre Survey, 18 (1) (May 1977): 30-43.

“British Military Theatre in New York in 1778,” Restoration and 18th Century Theatre Research, 16 (1) (May 1977): 44-55.

“Plays and Amusements Offered for and by the American Military during the Revolutionary War,” Theatre Research International, 4 (1) (Oct. 1978): 1224.

Preface 1X “British Military Theatre in New York City in 1779-80,” Southern Theatre, 22 (1) (Winter 1978): 19-26. “British Military Theatre in New York in 1779,” Theatre Annual, 35 (1980): 11-29.

“The Theatre in the South During the American Revolution,” Southern Quarterly, 18 (2) (Winter 1980): 44-59.

“A Note on British Military Theatre in New York at the End of the American Revolution,” New York History, 62 (2) (April 1981): 177-87.

“British Military Theatre in New York in 1780-81,” Theatre Survey, 23 (2) (Nov. 1982): 151-62.

Much of the research for this book was conducted at the British Library in London, the New-York Historical Society, the Maryland Historical Society, and the Library of Congress. I am grateful to the librarians at those institutions who assisted me in my researches. Finally, my sincere gratitude to Don B. Wilmeth, Peter A. Davis,

Brian A. Hatcher, Paul Bushnell, and Heather L. Bazsali for their comments about various drafts of The Theatre in America during the Revolution: All of them offered helpful and constructive suggestions, many of which have been incorporated into the text. I am also grateful to Anne Barker for compiling the index for this book. Special recognition is due Judy Brown, who, as always, has been a persistent, constructive, and welcome critic.

BLANK PAGE

‘ Ys 3 if

Eh.

Prologue

C,, RONICLERS OF THE RELATIONSHIP between colonial Americans and the theatre have long tended to see a conflict of rather simple dimensions: “Morality” and devotion to religion on one side versus those who wished to enjoy the pleasures the theatre could offer on the other. The truth 1s more complex. Many colonial Americans of the eighteenth century opposed the fledgling professional theatre (dominated by the British) on the ground that it competed with and detracted from the development of American mercantile

enterprises. Whatever money was spent by the theatre’s patrons could not be spent to purchase American goods and services, after all. As Peter A. Davis has pointed out, “In this way, theatre became much more than just an undesirable amusement; it was a political and social symbol of English oppression.”!

At the same time, the moral and religious opposition to the theatre cannot be overlooked, for some Americans firmly believed that the theatre was a place of evil whose function was to teach blasphemy, lechery, and sedition. Chief among these were Puritans, who, although a minority among the immigrants, were highly influential in several northern colonies.

Although it is misleading to make sweeping generalizations about I

2 The Theatre in America during the Revolution “Puritan attitudes,”? scholarly observers agree that the Puritans did share a decided aversion to the theatre. One of the reasons the Puritans had left England in the latter half of the seventeenth century was the desire to escape the influence of what they regarded as a bawdy and corrupt Restoration culture, of which the theatre (many of whose plays mocked religion and called for a life devoted to the pleasures of the flesh) was a part. This may have been a lesser grievance than many others, but it was an irritant nonetheless.

Earlier, in 1649, when the Parliamentary Party, in which the Puritans figured prominently, took control of England and beheaded

King Charles I, one of their first decrees was to close all the theatres in the country and prohibit theatrical performances. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, the theatres reopened, often featuring comedies calculated to appeal to the new king’s taste: witty, salacious (all of them revolving around sexual intrigues), and — as far as the Puritans were concerned — particularly offensive. Moreover, women appeared on the stage during the Restoration, whereas

female roles before 1649 in England had been played by boys. To the Puritans, who regarded actresses as “whores,” this was perhaps the greatest offense of all. Thus, many Puritans and their descendants looked with great disfavor upon the establishment of the theatre in their new home. Most would have agreed wholeheartedly with William Crashaw’s sermon given in England in 1607: “The ungodly Plays and Interludes so rife in this nation,” said Crashaw, without a hint of irony, “what are they but a bastard of Babylon, a daughter of error and confusion, a hellish device (the devil’s own recreation to mock at holy things) by him delivered to the Heathen, from them to the Papists [Puritanism’s most despised enemy on earth], and from them to us?”? Whenever performances of plays seemed imminent, antitheatre diatribes

were distributed. Titles such as “The Theatre, the High Road to Hell,” were typical.‘

Antitheatre sentiments were regularly reinforced by colonial churchmen (Presbyterians and Quakers as well as Puritans), and they had the desired effect: By the early 1750s few colonial Americans

Prologue 3 had ever seen a play, and those who had had seen only amateur performances or those of semiprofessional troupes, such as the one headed by Walter Murray and Thomas Kean. That company’s brief history extended only from 1749 to 1752.

In 1752, however, the first fully professional theatrical troupe sailed for the American colonies. Officially known as the London Company of Comedians, the troupe was run by Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Hallam, performers who had known little success in England. Along with their three children and ten additional British performers, the Hallams attempted to establish the professional theatre in America. The obstacles were many: The colonies, vast in territory, were home to a small, poor, largely uneducated population who had been told

time and again by ministers and other preachers such as George Whitefield, the much-traveled English evangelist whose fiery sermons

helped give rise to the religious phenomenon known as the “Great Awakening,” that the theatre was frivolous at best (and thus a waste of valuable time) and evil at worst (thus endangering the onlooker’s immortal soul).°

Fortunately for the London Company of Comedians, their ship first arrived in Virginia, the colony that was least affected by religious opposition to entertainments because of its largely Anglican composition. Even there, however, the company was initially denied

a license to perform. Unable to ply their trade and lacking the wherewithal to return to England, the actors settled down in Williamsburg and took jobs in the community, establishing themselves as reliable individuals. Then, with the backing of Williamsburg’s leading citizens, their reapplication to the Royal Governor for a license to perform was granted. The company shrewdly followed the same

procedure in most of the localities in which they played: becoming accepted by the community as individuals before applying to perform. That strategy — combined with the company’s decision to produce only the most inoffensive (and, they claimed, morally edifying) plays — allowed them to gain a measure of acceptance in most of the colonies in which they were permitted to play. The Hallams proceeded slowly and painstakingly from Virginia to

4 The Theatre in America during the Revolution New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, attempting to cultivate an appetite for the theatre in the colonies. They performed plays from the standard eighteenth-century English repertory, including both recently written plays (such as The Twin Rivals) and classics (such as The Merchant of Venice and Macbeth),

The London Company survived the death of Lewis Hallam in 1755, when David Douglass took over the management of the troupe. Hallam’s son, Lewis Jr., became the company’s leading actor, often playing opposite his mother. Playing in Virginia, New York, Pennsyl-

vania, Rhode Island, Maryland, and South Carolina, the company built playhouses — most of them small, poorly ventilated, and makeshift — at nearly every stop. Despite the hostility of many colonials, the company gradually established a more secure foothold (of which

the playhouses they built were tangible evidence), brought about in part because of a shrewd decision made in 1763: They officially changed the name of the group from “The London Company” to “The American Company,” thus publicly identifying themselves with the American cause in the growing conflict with Britain. In ev-

ery significant respect the company remained British, performing British plays and employing British actors, but the name change itself served to win over many converts. Moreover, in 1767 the company became the first professional organization to present a play written by an American-born playwright: Thomas Godfrey’s The Prince of Parthia. (Godfrey’s play achieved the distinction only because Thomas Forrest’s The Disappointment, or, the Force of Creduli-

ty [written under the pseudonym “Andrew Barton”, scheduled to be given on April 13, 1767, was canceled just prior to production owing to the opposition of two prominent Philadelphians who object-

ed to being parodied in the play. The Prince of Parthia was rushed into production and performed on April 24.)°

Still, prejudice against the theatre remained strong: Anti-British sentiment — based largely upon opposition to a British-dominated theatre that competed economically with local businesses — was grow-

ing, and religious antagonism, often combined with the mercantile argument, continued. Davis quotes the 1750 Massachusetts Act in

Prologue 5 order to demonstrate how the economic argument merged with — and, depending upon one’s interpretation, perhaps took precedence over — the “moral” question. The act called upon colonials to prevent and avoid “the many and great Mischiefs which arise from publick stage plays, interludes, and other theatrical entertainments, which not only occasion great and unnecessary expenses, and discourage industry and frugality, but hkewise tend generally to increase Immoraltty, impiety, and contempt of religion.”

In order to counter this hostility, the American Company advertised some of their plays as moral tracts® for the benefit of various American charities. The assumption behind the plan — which often proved to be correct — was that some colonials who might otherwise have refused to attend the frivolous, potentially soul-damaging and economically competitive theatre would be willing to view dramas

and comedies as long as they incorporated “moral” points of view and were given for worthy causes.

After twenty years and despite constant struggle against either apathy or outright hostility, the American Company was slowly becoming an entrenched institution in the colonies. It might have consolidated its position further against the opposition of businessmen and organized religion had it not been for difficulties of another kind: Relations between England and her colonies had stretched to the breaking point in the early 1770s. Outbreaks of patriotic fervor, sometimes favoring the British, sometimes espousing the colonials’ cause, periodically found their way into the playhouses, interrupting the plays. Some members of the audience shouted their convictions loudly to one another; others were more physical. On more than one occasion a note had to be inserted in the evening’s program asking the “Ruffians in the Gallery” to cease their “Outrages”; and on December 9, 1772, when the American Company was playing in Phila-

delphia, a riot occurred outside the theatre door. As the political atmosphere worsened, the theatre, like every other aspect of colonial life, was drawn inevitably into the controversies aroused by the conflict between England and its colonies. Furthermore, those colonials who had come to regard England as

6 The Theatre in America during the Revolution the enemy found other reasons to distrust the American Company. Didn’t the organization employ English actors, thereby bringing to the colonies potential subverters of American values? Wasn’t its repertoire almost entirely British, thereby introducing into the colonies

those ideas and convictions American patriots most fervently detested?

Determined not to allow political matters to destroy their slow progress in winning converts to the professional theatre, the managers of the American Company, in an attempt to improve their personnel, sailed for London prior to the beginning of the 1774-5 theatrical season to enlist new actors for the following season. One of them, Thomas Wignell, a cousin of Lewis Hallam, Jr., was destined to become one of the most important figures in the early American theatre. However, before Wignell and his fellow actors could reach America, a Congress met in Carpenters’ Hall, Philadelphia, in September 1774, where they agreed upon the necessity of setting forth, in a series of resolutions, the rights to life, liberty, and property. On October 20, the Continental Congress met once again to pass another resolution, one that emphasized the seriousness of their earlier action and called upon patriots to support American commercial enterprises

and to forego all pleasures that might interfere with the conflict against the British: We will, in our several stations, encourage frugality, economy, and industry, and promote agriculture, arts, and the manufactures of this country, especially that of wool; and will discountenance and discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse-racing, and all kinds of gaming, cock-fighting, exhibitions of shews, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments.”

The American Company, preparing to begin its new season, recognized that attempting to defy the Congress’s direct order would be futile, and immediately closed its theatres, setting sail for the British West Indies, where most of the actors — including poor Thomas

Wignell, who had never dreamed that his passage from England

Prologue 7 would result in a lengthy detour — remained for more than ten years, until the war was over.!° If the lawmakers’ intention was to eliminate all theatrical produc-

tions for the duration of the hostilities, however, it could not have failed more completely. Indeed, the American Revolution saw a remarkable amount of theatrical activity on American soil. Although the Continental Congress was effective in stamping out the professtonal theatre until 1781, it failed to have any impact whatever on the British military forces that occupied and controlled colonial cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston. The British — unlike the Americans — brought with them an appreciation of drama and a

tradition of theatregoing, and their officers made certain that that tradition would remain unbroken during the Revolution by presenting an ambitious series of plays in the cities they occupied. In turn, the remarkable number of British theatrical productions stimulated some American officers to permit performances for and by American troops. This action may have been illegal according to the congressional injunction, but it boosted morale and was intended to demon-

strate that Americans could compete with the British on any level, including the theatrical. Ultimately, a troupe of professional American performers flew directly in the face of the Continental Congress’s 1774 resolution (and a subsequent resolution passed in 1778, reaffirming the sentiments expressed earlier) and began presenting plays during the waning years of the war. Thus, rather than declining, the extent of theatrical activity during the Revolution increased steadily, thereby helping to establish a tolerance for and understanding of the theatre in America. The British impact on American culture during the Revolution could not have occurred had the American citizenry been solidly behind the effort to establish a new country: Historians agree that a sizable number of colonists were either loyal to the crown or uncommitted.!! Thus, perhaps one-half or more of the American population of approximately 2.5 million was willing to tolerate the activities of the British soldiers in their midst. Some loyalists and many neu-

8 The Theatre in America during the Revolution trals looked upon the theatrical productions sponsored by the British disapprovingly, to be sure, but they were generally unwilling to speak or act against them in an active way. Moreover, some Americans who favored the British cause attended the theatre for the first time in their lives during the Revolution because the British, whom they admired, demonstrated by their example that playacting and playgoing were legitimate activities — not directly inspired by God, perhaps, but not conceived and perpetuated by the devil, either.

el ..

Setting the Stage: Before the Revolution Awerrea WAS READY to explode. The hated Stamp Act of 1765, the Royal Proclamation closing the lands west of the Alleghenies to immigration, the Sugar Act, and taxes on tea, paper, glass, and paint had all led to boycotts and riots in the colonies. Royal governors representing George III had become detested symbols of oppression. The Virginia Resolves stated defiantly that only Virginians could tax Virginians — and other colonies, quick to indicate their agreement with that revolutionary sentiment, denied the British their historic prerogative to impose taxes. George IIT could not countenance, however, any defiance of his — or his ministers’ — will. The Americans must be made to obey, he believed, by force if necessary. Anything short of total

obedience represented a direct threat to the monarchy. More was at stake than the continued subjugation of the American colonies. If America resisted British authority, might not Ireland do so as well?

Divided British public opinion was becoming increasingly anti-American. The colonial boycott of British goods could wreak havoc with British commerce. The Boston Tea Party was 2

10 The Theatre in America during the Revolution only a foretaste of what might occur if the Americans were 0t put swiftly in their place. The causes of the imminent war were manifold, of course, but overriding all was the British failure to understand that “a new spirit had arisen in the colonies.” Oscar Theodore Barck explains: The colonies had been allowed to go practically their own way for a centu-

ry and a half; they had been populated primarily with discontented subjects; there had been a large influx of non-English groups; and the colonies were American-minded, with a new view of the British Constitution. This theory advocated real rather than virtual representation, and since the colonists were not actually represented in Parliament, they believed they could not be taxed by it. Furthermore, although the colonies recognized the King as their rightful sovereign, they believed that their own assemblies were their representative bodies, not Parliament. The ministers, on the other hand, thought the colonists were objecting to taxation solely on financial grounds. It was the failure to comprehend American thought

that probably did more than anything else to bring on the Revolu-

tion... .! In America, Whigs yearned for revolution. American Tories — backed by a growing number of British soldiers, politicians and customs officers — knew in their hearts that rebelliousness had to be destroyed. The tension increased perceptibly as the hour of explosion drew ever nearer.

I

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution Berons THE FIRST SHOTS of the Revolution were fired, the approaching thunder could be heard in the plays, both Whig (favoring the attempt to establish a new nation) and Tory (sympathetic to the British cause),! that appeared in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of war. Most of these plays were written to

be read rather than to be performed, and, perhaps as a consequence, were crude and naive as drama. Nevertheless, as Moses Coit Tyler pointed out in his Literary History of the American Revolution, the plays have historic significance because they reproduced and vivified “the ideas, the passions, the motives, and the moods of that stormful time in our history with a frankness, a liveliness, and an unshrinking realism not approached by any other species of Revo lutionary literature.”? Walter J. Meserve calls these plays, disseminated in “newspapers or in privately printed pamphlets, . . . a major source of literature during the war.” % Since pamphlets as well as newspapers were inexpensive (often costing no more than a few pen nies), the plays gained a wide readership among literate people on all points of the political spectrum.

In a 1965 article, Ralph Borden Culp counted 128 non-Shakespearean English plays presented in the colonies between 1758 and II

12 The Theatre in America during the Revolution 1776. Of these, he counted at least 88 that “were filled with ideas, images, and attitudes similar to those addressed by Whig and Tory propagandists. . . .” Of these plays, 70 percent “reinforced the Whig

argument that Britain was corrupt and rotten, that America was superior to Britain, and that the colonies should be independent. Only fifteen percent supported the Tory denial of those propositions,” and the remaining 15 percent did not clearly favor one side or the other.* With so many works of dramatic art being used as (or perceived as) political propaganda, one may legitimately assume that

the plays of the period helped to shape the colonists’ views of the struggle between Britain and America. In this chapter, only selected representative plays composed immediately before the Revolution and written expressly to set forth political views will be examined. The most noted American author to write plays on the subject of the colonies’ conflict with Great Britain was Mercy Warren, the sister of James Otis and the wife of James Warren, both of whom were helping to mold the Revolution. Mrs. Warren also aided in the shaping of political attitudes by writing passionately propagandistic dramas calculated to inflame colonial opinion against British “tyranny.”

If Mrs. Warren’s ability as a playwright was limited (in part, perhaps, because she never saw a play in performance), her reputation as a propagandist is secure, for her intense earnestness and her deep commitment to the American cause suffused her plays with genuine emotional power. Readers of the time were quite willing to overlook

her deficiencies as a dramatist and focus their attention upon her gifts as a pamphleteer; for this was the age of the political pamphlet. “There was little time for considered literary effort,” said Alice Brown, “but great will for hurling polemical fire-balls, and they flew thick and fast.”> Among the pamphleteers, no one was more effective than Mercy Warren. Throughout the Revolution, she “hung upon the enemy’s flank and harassed him without cessation. She was one of the gadflies of the war.’ Mrs. Warren herself acknowledged that her plays were intended

to be moralistic, rather than aesthetically balanced pieces. In her preface to The Sack of Rome, dedicated to George Washington in 1790, she wrote:

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution 13 Theatrical amusements may, sometimes, have been prostituted to the purpose of vice; yet, in an age of taste and refinement, lessons of morality, and the consequences of deviation, may perhaps, be as successfully enforced from

the stage, as by modes of instruction, less censured by the severe; while, at the same time, the exhibition of great historical events, opens a field of contemplation to the reflecting and philosophic mind.’

Mrs. Warren’s first propaganda play, The Adulateur, was published

in The Massachusetts Spy in 1772 and as a pamphlet in 1773. The title page describes the play as “a Tragedy, as it is now acted in Upper Servia.”® The word “acted” refers to the playing out of the incidents described in the drama by the personages portrayed, rather than to theatrical performance; certainly the play was not produced in America or anywhere else before or during the Revolution.

The names given to the leading characters — Brutus, Cassius, Marcus, Portius, et al. — are clearly intended to be taken for James Otis, John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and other American patriots (although which specific personages corresponded to particular characters is in dispute).? The setting in which the events of The Adulateur unfold — Upper Servia [Serbia] — is the thinnest disguise for Boston. The play covers a period of several years, from 1770 until 1773.

The reader is introduced to a band of Roman patriots (colonial Americans would have recognized their sentiments as paralleling those of the Whigs) who lament the oppression now visited on “the sweet retreat of freedom.” They resolve to restore liberty by killing the evil Rapatio, the Governor of Servia. The patriot Junius states the theme of the play during the first scene: “That man dies well who sheds his blood for freedom” — a statement that Americans who considered themselves oppressed by the British had no difficulty relating to their own circumstances. The character of Rapatio embodies the characteristics Mrs. War-

ren attributed to Thomas Hutchinson, the Royal Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Hutchinson, who sought not merely to carry out British orders but to have the British declare martial law in America,’ was a man she detested. The Adulateur represented her attempt to expose Hutchinson’s duplicity. In the play, Rapatio’s tal-

14 The Theatre in America during the Revolution ent for dissembling 1s revealed when he meets with the angry and resentful Patriots and feigns remorse, vowing “to heal these wounds and save my bleeding country.” The Patriots are taken in, deceived into believing that Rapatio is truly repentant; but he is unreformed, as the reader discovers when he confides, out of the Patriots’ hearing: “Grief shall again its wonted seat resume, / And piles of mangled corpses croud [sic]!! the tomb.” Later, in a soliloquy, he admits:

“Despotic rule my first, my sov’reign wish.” The cruel and unscrupulous governor triumphs over the naive Patriots, and thus the play ends, with the Patriots hoping for a popular rebellion against Rapatio’s authority. Brutus sums up the grievance against Rapatio and his sycophants, and looks to the future: And may these monsters find their glories fade, Crush’d in the ruins they themselves had made While thou my country shall again revive, Shake off misfortune, and thro’ ages live.

The Adulateur forsakes all shading of characterization in order to argue the author’s case more effectively. In that respect, the play — like nearly all those written on the subject during the next ten years — 1s crude and unsophisticated. However, as a testimony to the depth of

feeling in colonial America before the war, it is a powerful document. One can understand why John Adams, in a letter to Mercy Warren’s husband on December 22, 1773, would describe Mrs. War-

ren as a writer having “no equal that I know of in this country.” !4 Certainly the play must have had considerable emotional impact at the time it was published. The vigor of Mrs. Warren’s argument and the skill with which she wrote iambic pentameter combined to make The Adulateur an arresting work of propaganda. !3

Mrs. Warren’s second attempt at political satire, The Defeat, appeared in the Boston Gazette in 1773. This play, like The Adulateur, attacked Thomas Hutchinson unmercifully. Two years later saw the publication of The Group, * written in blank verse, a play even more frankly propagandistic than its predecessors. By the time of its composition Hutchinson’s letters had been made public, and he 1s again the play’s villainous figure, although his character remains offstage.

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution 15 The play, set in “a little dark Parlour in Boston,” includes actual personages in its cast of characters, although they are again thinly disguised by Mrs. Warren’s device of assigning them names intended to be revelatory of their natures. John Adams noted the identities

of the actual persons next to their character names in his copy of the play,!5> demonstrating that informed readers could easily match the fiction with the reality. The Group takes as the mainspring of its action the abrogation of the charter of Massachusetts by the King of England and his consequent establishment of a Council to assist the Royal Governor in the

administration of the colony. Now that the group (listed in Mrs. Warren’s stage direction as “Hateall, Hazelrod, Monsieur, Beau Trumps, Simple, Humbug, Sir Sparrow,!® &c., &c.”) has been established in power, however, some Massachusetts Tories are having second thoughts. One of them, Crusty Crowbar, alludes to the events in Mrs. Warren’s previous play, The Adulateur, saying: When first I listed in the desp’rate cause, [i.e., of denying the colonials’ desire for freedom] And blindly swore obedience to his will, So wise, so just, so good I thought Rapatio, That if salvation rested on his word I'd pin my faith, and risk my hopes thereon. .. . [But now] his perfidy appears — It is too plain he has betray’d his country; And we’re the wretched tools by him mark’d out

To seal its ruins... But if Crusty Crowbar is reluctant to proceed with the conspiracy against the Americans, Brigadier Hateall and Lord Chief Justice Hazelrod are as determined as ever. Hateall’s prescription for continued despotism is particularly grim, displaying what Mrs. Warren believed to be the belligerent and destructive attitudes of the British sympathizers:

. .. all our hope depends on brutal force, On quick destruction, misery and death; Soon may we see dark ruin stalk around,

16 The Theatre in America during the Revolution With murder, rapine, and inflicted pains; Estates confiscate, slav’ry, and despair, Wrecks, halters, axes, gibbeting and chains,

All the dread ills that wait a civil war.

The entire group of Councillors is shown in the second act, seated around a large table, callously describing their attitudes toward selling out their American countrymen. Ambition is the dominant theme, as seen in Monsieur de Francois’s frank admission: So great the itch I feel for titl’d place, Some honorary post, some small distinction, To save my name from dark oblivion’s jaws, Pll hazard all, but ne’er give up my place, For that Vil see Rome’s ancient rites restor’d, And flame and faggot blaze in ev’ry street.

The play ends with a similarly unbridled paean to ambition by the unprincipled Beau Trumps: .. . if by carnage we should win the game, Perhaps by my abilities and fame;

I might attain a splendid glitt’ring car, And mount aloft, and sail in liquid air. Like Phaeton, I’d then outstrip the wind, And leave my low competitors behind.

The Group is of considerably less dramatic interest than The Adulateur, as there is no action whatever, only revelation of character by means of discussion. Moreover, since the characters are presented as the embodiments of fanatical avarice, willing to sell out their country for personal gain, the play is reduced to the level of a diatribe. These characteristics would seem to render The Group quite unsuitable for performance; nonetheless, strong evidence exists that it was acted. The title page of the New York edition of 1775 reads: “The Group, A Farce: As lately Acted, and to be Re-Acted, to the Wonder of all superior Intelligences; Nigh Head Quarters, at Amboyne. In Two Acts.”!?

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution 17 Some readers refused to believe that a woman could have written such incisive satires, and Mrs. Warren found it necessary to prove that she was the author of The Group. She corresponded with John

Adams, asking him to acknowledge her as the author. Adams replied:

I could take my Bible oath . . . that there was but one person in the world, male or female, who could at that time, in my opinion, have written it; and that person was Madam Mercy Warren, the historical, philosophical, poetical, and satirical consort of the then Colonel, since General, James Warren of Plymouth, sister of the great, but forgotten, James Otis.!®

Today, no one doubts Mercy Warren’s authorship of The Group. Her literary reputation has suffered by the attribution in later years of several other plays of the period to her, such as The Blockheads and The Motley Assembly (descriptions of which appear in Chapter 5). These plays, whose effectiveness is greatly diminished by their scurrility and vulgarity, are so unlike the tone of The Group and The Adulateur that most scholars of the past doubted Mrs. Warren’s authorship. However, the preponderance of scholarly opinion seems in recent years to have shifted to the view that she wrote The Blockheads (and, some believe, The Motley Assembly as well) in addition to The Group, The Defeat, and The Adulateur.'? Although The Blockheads and The Motley Assembly \ack literary grace, all of the plays attributed to Mercy Warren have this in common: They make up in argumentative fury what they lack in dramatic technique. The Tory view of the volatile political situation was also represented in drama. An example 1s the anonymous A Dialogue Between a Southern Delegate and His Spouse, on His Return from the Grand Con-

tinental Congress, which exists in fragmentary form.?° This comic piece is written entirely in rhymed couplets. Despite the play’s title, there is little “dialogue” between the characters; instead, the Tory wife harangues her hapless husband with ridicule and abuse, while he defends his role as a member of the Continental Congress weakly

and ineffectively. He is given few opportunities to interrupt his wife’s tirades, of which the following will serve as examples:

18 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Dost thou think that wise Nature meant thy shallow Pate To digest the important Affairs of a State? Thou born! thou! the Machine of an Empire to wield? Art thou wise in Debate? Shou’st feel bold in the Field? If thou’st Wisdom to manage Tobacco, and Slave, It’s as much as God ever design’d thee to have; Because Men are Males are they all Politicians? Why then I presume they’re Divines and Physicians,

And born all with Talents every Station to fill, Noble Proofs you’ve given! no doubt, of your Skill: Wou'd! instead of Delegates, they’d sent Delegates’ Wives; Heavens! We cou’dn’t have bungled it so for our Lives! If you had even consulted the boys of a School, Believe me, Love, you cou’d not have play’d so the Fool. .. . Instead of imploring their Justice or Pity, You treat Parliament like a Pack of Banditti: Instead of Addresses, fram’d on Truth and on Reason,

They breathe nothing but Insult, Rebellion, and Treason; Instead of attempting our Interests to further, You bring down on our Heads Perdition, and Murder. When I think how these Things must infallibly end, I am distracted with Fear, and my Hair stands an [sic] end.

Another Tory satire appeared in 1775, attributed to Jonathan Sewall

of Massachusetts, who served as Attorney-General of the colony from 1767 until he departed for England in 1775. A Cure for the Spleen; or, Amusement for a Winter’s Evening is no more than an ani-

mated discussion between articulate Tories on the one hand and inarticulate, bumbling Whigs on the other.?! The play attempts to deny all of the colonial grievances against England: taxation, the Tea Act, the alteration of the colonial council and juries, and so on. The play’s argument can be summed up in a single line, spoken by a fervent British loyalist: “How happy are Americans, tf they did but know it’ Another Tory expresses the play’s view of the Continental Congress: “{T]hey have blown up a spark, which was but kindling, in-

to a raging conflagration. Their resolves are nothing short of /ugh treason .. . they have remov’d us infinitely further from peace and

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution 19 happiness than we should have been, had a Congress never been thought on.”

In the most passionate outburst of the play, the most articulate Tory spokesman cries: “I]t is never too late in this world to repent; and the sooner the better; [the rebellious colonials] have a gracious King to deal with and a parliament of Britons . . . but it must be remembered that the obstinate perseverance of incorrigible offenders

will put a period to the long suffering even of the Deity.” As the play concludes, the Whigs see the light of reason and vow “for the future, to take the right side [i.e., the British side] of the question.” ~

A Cure for the Spleen is no more balanced in its point of view than is A Dialogue Between a Southern Delegate and His Spouse. Both plays

forsake all shading of characterization that might have diminished their impact as propaganda. Subtlety and ambiguity are sacrificed for the sake of absolute clarity, the better to impress upon the reader the political lessons embodied in the plays. As Norman Philbrick correctly notes, however, “(t]he criticism that dismisses the plays as poor literature is beside the point: propaganda is their intention, simply that and nothing more. Dramatic form is used quite obviously only to heighten interest.” # It is remarkable, during that time of intense antipathies, to find a dramatist whose plays revealed a nonpartisan view of the political conflict. It is further surprising that a writer would be able to maintain objectivity despite holding the rank of colonel in the militia, but Robert Munford of Mecklenberg, Virginia, was just such a playwright. Munford’s The Patriots (1775, but not published until 1798) deals directly with a situation created by the outbreak of the Revolution: the distrust and dislike felt by American Tories for American Whigs, and vice versa. Munford, although perhaps inclining somewhat to the Tory point of view, suggests that a middle ground is possible, and his play (unlike all the others of the period) urges reason and pacifism rather than blind patriotism and an insistence upon war, or, on the other hand, total rejection of the rebels’ cause and abject surrender. *4

20 The Theatre in Amenca during the Revolution Trueman and Meanwell are Munford’s protagonists: “two gentlemen of fortune accused of toryism.” They are opposed by such characters as Isabella, a “female politician” who asserts the Whig view of patriotism and war (mingled with a liberal dose of silliness), saying: “There’s something so clever in fighting and dying for one’s country; and the officers look so clever and smart”; and by Brazen, who, 1n Trueman’s description, 1s “a violent patriot without knowing the meaning of the word.” A citizen’s committee is formed to decide the fate of the accused gentlemen of fortune, Trueman and Meanwell. The committee 1s composed of self-styled Whig “patriots” who, as events show, are assiduously resisting enlistment in the army while recommending it to others as a patriotic duty. The actions of the committee call forth the speeches that reveal the theme of the play, as when Meanwell asserts:

The cause of my country appears as dear to me as to those who most passionately declaim on the subject. The rays of the sun of freedom, which is now rising, have warmed my heart; but I hope my zeal against tyranny will not be shewn by bawling against it, but by serving my country against her enemies; and never may I signalize my attachment to liberty by persecuting innocent men, only because they differ in opimion with me.

During the committee’s interrogation of the protagonists, True-

man claims that he is “neither whig nor tory. ... Whenever the conduct and principles of neither are justifiable, I am neither; as far as the conduct and principles of either correspond with the duties of a good citizen, I am both.” Eventually Trueman and Meanwell are exonerated and the play ends on a note of reconciliation. However, neither the ending nor the humorous tone of the piece conceal Munford’s intention: to condemn violence and tyrannical behavior in the name of liberty. The Patriots shares with the other plays of its time an impatience with subtly developed, well-rounded characterization, but it transcends the other plays in its presentation of all sides of the political

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution 21 question and in its use of genuine dramatic action rather than mere discussion.

eR RH THUS AMERICAN PLAYWRIGHTS contributed to the political atmosphere immediately preceding the outbreak of hostilities. Neither Whigs nor Tories could complain that the other side had achieved anything resembling a monopoly in the publication of propaganda plays. Both were well represented, and the strident tone of most of their dramas undoubtedly deepened the antagonisms felt on both sides.

A drumbeat of anger and resentment was building to a crescendo, which would soon drown out the calls for moderation expressed by Robert Munford and others who wished to avoid the terrifying, wrevocable plunge into a bloody and uncertain destiny: revolution.

2

£ BF.

T ahlges

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 ‘i FIRST THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES given by the British military in America were offered in Boston in 1775 and 1776. After the passage of more than two hundred years, our knowledge of these productions is skimpy at best. Only a handful of refer-

ences to them, hinting at the nature and extent of the theatre in Boston during the Revolution, has survived. Still, the performances in Boston are significant because they were the first of more than one hundred sixty that would be presented by the British military in America.

Boston, 1775-1776

Throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 1774, British troops poured into Boston. Most Bostonians were irritated by the mere arrival of the troops, but when cold weather came on and the revised Quartering Act was effected (specifying that any British officer could force any Bostonian to provide lodging for the king’s troops in his home), irritation turned to outrage. To make matters worse, many of 22

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 23 the occupying soldiers treated their hosts arrogantly, prompting some Bostonians to adopt the rebels’ cause. On April 18, 1775, Paul Revere made his famous ride from Boston to Cambridge to Lexington, and halfway to Concord, spreading the news that the British were about to attack in force. On the next day, the British army was met by two American militia companies. Although

the British soldiers were ordered “on no account to Fire or even attempt it without orders,” ! someone — no one knows who — did fire, and the Revolution had begun.

Thousands of British soldiers occupied Boston until mid-1776. Despised by most, they were welcomed and entertained by Boston’s Tories, who comprised more than one-third of the total population of 6,500. Commanding the British troops in Boston was the elegant and sophisticated General John Burgoyne, who had come to America most unwillingly. In London, Burgoyne had achieved considerable success as the author of The Maid of the Oaks, a play originally acted at his estate in 1774 and given a professional production by David Garrick at London’s Theatre Royal in Drury Lane the following year. Burgoyne hated to leave the social and artistic life of London. America

would bore him, “Gentleman Johnny” feared, and he was right. Keeping discontented civilians in line, which was Burgoyne’s chief

task in the winter of 1775-6, provided little enjoyment, and time passed slowly.”

Burgoyne’s troops may not have been as worldly as their general, but they missed the joys of England no less. Accustomed to the delights of the British theatre, it is not surprising that the officers, led by Burgoyne, wasted no time in turning historic Faneuil Hall into a theatre and prepared to give theatrical performances there.

This was not the first time the British military had intended to offer such entertainments in Boston, but it was the first time they succeeded. As early as 1769, a rumor had circulated throughout the city that British officers wished to present a series of plays, in direct violation of the law forbidding playacting of any kind passed by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1750. On that occasion, puritani-

24 The Theatre in America during the Revolution cal Bostonians had succeeded in enforcing the law, but they were overwhelmed in 1775. Burgoyne, himself an amateur actor, blithely disregarded local sentiment and arranged for a series of regular theatrical performances to be acted by his officers for an audience composed of the British military and their local supporters.

At least four plays were given; these can be verified by the existence of playbills? and contemporary comment. It is entirely possible that the Boston garrison gave more than four plays, but the only confirmed productions are Susannah Centlivre’s comedy The Busybody, Nicholas Rowe’s Tamerlane, Aaron Hill’s tragedy Zara (all from the

standard eighteenth-century British repertory), and the farce The Blockade of Boston, written specifically for the occasion by Burgoyne himself.

Proper Bostonians found Burgoyne’s theatricals to be offensive from first to last, and Burgoyne seems to have delighted in giving offense. During his officers’ performances he often saw to it that hand-

bills of the entertainments were sent to George Washington, John Hancock, and other members of Congress who had signed the 1774 resolution that had made the “exhibitions of shews” illegal. * In Boston, the performances were given — at least ostensibly — for the benefit of widows and orphans of fallen British soldiers. No records exist showing how much money was spent on the productions,

and how much, if any, was distributed to the widows and orphans. Ample evidence does exist, however, proving that later performances in New York, also offered in the name of charity, were of little benefit to those on whose behalf the entertainments were given.

In New York, as will be shown (particularly in Chapters 6 and 7), charitable contributions for widows and orphans served as conve-

nient excuses for the production of plays; the same may well have been true in Boston. Burgoyne may have felt the need of an excuse, perhaps to overcome the objections of sober Britishers who might hear of the performances and object to their military officers participating in such frivolous pursuits. In any case, the handbills never failed to note the intended recipients of the box-office income, as the handbill for Zara illustrates:

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 25 On SATURDAY next, will be PERFORMED, By a Society of LADIES and GENTLEMEN, at FANEUIL HALL, The TRAGEDY of ZARA:

The Expenses of the House being paid, the Overplus will be apply’d to the Benefit of the Widows and Children of the Soldiers>

Zara was the first of the plays to be presented, on December 2, 1775, with a prologue and epilogue especially written for the occasion by Burgoyne. The prologue was delivered by Francis Lord Rawdon, a lieutenant of the Grenadier Company of the 5th Regiment; the epilogue was spoken by a ten-year-old girl. Both texts mocked the prudery of Boston’s Whigs, calling upon them and other Americans to return to British rule. Burgoyne’s prologue is quoted by an unnamed diarist in a commonplace book compiled during the 1770S:

In Britain once (it stains th’ historic Page) Freedom was vital struck by Party Rage. Cromwell the Fever watch’d, the knife supplied, She madden’d by Suicide she died. Amidst her groans sunk every liberal art Which polish’d life or humaniz’d the heart. Then sunk the Stage, quell’d by the Bigot Roar, Truth fled with Sense & Shakespear charm’d no more... Say then, ye Boston Prudes (if Prudes there are) Is this a Task unworthy of the fair? Shall Form, Decorum, Piety refuse

A Call on Beauty to conduct the Muse... Perish the narrow thought the sland’rous Tongue, Where the heart’s right the action can’t be wrong. Behold the Test, see, at the Curtain’s Rise, How Malice shrinks abash’d from Zara’s eyes.’

The epilogue ended with an antirevolutionary couplet:

26 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Duty in female breasts should give the law, And make e’en love obedient to Papa.°

Burgoyne attended the performances, as the notation in Lieutenant John Barker’s diary attests: ““Genl. B------e staid I believe on purpose for it as the ship has been ready some time.” Lord Thomas Stanley, Burgoyne’s brother-in-law, was one of the actors in Zara. Stanley described the performance in a letter to his friend, Hugh Elliot, in London: We acted the tragedy of ‘Zara’ two nights before I left Boston, for the benefit of the widows and children. The Prologue was spoken by Lord Rawdon, a very fine fellow and good soldier. I wish you knew him. We took above

£100 at the door. I hear a great many people blame us for acting, and think we might have found something better to do, but General Howe [commander of all British troops in America] follows the example of the King of Prussia, who, when Prince Ferdinand wrote him a long letter mentioning all the difficulties and distresses of the army, sent back the following concise answer: De la gaité, encore de la gaité, et toujours de la gaite. [Gai-

ety, more gaiety, gaiety forever!] The female parts were filled by young ladies, though some of the Boston ladies were so prudish as to say this was improper. !°

Stanley’s reference to British criticism of the officers’ participation

in theatrical performances represents one of the first occasions on which the officers were openly scorned for not having “found something better to do” during wartime. The criticism resurfaced periodically throughout the Revolution.

The best known of Burgoyne’s productions was The Blockade of Boston, a farce (now lost) written by Burgoyne to ridicule the American army. George Washington, as a character in the play, was represented as awkward, uncouth, and incompetent. No play could have been better calculated to arouse hostility from the supporters of

the American cause. An article in the Whig newspaper, the New England Chronicle, two weeks before the scheduled performance, re-

veals the irritation many Americans felt when the farce was announced:

Bnitish Mthtary Theatre, 1775-1777 27 We are informed that there is now getting up at the Theatre, and will be performed in the course of a Fortnight, a new Farce, called the Blockade of Boston. (/t ts more probable, before that time, the poor wretches will be presented with a Tragedy, called the BOMBARDMENT of Boston.)!!

On January 8, 1776, after the chief play of the evening, 7he Busybody, had been presented, The Blockade of Boston was given as the afterpiece. (An afterpiece — generally a one-act play, often farcical in nature, and occasionally a short opera or pantomime — customarily followed the play of the evening in the eighteenth-century English and American theatres. Afterpieces were sometimes supplemented with a song or a dance. An evening at the theatre typically began at 6:00 P.M. and continued until m:00 or later.)!* During the performance of Blockade, news reached the theatre that American soldiers had attacked the British fortifications on Bunker Hill. According to a British lieutenant who witnessed the events, An orderly sergeant that was standing outside the playhouse door . . . im-

mediately ran into the playhouse, got upon the stage and cried, “Turn out! Turn out! They are hard at it, hammer and tongs.” The whole audience thought that the sergeant was acting a part in the farce, and that he did it so well there was a general clap, and such a noise that he could not be heard for a considerable time. When the clapping was over he again cried, “What the deuce are you all about? If you won’t believe me, by Jasus, you need only go to the door, and then you will see and hear both!”

An article in the Middlesex Journal detailed the reaction. [The soldiers in the audience] immediately hurried out of the house to their alarm-posts; some skipping over the orchestra, trampling on the fiddles, and every one making his most speedy retreat. The actors (who were all officers) calling out for water to wash the smut and paint from off their faces; women fainting, and, in short, the whole house was nothing but one scene of confusion, terror, and tumult.!?

Timothy Newell’s report also vividly captured the reaction to the announcement of the Yankee attack. According to Newell, there was “much fainting, fright, and confusion” that “prevented the scene” from continuing. !4

28 The Theatre in America during the Revolution The New England Chronicle gleefully printed a full account under the heading CAMBRIDGE, January 25

We hear that the enemy, the evening on which our troops burnt the houses at Charlestown, were entertaining themselves at the exhibition of a Play, which they called the Blockade of Boston; in the midst of which a person appeared before the audience, and, with great earnestness, declared that the Yankees were attacking Bunker’s Hill. The deluded wretches, at first, took this to be merely farcical, and intended as a part of their diversion: But soon convinced that the actor meant to represent a solemn reality, the whole assembly left the house in confusion, and scampered off with

great precipitation.

The ironic tale of British soldiers fleeing in panic during a play written to commemorate their bravery was quickly spread throughout the colonies, becoming everywhere a source of great amusement among the Whigs. However, the last laugh was still to come: After the British forces had evacuated Boston, an anonymous American farce, published in 1776 as a parody of Burgoyne’s The Blockade of Boston, was entitled The Blockheads; or, the Affrighted Officers. This crude but vigorous piece poked fun at the alleged stupidity and cow-

ardice of the British and their sympathizers. Although The Blockheads was probably never performed, its publication and circulation must have proved humiliating to the British command. Victory in the battle of the farces had unquestionably gone to the Americans.

Other than Thomas Stanley and Francis Rawdon, the actors 1n the Boston performances are unknown. That female roles were played

by “young ladies” is apparent from Stanley’s letter, and Burgoyne himself may have been among the performers. Whether he participated directly in the productions or not, Burgoyne began a pattern that soon became established: As soon as the British army took control of a sizable American city, it commandeered whatever structure existed that might be used as a theatre, invited the participation of local sympathizers (especially young women), and produced entertain-

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 29 ments of various kinds, generally justifying the effort by claiming that the receipts were to be turned over to a worthy charity. Boston was but a prelude to the remarkably prolific theatrical activity of the British army in Philadelphia and New York, but its significance as the place of initial dramatic effort by the British military is

clear. Indeed, as George O. Seilhamer observed, the theatre became so important to the British military after the Boston productions that when Burgoyne’s army was held captive in Charlottesville in 177980, they built and made use of a theatre.!® Even as prisoners of war,

the officers continued the tradition Burgoyne had started at the beginning of the war in Boston.

New York, 1777 In September 1776, General Sir William Howe’s troops took possession of New York City, having badly defeated Washington’s forces in the Battle of Long Island. Thus began a period of more than seven years when New York City was entirely under the control of the British. Although Howe and his brother, as King’s Commissioners for Restoring Peace to the Colonies, reappointed William Tryon as Royal Governor of New York, Tryon was without authority. James Robertson, who became governor in 1780, was given more power but only because he was also a British general. The mayor of New

York City was stripped of authority; citizens were represented by no elected municipal authorities; the British military reigned supreme.!”

Howe, who was sympathetic to the American cause and had accepted his assignment in America with the greatest reluctance, set about making life as pleasant as possible for himself and for those around him. He grew greatly concerned about the morale and comfort of his troops in a city that, compared to London, was little more than a backwater. Howe wrote to Lord George Germain, Secretary of State for the American Colonies, in England:

30 The Theatre in America during the Revolution The troops had been so much harassed in the course of the last campaign, that I could not but wish that no manoeuvre of the enemy might hinder them from enjoying their repose, in their winter quarters, which their late fatigues rendered necessary, and their services entitled them to expect.!8

British tactics called for the army to settle down within an occupied city during the winter months while striving to enjoy the most comfortable life possible. With the advent of warm weather, the army would return to the prosecution of the war against the Americans, who had spent the winter in great discomfort outside the city.!9 This strategy was not put to a serious test in New York, for no significant military campaigns were undertaken in the city or its environs; in other cities, however, the strategy did not change even when

the British position was threatened. It is certain that the British spent many enjoyable winters in America, but their pursuit of enjoyment may have contributed to their ultimate defeat. Some historians have even conjectured that Howe and his officers still considered the war to be a farce in 1777 2° Howe’s love of luxury — “nothing seemed to engross his attention but the faro table, the play house, the dancing assembly, and [his mistress] Mrs. Loring,” commented Thomas Jones?! — was debilitating in the long run and may even have weakened British resolve. Colonel Allen Maclean of the British forces revealed his concern on this account in a letter to Alexander Cummings on March 30, 1777: I believe General Howe to be an honest man; I am sure he is a brave man,

but I am equally sure he is a very weak man and in every respect unqualified for a Commander-in-Chief, and he has got none but very silly fellows around him. .. . I could be very ludicrous on this occasion, but it is truly too serious a truth that brave men’s lives should be sacrificed to be commanded by such a parcel of old women.”2

In order that Howe’s soldiers might enjoy their repose in New York during the winter of 1777 more fully, the British army took over the John Street Theatre (built in 1767 by the American Company), renamed it the Theatre Royal, and commenced a remarkable series of performances that, under various commanders, lasted for

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 31 seven years. So closely associated with the theatre did Howe’s officers become that they were referred to by Captain Thomas Stanley — the same Stanley who had acted with Burgoyne’s soldiers in Boston — as “Howe’s strolling company.” The Theatre Royal, made of wood and painted red, was reached by a covered walkway that extended from the street to the door of the theatre, a distance of about sixty feet. The auditorium, like those of the English theatres of the eighteenth century, comprised boxes

(occupied by the wealthiest members of the audience), pit (where the audience was nearest the stage but had to sit upon uncomfortable, backless benches), and gallery. The stage, situated above the dressing rooms, was separated from the auditorium by a row of iron spikes. 74

Theatrical activities of the British in New York may have helped the American military cause. More than one hundred years after the events, historian George O. Seilhamer stated his belief that Howe’s creation of a military theatre was a significant factor in the war. “To Howe’s Thespians in New York in 1777,” wrote Seilhamer, “America Owes much as a promoting cause of the enervating indolence that made the achievement of independence possible.” > That Howe was able to begin his theatrical venture so quickly after his troops occupied New York — a matter of four months — was at least partly attributable to the efforts of Hugh Gaine, publisher of the New York Gazette: and the Weekly Mercury, and James Rivington, publisher of Rivington’s Gazette.

Before the advent of the Revolution, Hugh Gaine was a Whig and a supporter of the struggling American Company of actors, for whom he performed various favors, including the printing and sell-

ing of their tickets in the theatrical season of 1761-2. When the British troops threatened to take possession of New York in 1776, however, Gaine wasted little time turning Royalist. He subsequently devoted his newspaper to support of the Tory cause, under the protection of the British army.*® As a Royalist, Gaine continued his interest in the theatre, and used his newspaper to promote Howe’s strolling company in the most extravagant manner possible.

32 The Theatre in America during the Revolution A well-liked man, Gaine was regarded as something of a New York fixture. His book and printer’s shop was for many years located in Hanover Square at the sign of the Bible and Crown, where Gaine

could always be found wearing a long-skirted brown coat and a brown wig. His customers continued to patronize his place of business during the British occupation despite his political turnabout. When the war ended and Gaine petitioned the legislature of New York for authorization to remain in the city, permission was granted and Gaine’s businesses continued to prosper. 7’

James Rivington, on the other hand, could never have been regarded as politically indecisive. Born an Englishman, he remained one throughout his life, despite his colonial address. Years before the British occupation of New York, his Gazette was so despised by the

Whigs that the newspaper became colloquially known as “Rivington’s Lying Gazette.”28 An angry mob destroyed Rivington’s press in 1775, forcing him to suspend publication of the newspaper. The British occupation of New York offered him a perfect opportunity to issue a publication that clearly reflected his political views. Under the designation King’s Printer for New York, Rivington began to publish the Royal Gazette in 1777.” His newspaper became a vehicle for transmission of information supplied by the British. Rivington saw to it that all their activities — including the theatrical — were well publicized.

The readers of New York’s newspapers in 1777 and thereafter differed significantly from their counterparts prior to that time, reflecting the population shift in the city. Before the war began, fewer than twenty thousand civilians comprised the population of New York. However, many people — as many as ten thousand in all — de-

parted the city soon before the British attack, although many of the Tories returned afterward, to be joined by Loyalists from other colonies who wished to live among the king’s soldiers.7° The British military during the occupation at times numbered as many as fifteen thousand; thus New York had become a garrison town. Since the army was isolated during the winter and suffered from long periods of enforced idleness, the military command sponsored

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 33 various amusements, of which the theatre was one. A festive spirit pervaded Tory New York in early 1777, as Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Kemble, Deputy Adjutant-General to Sir William Howe, indicated in his journal: “Saturday, fan. llth, to Friday, 17th. All quiet. Great preparations making for the Queen’s Birth day on tomorrow the /8th. The King’s Commissioners gave their first dinner

on this day; a Ball and Fire Works at the General’s in the Evening.” 3!

Hugh Gaine provided an account of the festivities held 1n celebration of the queen’s birthday. On January 20, 1777, the Mercury reviewed the events of the previous week:

Saturday being the Anniversary appointed for the Celebration of Her Majesty’s Birth Day, the Guns, as usual, were fired at Fort George. His Majesty’s Commissioners gave a grand Entertainment to the Governors and

Officers of Distinction, both British and Hessian; and in the Evening a very splendid Exhibition of Fire Works, under the Direction of Col. Montresor, was played off at Whitehall, upon the Occasion. In Honor of the Day, the General was invested with the most honorable Order of the BATH, by Lord [Richard] HOWE [British commander in chief of naval forces in North America and brother of Sir William], assisted by General DE HEISTER, in the Presence of a numerous Assembly.

Sir WILLIAM HOWE gave an elegant Ball and Supper in the Evening. The ball was opened by Miss CLARK and His Excellency Governor TRYON .*

To these elegant entertainments was added the opening of the Theatre Royal the following week. A notice to the public appeared in the Mercury, announcing: The THEATRE in this City, having been some Time in Preparation, is i1ntended to be opened in a few Days, for the charitable Purpose of relieving the Widows and Orphans of Sailors and Soldiers who have fallen in Support of the Constitutional Rights of Great Britain in America It is requested that such Gentlemen of the Navy and Army, whose Talents and Inclinations induce them to assist in so laudable an Undertaking, be pleased to

send their Names... to the Printer of this Paper before Tuesday night next.33

34 The Theatre in America during the Revolution As in Boston, “Widows and Orphans” were billed as the beneficia-

ries of the productions. In the years just prior to the Revolution, a number of charities, public and private, had operated for the benefit of the poor in the city (of whom there were a considerable number), but public charities were suspended during the British occupation, as Sir Henry Clinton — Howe’s successor — refused to allow taxes. A poorhouse, entirely dependent on private contributions, existed,** but

money from the theatrical performances of the British military was specifically earmarked for the widows and orphans of British and Hessian soldiers.

The theatre reopened on January 25 with a performance of Henry Fielding’s satiric masterpiece, Jom Thumb. As to the quality of the performance, one can only guess. A “review” of the production was printed in Gaine’s Mercury, but it can hardly be regarded as an objective account. In any case, the notice must certainly have pleased the military thespians:

On Saturday evening last the little Theatre in John-street, in this City, was opened, with the celebrated Burlesque Entertainment of TOMTHUMB... . The Characters were performed by the Gentlemen of the Navy and Army; the Spirit with which this favourite Piece was supported by the Performers, prove their Taste and strong Conception of the Humour. Saturday’s Performance convince us that a good Education and knowledge of polite Life, are essentially necessary to form a good Actor. The Play was introduced by a Prologue written and spoken by Captain Stanly; we have great Pleasure in applauding this first Effort of his infant Muse, as replete with true poetic Genius. The Scenes painted by Captain De Lancey has [sc] great Merit, and would not disgrace a Theatre, tho’ under the Management of a Garrick. The House was crouded with Company, and the ladies made a brilliant Appearance.

As David Garrick was regarded as England’s — some said the world’s — greatest actor-manager of the time, the praise was obviously fulsome to a ludicrous degree. Captain Stanley’s prologue, which began, “Once more ambitious of theatric glory / Howe’s strolling company appears before ye,”>® was repeated the following year in Philadelphia when Howe’s officers began a series of performances there. 3’

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 35 Prologues (and occasional epilogues) were a regular feature of the performances of the military actors in America, following the conventional eighteenth-century British practice. The military perform-

ers sometimes used the original prologues written for the plays in which they acted, but frequently an officer would compose a prologue especially suited to the occasion. This often contained military allusions calculated to appeal to an audience comprised primarily of

soldiers. Generally, the managers of the theatres selected an actor from the play or afterpiece to deliver the prologue, but occasionally it was spoken by someone who had no other connection with the performance.

The first advertisement in New York for a military production appeared in Gaine’s Mercury on January 27, announcing a performance on the 3oth: For the BENEFIT of the ORPHANS and WIDOWS of SOLDIERS, &c. &c.

At the THEATRE in John Street, ON THURSDAY NEXT, Will be PERFORMED, the COMEDY of the LYAR

WITH THE ENTERTAINMENT OF TOM THUMB The CH ARACTERS by GEN TLEMEN of the NAVY and ARMY.

BOXES, ONE DOLLAR. PIT, THREE SHILLINGS, and GALLERY, TWO SHILLINGS Sterling.

TICKETS to be had at Hugh Gaine’s Printer, and at the Coffee-House. Positively no Person to be admitted behind the Scenes. Vivant Rex & Regina.*®

In all, the Mercury advertised eighteen performances in 1777, and

two others were advertised in the Royal American Gazette; but it is not certain that all the advertised performances were given. The

36 The Theatre in America during the Revolution productions scheduled for May 1 were definitely canceled (as a newspaper advertisement informed the public), and the likelihood is that four other performances were canceled at the last moment as well: In 1778, in a published account of the 1777 season’s income and ex-

penditures, the managers of the theatre indicated that only fifteen performances had been given. (For a list of the productions that were advertised or “reviewed,” see Appendix §2.)°

The schedule of performances would seem to indicate that each production was given about one week’s rehearsal. Eighteenth-century theatrical practice demanded less rehearsal time than at present (four

weeks are typical in the late twentieth century); but, even so, it is difficult to imagine that amateur performers, unskilled at memorization, could have adequately learned their roles— much less developed them in detail — in less than a week’s time. Although some of the officers had probably participated in amateur theatricals in England, one suspects that the prompter at the Theatre Royal was kept busy during performances. The officers also faced a rigorous performance schedule to which they adhered for more than four months: Productions were generally offered once a week and occasionally more frequently than that. All performances (with the apparent exception of the first) included two productions — a full-length play and an afterpiece. These were occasionally supplemented by a dance, a monologue, or a pantomime. Furthermore, each performance offered either a new play or a new

afterpiece (and sometimes both) not seen at the previous performance.

The acting style adopted by the officers at the Theatre Royal in 1777 cannot be known precisely, as British acting was at that time undergoing a process of transition. In accordance with established tradition, English actors of the early eighteenth century typically based their performance upon rhetorical theory, which, in turn, was predicated upon an understanding of how the body functioned — an understanding that was no longer widely accepted by scientists and intellectuals. As new theories of physiology and psychology gained adherents, the old style, which came to be called “declamatory” (sig-

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 37 nifying that the actors intoned the words with little attempt to individualize their characters) seemed increasingly artificial, communicating emotional states to the audience in a purely conventional — but outmoded — way.” An example of the way in which scientific and medical beliefs affected rhetorical theory can be seen in the injunction to orators (and actors), from the days of ancient Rome through the seventeenth cen-

tury, that gesture with the right hand must always take precedence over gesture with the left: The left hand could supplement the ges-

tures of the right hand but was never to be used independently. Rhetoricians justified this dictate on the basis of accepted medical theory, which, as Joseph R. Roach explains, held “that the vital spirits, exiting through the left ventricle [of the heart], permeate and humidify the left side of the body. This renders the left arm harder to control, more pliant, more tractable. .. . It can more easily and naturally conform to the gestures of the right . . . than initiate controlled actions on its own.” #! Roach, whose book The Player’s Passion meticulously details the

changes in medical and scientific beliefs that gradually altered the art of acting, quotes a contemporary description of a performance by Thomas Betterton (1635-1710), the leading British actor of his day: “His Left Hand frequently lodg’d in his Breast, between his Coat and Waistcoat, while, with his Right, he prepared his Speech.” To the audience of the time, Betterton’s posture was no more than a confirmation of accepted scientific “truth.” “Without such [rules for actors to follow] anarchy reigns,” Roach notes, adding, “If the actor gestures vehemently with his left hand alone, the agitated vital spirits explode out of the left ventricle, and he loses expressive control.”

However, as the centuries-old view of physiology underwent a change (as it did in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), the actor who clung to the old tradition, using his right hand to make flowery gestures while pressing his left hand over his heart, was no longer embodying a commonly held scientific and medical belief; instead, he was simply employing a shopworn convention that came progressively to be seen as contrived and mechanical.

38 The Theatre in America during the Revolution The influence of Charles Macklin and, especially, David Garrick, both of whom rose to prominence in England in the 1740s, altered the British public’s perception of effective acting. Both men defied

the use of outmoded conventions that by then were stultifying the histrionic art. Moreover, they studied each of the characters they played, explored their individual personalities, and infused their por-

trayals with vivid realism — at least by the standards of the eighteenth century. A twentieth-century viewer would no doubt find Garrick’s acting highly artificial, for the present view of “reality” no longer conforms to the eighteenth-century view; but judged by the standards of his own day, his performances were stunningly realistic. Most actors of Garrick’s era adopted his approach, but some holdouts continued to employ the practices of the declamatory school. With Garrick’s retirement in 1776, Sarah Siddons and her brother John Philip Kemble were soon acknowledged as the leading British performers. (Macklin was still active but, because he was so widely dishked by other members of the theatrical profession, failed to exert Garrick’s influence on either actors or the public.) Kemble and Siddons were students of artistic theory who were particularly drawn to Sir Joshua Reynolds’s belief that art should not imitate but ennoble

reality. They were noted for their “classical” approach to acting, combining some of the believability of Garrick’s portrayals (such as characterizing each role in an individual way) with a nonrealistic, larger-than-life quality. * It seems probable that the British officers who acted in America, given the choice of declamatory or “realistic” acting (few of them would have been likely to have been influenced by Kemble and Siddons, who did not achieve prominence until after 1775), would have opted for the former. Declamatory acting, which, in less-than-expert hands had become little more than speaking loudly while matching predesigned physical positions to generalized emotional states, would have been far less difficult than “realistic” acting. One performance by a declamatory actor would have been much like another, since declamatory acting stressed a conventional rather than an individualized approach to characterization. In addition, one of the difficulties

British Miltary Theatre, 1775-1777 39 faced by the innovative actor of the eighteenth century was that the “realistic” method required time: time to analyze the play and the character, time to discover the relationships between one’s character and the other characters in the play, time to decide upon one’s ap-

proach to each scene, each line, each silent moment, time to rehearse each element until it would be accepted by the audience as dramatic reality. When one recalls that the officer-actors, who surely were called upon to devote some time to nontheatrical pursuits, were permitted only a very brief rehearsal period, it 1s difficult to conceive of the officers not taking the easier route of conventional acting. Indeed, to imagine them facing and meeting the challenges of “realistic” acting is almost impossible. * % HH *

PERIODICALLY, scheduled performances could not be gotten ready on time, and a previously performed play had to be substituted for the announced one. Such was the case on February 24, when a notice in the Mercury announced: The Gentlemen of the Navy and the Army engaged in the Charitable Society, give NOTICE, That not being able in Time to get up the /ncon-

stant [scheduled for February 27], they will perform on Thursday the Comedy of the Beaux Stratagem, with the Farce of, The D[e]uce 1s in Him:

for the Relief of such of distressed Inhabitants of New-York as may be deemed Objects of Charity.“

A problem of a different sort was responsible for the cancellation of other performances. On several occasions, military duties took precedence over theatrical ones: Having won possession of New York City, the British were obliged at times to defend it from attack; and in the spring of 1777, Howe’s troops were preparing to play a major role in the British campaign to cut New England off from the other colonies. Thus, on May 1, the Royal American Gazette carried this notice: “The Comedy of Rule a Wife and have a Wife, which was to have been played this Night, is obliged to be put off, as the Gentle-

40 The Theatre in America during the Revolution men expected in Town, who were to have played it, are not yet returned.” *®

Although no records exist showing how well the theatrical performances were attended, audiences were probably rather large, as the management felt confident enough to raise the prices during the season. Whereas tickets for the pit had originally been priced at three shillings and those for the gallery at two shillings, by February 13

admission to the pit had been raised to one dollar, and those purchasing tickets for the gallery found that the price had doubled to four shillings. ® %* HK *

THE MONETARY SYSTEM during the Revolutionary period was incredibly intricate —- and any attempt to give a coherent picture of that system centuries later is bound to produce some confusion. Several different currencies were employed: British pounds, shillings, and pence; dollars, issued in state paper, based upon the Spanish milled dollar; Continental paper, which was issued from 1775 to April 1781 by the Continental Congress; Portuguese currency; and specie (gold or silver coins).

Jackson Turner Main, in The Social Structure of Revolutionary America, provides the following table as an approximation of currency values during the Revolution:

Value of the For sterling Spanish dollar — subtract

The English pound sterling 4s 6d

New England and Virginia 6s 1/4

New York and North Carolina 8s 9/16 New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Delaware, and Maryland 7s 6d 3/5

Main estimates that a bachelor could survive at subsistence level during the Revolution for {25 per year, that £100 would provide a

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 AI comfortable income, and that the wealthy who lived in cities often spent in excess of £1,000 per year.*’ However, the value of these currencies varied widely from year to

year and from one state to another. For example, in Pennsylvania one dollar equalled 90 British pence,* whereas in New York (according to Francis Lewis, a delegate to Congress), “‘a dollar is rated here in the purchase of necessaries equal to three pence of the old currency.” *? A general rule of thumb is that the New York pound was worth roughly half as much as the British pound sterling. General Howe issued the following currency rate to facilitate money changing in New York (the pounds are in New York currency) on April 30, 1777:

Guinea £1 17S 4d Half-johannes £3 4S Moidore £2 8s Spanish dollar 8s

English shilling IS gd!

Attempting to reduce some of the confusion, Congress asked the

states to stop printing money in 1777, but the states refused.» Congress required that Continental currency be accepted everywhere,

but the money became so wildly inflated within such a short time that it was all but worthless. For example, chocolate, a pound of which sold at 15 pence in April 1774, was inflated to 202.5 shillings in April 1781; similarly, a bushel of wheat, priced at 6.5 shillings in August 1774, was priced at 65 pounds in March 1781; a pipe (1.e., a large cask) of wine was inflated from £48 in July 1774 to an incredible £12,375 less than seven years later. In 1779 alone, the inflation rate was 300%.™ By 1780, Congress estimated that forty Continental dollars were required to equal one Spanish dollar.°> Beginning in April 1781 Continental money was no longer accepted, and prices dropped nearly to prewar levels: A pound of chocolate sold at 16 pence, a bushel of wheat for 6 shillings, a pipe of wine for £95.6.°° American soldiers received Continental currency before April 1781

42 The Theatre in America during the Revolution and were, therefore, notoriously badly paid. A month’s wages in

, 1779 could purchase no more than one bottle of rum,» for example. ** * * *

A RECORD of the first season’s income and expenditures at the Theatre Royal in New York, published in the Royal Gazette in 1778, revealed that more than {£2,875 had been taken in, and nearly £2,765 expended. If fifteen performances were given, as 1s likely,

the average nightly income would have been slightly in excess of £190. That figure compares favorably to the income of subsequent years in which theatrical performances were given by British military officers stationed in New York — another indication that the Theatre Royal was well patronized in its first season of operation. The expenditures for 1777 were given as follows:

£ s. d. To fitting up the house (compleatly) from bare walls, and the different dresses and contingent charges, vouched by the bills and receipts of Printers, Shopkeepers, Carpenters, Attendants, Guards, Musick, ‘Taylors, Milleners, Hairdressers, Painters, Doorkeepers,

&c. &c. amount to 2,452 5 4

To amount of Candles as per acct 292. «19 O To amount of some Losses by tickets and bad money

received at the doors 19 10 O

Income for 1777 was broken down as follows:

£ s. d. Credit By amount of fifteen plays 2,722 6 O By amount of Ld. Howe’s subscription 7813 4 By amount of Sir Wm. Howe’s do [ditto] 74. 15 8 In addition, £515, 4s., and 5d. was “paid in charity to the widows and orphans of soldiers, Hessian and British, as per certificates and receipts.”>®

British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 43 William Dunlap, the first historian of the American theatre and a prominent playwright and manager in his own right, provided a substantial amount of detail concerning the New York theatrical season of 1777 in his History of the American Theatre. For example, he asserted that the manager and “principal low comedian” in 1777 was Dr. Hammond Beaumont, Surgeon General of His Majesty’s army in America, and that “women’s characters, as in the time of Shakespeare, were frequently performed by the younger subalterns of the army, and we have before us the name of Lieutenant Pennefeather as Estifania, in the well-known Rule a Wife of Beaumont and Fletcher.” >?

Dunlap further claimed that some of the women’s roles were played by the unidentified mistress of Major Williams, and that “her comedy had great merit.” Other officers’ mistresses participated in the productions as well, and were “paid for their services at the rate

of two, three, and four guineas each performance.” The military performers included Major Williams, the company’s leading actor, “Captain Oliver Delancy, 17th Dragoons, Captain Michael Seix, 22d Foot, Captain Wm. Loftus, Guards, Captain Edward Bradden, sth Foot, Lieut. Pennefeather, Captain Phipps, Captain Stanley. . . .”°° According to Dunlap, a civilian dancing teacher, William Hewlet (also known as “Hulett’’) occasionally performed with the military actors. If Hewlet was indeed associated with them at that time, it would have lent a touch of professionalism to their efforts, for Hewlet had been a professional actor with the American Company before the war. ©

However, Dunlap, who was eleven years old in 1777, relied heavily in his account of that season’s performances (published 1n_ 1833) on his memory of forty-six years before, as well as on conjecture and

supposition. The result is a colorful but frequently inaccurate account in which it 1s often difficult to separate the genuine from the supposed. There is no way of knowing, therefore, whether Dunlap was correct in stating that “the expence of a night’s performance was { 80, or 200 dollars.” If his figure is accurate, amateur presentations would have cost a good deal of money in a theatre that the

44 The Theatre in America during the Revolution actors had appropriated and for which they paid no rent; but it is known that the typical expenses in subsequent seasons exceeded £80 per performance, so Dunlap’s figure may well be correct. Another officer whom Dunlap claims took part in the productions, as scene painter as well as actor, was Captain (later Major) John Andre. His participation seems unlikely, however, since he had been exchanged to the British as a prisoner of war only a few days before the performances began, and was not even attached to Howe’s New York headquarters at the time. André certainly did paint scenery for Howe’s strolling company at the Southwark Theatre in Philadelphia in 1778 (see Chapter 3), and Dunlap may have confused the two occasions.

Despite Dunlap’s assertion that Doctor Beaumont was the company’s manager, it seems more likely that Beaumont did not assume that position until 1779. During the first year of the Theatre Royal’s operation, Dr. Michael Morris appears to have been the comanager, with Captain Michael Seix. Morris’s name was listed at the beginning of the season as “Treasurer to the Charity,”© and Seix’s name was given in an advertisement in the Mercury ten days before the final performance; the advertisement called on all creditors to “bring in their Accounts to Capt. Seix . . . in order to be discharged.’’4 Dunlap’s other recollections must be treated with some skepticism

as well. Still, his is the only detailed account of the 1777 season. Fortunately, the subsequent seasons of the military players were better documented in contemporary reports.

3

vl 7“

Bs

Fosllen

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 Aers R HOWE’S OFFICERS concluded their theatrical ad ventures in New York, at the end of May 1777, Sir William was ordered to Philadelphia to mount an attack on the Americans. Howe was not to be rushed, however: He remained in New York until the last possible moment, proceeding to Philadelphia only when he could no longer delay, capturing the city in September. An angry British military command believed that Howe’s procrastination cost the army valuable time and that assistance was thus prevented from reaching the embattled General Burgoyne. Howe was unrepentant. ! Once in Philadelphia, the army busied itself with military duties for a time, building fortifications and opening the river for British supply ships. By December the hard work was completed and the

twenty-three thousand soldiers in Howe’s army settled in the city to wait as comfortably as possible for the return of warm weather. George Washington and the Continental army, camped nearby during that winter of 1777—8, endured severe hardships on the bleak hill-

sides of Valley Forge, in stark contrast to the dancing assemblies, cock-fighting bouts, races, and theatrical entertainments enjoyed by Howe and his troops in Philadelphia. Captain Johann Heinrichs, a Hessian mercenary with the British army, captured the spirit of that 45

46 The Theatre 1n America during the Revolution winter when he wrote in his letter-book, “Assemblies, Concerts, Comedies, Clubs and the like make us forget that there is any war, save that it 1s a capital joke.” Benjamin Franklin also noted Howe’s inability to put military mat-

ters ahead of social ones. When he was informed that Howe had captured Philadelphia, he is said to have responded, “No, Philadelphia has captured Howe.” The majority of Philadelphians in 1777 (the civilian population was approximately twenty-two thousand) did not favor the rebel cause. Although many of them, either British Loyalists or neutral in the War of Independence,* looked with disdain upon the British army’s pursuit of luxury, a sizable group threw itself into the festive atmosphere with fervor. Indeed, according to one history of Philadelphia, “the winter of 1777-78 was a season of gayety unprecedented, probably, in the annals of the city.”°

The Theatre

Dramatic activities began to be planned as soon as the city was fortified.© The Southwark Theatre on South Street, a rough brick and wood structure built in 1766 by the American Company, which the British had been using as a hospital for the wounded,’ stood ready to accommodate Howe’s strolling players. On December 24, 1777, the officers placed an advertisement in the Pennsylvania Ledger, hoping to attract knowledgeable individuals to aid the military actors in their enterprise: WANTED for the Play-house, a PERSON who writes quick, and a legible hand; — also, a Person well versed in accounts, to act as Clerk and ViceTreasurer. Any people that have ever been employed about the Play-house, as carpenters or scene-shifters, may get employment by applying to the Printer.®

A Mr. Smith evidently answered the advertisement, for he was selected as clerk and vice-treasurer.

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 47 The officers quickly proceeded to select plays for their first perfor-

mances and put them in rehearsal. They were able to advertise the

opening of the theatre in less than three weeks. A notice in the Ledger of January 14 announced:

For the BENEFIT of the WIDOWS and ORPHANS of the ARMY. On MON DAY next, the Nineteenth Instant, WILL BE REPRESENTED at the THEATRE, in Southwark, A COMEDY, Called, NO ONE’S ENEMY BUT

HIS OWN. And THE DEUCE IS IN HIM. The CHARACTERS by the OFFICERS of the ARMY and NAVY. Admittance to the BOXES and PIT, A Dollar each; GALLERY Half a Dollar.?

The 1778 theatrical season in Philadelphia thus began on January 19 and lasted for exactly four months, until May 19. Altogether, thirteen performances seem to have been given by Howe’s officers. Most of the productions can be verified from handbills that still exist! (approximately one thousand handbills were printed and posted throughout Philadelphia to advertise each performance); others were advertised in the Pennsylvama Ledger (see Appendix §3).

The prologue for the inaugural production of No One’s Enemy but His Own and The Deuce 1s in Him was written by the Reverend Jon-

athan Odell, according to a contemporary diarist, and spoken by Major Robert Chew, identified as the “director of the Theatre”: Once more ambitious of Theatric Glory, Howe's strolling Company appears before ye... . We, true Vagrants of the Thespian Race, While summer lasts ne’er know a settled place... . Benevolence first urg’d us to engage, And boldly venture on the public Stage, To guard the helpless Orphan’s tender years, To wipe away th’ affected Parents’ Tears, To lull the anxious Widow’s Cares to Rest, To sooth the Honour of the friendly Breast, Thus our design — sure in such a Cause, E’en error’s self may challenge some Applause. With favour, then, our imperfections scan, And where the actor fails, absolve the man.!!

48 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Difficulties of one sort or another seem to have plagued the performers at the Southwark Theatre almost from the beginning. The first sign of trouble is found in an advertisement in the Ledger of January 24, announcing the actors’ second performance. “Gentlemen are earnestly requested not to attempt to bribe the Door-Keepers,” the notice read, apparently indicating that attempted bribery had occurred on the nineteenth. The same announcement contained a more specific admonition: “The Foreign Gentleman who slipped a Guinea

and a Half into the hand of the Box-Keeper, and forced his way into the House, 1s desired to send to the Office of the Theatre in Front-Street, that it may be returned.”!* Evidently the first performance had attracted a large audience, and citizens who had not purchased tickets were willing to employ other methods in order to get into the theatre. Problems of a different sort arose in February. A performance scheduled for the twentieth had to be postponed “on account of the indisposition of a principal performer,”!’ and on February 28 a handbill announced the postponement of another play “for very particular Reasons,”!* whatever they might have been. In March the actors placed a special notice in their advertisement, warning that “No person can be admitted behind the scenes.” !>* In England, only a few decades before, theatre patrons had assumed as a matter of course that they were welcome backstage; but theatrical fashions were changing, and by 1778 spectators were expected to remain in the auditorium. It appears, however, that some Philadelphians may have been unaware of the theatrical etiquette then being demanded of audiences in London. From first to last, ticket prices remained the same: one dollar for

admission to the boxes and the pit; half a dollar for a seat in the gallery. It seems likely that the plays were well attended, if the bribing of boxkeepers and doorkeepers and gentlemen forcing their way

into the theatre are any indication; but no records of the financial dealings at the Southwark Theatre in 1778 have been preserved.

Nor can one know which of the plays the actors gave were the most popular, for no reviews of the productions were published. Evi-

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 49 dently, the performers were especially eager to produce 7he Wonder. An advertisement in the Ledger of January 3 announced: “The COMEDY, called A Wonder; or, a Woman Keeps a Secret, Is wanted for the use of the Theatre. Any person having it, that will either sell or lend it, is requested to apply to the Printer.”!®

Even when copies of plays were more easily found, the actors could never locate as many copies as they needed. Charles Durang, in his History of the Philadelphia Stage, quotes John North (“who had charge of the old South street theatre for many years, and until it was burned down, having been a lad when the English were in possession of the city”) to the effect that generally only a single copy of each play could be located. “The officers used to sit all around a

table on the stage, trying to copy out of one book. North said that one person would take the book one moment, and then another would snatch it for another minute, and so on. No wonder that they advertised for play-books,” Durang concluded. !’ Among the audience, General Howe was frequently in attendance, seated in the “Royal Box” with Mrs. Loring. Another distinguished

Spectator was the traitor Charles Lee, who had been captured by the British in 1777 and was preparing a plan for the subjugation of the American colonies. Lee sat with Howe in the general’s box during a performance in March. !§ As in New York, the plays performed by Howe’s strolling company were acted by the officers of the General’s staff and their wives and mistresses. The names of only two of the actors were recorded,

and the witness was again John North, whose memory may have been faulty by the time he related his reminiscences to Durang, many years after the events. According to North, however, both Captain André and Captain Delancey were among the performers. Delancey was an outstanding actor, North remembered, but André, he

said, was not.!? On the other hand, Seilhamer doubted that Andre acted in Philadelphia, believing that André’s “connection with the amateur theatricals of the period was confined to his contributions as a scenic artist.” 29 Unfortunately, the newspapers of the day offer no information whatever concerning the identities of the actors.

50 The Theatre 1n America during the Revolution Evidence that women played the female roles comes from advertisements in the Pennsylvania Ledger and from Durang, who reported that the actresses could sometimes be a nuisance. “Many of the soldiers’ wives,” he said, “helped the officers on the stage. They were generally of no character. They and the officers were about the theatre all day. When any piece was to be rehearsed they would flock about the back door on the side lot.”2! Nevertheless, Durang characterized the performances as generally “well acted for amateurs.” One actress’s name is recorded. John North claimed that a “Miss Hyde sang and acted with the British officers... . She sang “TallyHo’ between the play and the farce.” The young and handsome André, a favorite of Philadelphia society

as well as of General Howe, may or may not have acted, but his scene painting attracted considerable attention. One drop scene he painted was inscribed with his name on the back in large black letters; it remained in the Southwark Theatre until the building burned down in 1821.7* Many of those who saw the drop were sufficiently impressed to remember it for many years. According to Durang, It was a landscape, presenting a distant champagne country, and a wind-

ing rivulet extending from the front of the picture to the extreme distance. In the foreground and centre was a gentle cascade (the water exquisitely executed), overshadowed by a group of majestic forest trees. The perspective was excellently preserved; the foliage, verdure and general coloring, artistically toned and glazed. The subject of this scene and its treatment was eminently indicative of the bland tone of [Andreé’s] mind, ever running in a calm and harmonious mood.”°

Preparations for the departure of General Howe, who resigned as commander of the British forces after Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga (on October 14, 1777), began in April 1778. On the twentyninth of that month, an advertisement in the Ledger hinted that the theatre would soon be closing, and that “Any person having any demands against the Theatre, are requested to bring in immediately, their accounts to Mr. Smith, at the Office of the Theatre in Front

street.”

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 51 The Meschianza

One day before the final performance in the theatre, a remarkable pageant, known as “The Meschianza,” was given in honor of General Howe on the occasion of his imminent return to England. John André (now a Major) supervised the affair, which must certainly have been the most lavishly theatrical of all the entertainments presented in America during the Revolution. The pageant would have been impressive at any time; but occurring in the middle of a war, as it did, it is positively astonishing. The Meschianza (the word is derived from two Italian words: mescere, to mix, and mischiare, to mingle) included a variety of events. The entertainment was given at Mrs. Wharton’s country estate, situated on both sides of the Delaware River. Many vast pavilions were erected around the old mansion, designed and decorated principally by André and Captain Delancey. André himself painted many of the ceilings and walls of the pavilions that were intended for use as ballrooms and dining rooms. André also designed costumes for fifty young Philadelphia women

who were invited to attend the pageant as special guests. The women were separated into two groups: the Ladies of the Blended Rose and the Ladies of the Burning Mountain, each Lady accompanied by a Knight. André’s watercolor design for the costume of the Ladies of the Blended Rose was described by Anne Hollingsworth Wharton in 1893 as a blend of Oriental and European styles. A portrait of Peggy Shippen, one of the Ladies, represented her in André’s costume: a flowing tunic over full Turkish trousers, with her hair piled high in the style of the period. Besides designing the costumes,?? André evidently constructed them as well. In a letter to Peggy Shippen written in August 1779, he said: You know the Mesquianza made me a complete milliner. Should you not have received supplies for your fullest equipment from that department, I shall be glad to enter into the whole details of cap-wire, needles, gauze, &c., and, to the best of my abilities, render you in these trifles services from which I hope you would infer a zeal to be further employed.”8

52 The Theatre in America during the Revolution In 1828, fifty years after the Meschianza took place, a commonplace book containing a detailed account of the event was given to Dr. I. T. Sharpless of Philadelphia. The writer, who describes himor herself only as “one of the company,” provides the most thorough contemporaneous account of the Meschianza.??

The entertainment began with a lavish water procession, three divisions of boats carrying the guests from Knight’s Wharf to the Wharton mansion. As the fleet proceeded down the river, the band playing English airs, six barges were needed to keep away the many boats filled with Philadelphians eager to catch a glimpse of the spec-

tacle. When the fleet arrived at its destination and the passengers began to disembark, salutes were fired from boats on the river to commemorate General Howe’s stepping on shore. The company then

strolled between two files of grenadiers up the avenue toward the Wharton mansion. The Ladies, accompanied by officers (costumed as Knights of the

Blended Rose and Knights of the Burning Mountain) entered an enormous and magnificent lawn, in the midst of which stood two pavilions. Rows of benches rose one above the other, and in these sat the Ladies, each of whom carried favors for the Knight of her choice.

The Knights proceeded to the lawn, which was prepared for a tournament in the medieval style. They rode around the lists, whereupon a herald was sent to the Ladies, with this message: The Knights of the Blended Rose by me their Herald proclaim and assert that the Ladies of the Blended Rose excel in wit, beauty, and every other accomplishment all other Ladies in the world, and if any knight or knights shall be so hardy as to deny this, they are determined to support their assertion by deeds of arms, agreeable to the laws of ancient Chivalry.*°

The process was then repeated as the Knights of the Burning Mountain sent their herald to their Ladies with a similar message, promising to defend them “against the false and vain-glorious assertions of the Knights of the Blended Rose.”?!

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 53 A trumpet sounded, and a mock combat began. Knights unsheathed their swords and fired their pistols as the two companies of Knights moved slowly toward one another. Before any damage could be inflicted, however, the Ladies declared themselves satisfied with the valor and devotion displayed by their Knights. Forming two lines, the Knights passed on horseback through an elegantly painted triumphal arch, their Ladies following after them. Each Knight dismounted and joined his Lady, whereupon they all walked together to another arch as large and magnificent as the first. One of the participants described what awaited them: “Upon passing this second arch, we entered a beautiful Flower-Garden, & passing up a Gravel Court, ascended a flight of Steps, which conducted

us into the House, at the door of which we were received by the Managers of the Meschianza.”*?

They were then ushered into a large and brilliantly lighted hall, where tea, coffee, and cakes were served, after which they entered yet another elaborate hall, this one hung with eighty-five murrors and decorated with panels of flowers upon pale blue and rose pink walls. The Ladies danced with the Knights, following which all the guests at the party joined in the dance. A fireworks display began on

the lawn at ten-thirty, and the triumphal arch near the house was brilliantly illuminated.

As the guests watched the fireworks, an American officer in charge of an infantry company set fire to the line of felled trees at the north of the city; meanwhile, his company fired their guns in the direction of the Wharton estate. The British officers, fearing that the party might end in panic if the guests knew they were in danger, persuaded their Ladies that the shots and distant fires were all a part of the Meschianza, and the celebration continued uninterrupted. The American officer, Allan McLane, had failed to break up the party as he had wished to do, but he had at least succeeded in alarming the British, who sent a company of dragoons into the city to pursue the rebels. However, the Americans had retreated to the hills outside Philadelphia by the time the dragoons arrived.

54 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Most of the guests at the Meschianza returned to dancing, although, as a participant in the celebration informs us, some of them

preferred to retire “to a Faro Bank, which was opened by three German Officers in one of the Parlours.” [At midnight] we were called to Supper, and two folding doors at the end of the Hall being thrown open, we entered a room 200 feet long. The floor was covered with painted Canvass, the Roof and Sides hung with paintings

and ornamented with fifty large Mirrors. From the roof hung twelve Lustres with 20 Spermaceti candles in each. In this room were two Tables reaching from one end to the other. On each side were Recesses with Side Boards on which were all kinds of Liquors. On the two tables were 50 large elegant Pyramids with Jellies, Syllabub, Cakes and Sweetmeats [as well as many other delicacies].*°

Andre said that there were 430 covers, 1200 dishes; 24 black slaves, in oriental dresses, with silver col-

lars and bracelets, ranged in two lines, and bending to the ground as the General [William Howe] and Admiral [Richard Howe] approached the saloon: all these, forming together the most brilliant assemblage of gay objects, and appearing at once as we entered by an early descent, exhibited a coup d’oeil beyond description magnificent.*4

As the supper ended, toasts were proposed to the health of the king, the queen, and the other members of the royal family. All the guests sang “God Save the King,” and more toasts were offered: to the army, the navy, the commanders of the British forces, and at last to

the Ladies and their Knights. The party continued until dawn.* In all probability, a more lavish spectacle has never taken place in the midst of a bloody war, within a few miles of the enemy forces.

The guests at the party were not restricted to the British and their sympathizers. “Even whig ladies went to the Meschianza,” according to a young woman who took part in the celebration, performing the part of a nymph of the Blended Rose.*°

Most of the Whigs, however, had of course stayed away, and many of them were incensed that any Philadelphians had attended the party. General Anthony Wayne, who had suffered through the

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 55 winter months at Valley Forge, summed up the outrage of the Whigs when he wrote: Tell those Philadelphia ladies, who attended Howe’s assemblies & levees, that the heavenly, sweet, pretty red-coats — the accomplished gentlemen of the guards & grenadiers have been humbled on the plains of Monmouth [on June 28, 1778, slightly more than a month after the Meschianza]. The Knights of the Blended Roses and of the Burning Mount have resigned their laurels to Rebel officers, who will lay them at the feet of those virtuous daughters of America, who cheerfully gave up ease and affluence in a city, for liberty and peace of mind in a cottage.*’

Even some Tories were indignant that so festive a celebration should have been held during the war. One such was Hannah Griffith, a Quaker who asked “What is it?” and answered: A shameful scene of dissipation,

The death of sense and reputation; A deep degeneracy of nature, A frolic “for the lush of satire.” A feast of grandeur fit for Kings, Formed of the following empty things: Ribbons and gewgaws, tints and tinsel, To glow beneath the historical pencil; (For what though reason now stands neuter, How will it sparkle, — page the future?) Heroes that will not bear inspection, And glasses to affect reflection;

Triumphant arches raised in blunders, And true Don Quixotes made of wonders. Laurels, instead of weeping willows, To crown the bacchanalian fellows; The sound of victory complete, Loudly re-echoed from defeat; The fair of vanity profound, A madman’s dance, — a lover’s round.

In short, it’s one clear contradiction To every truth (except a fiction);

56 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Condemned by wisdom’s silver rules, The blush of sense and gaze of fools.

But reflection’s pained to know That ladies joined the frantic show; When female prudence thus can fail, It’s time the sex should wear the veil.38

One reason for Hannah Griffith’s disgust was undoubtedly the fact

that General Howe had been urged on several occasions to assault the American camp at Valley Forge, but he adamantly refused to do so. For many years afterward in England, Howe’s strategy (maintaining his army in health and luxury while the Americans suffered in discomfort) was the subject of severe criticism.*? The R—/ [Royal] Register in England went so far as to say that Howe’s “summers were consumed in fatiguing, expensive, and useless operations; the winters passed away in lust and luxury.’”*° Howe’s enthusiasm for high life in Philadelphia was a blessing for the Continental army. British inaction at the end of 1777 and during

the first six months of the following year permitted the rebel forces to gain valuable time, recover their strength, and retake the city in the summer of 1778.

32

ears: ‘ if

“Entertat ts,’ 1778 ntertainments, 177 [ N OCTOBER 1774, George Washington had signed the Congressional resolution intending to discourage the production of “shews, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments.” Washington, however, was no opponent of the theatre in peacetime; on the contrary, before the hostilities began he rarely missed an op-

portunity to see the American Company perform;! and at Valley Forge in the spring of 1778, after the dreadfully cold weather had begun to ease, Washington relaxed whatever objections he may have had to the production of plays in wartime.

Valley Forge A theatre was opened with Washington’s approval and a play given at Valley Forge on April 15, 1778. Almost certainly his object was to provide his troops with some respite from the effects of the long and bitter winter rather than to satisfy his own interest in theatrical diversion. The only historical record of the theatre’s opening was made in George Ewing’s Military Journal, and Ewing, an American sol57

58 The Theatre in America during the Revolution dier, unfortunately neglected to mention the name of the play. He did note, however, that the performance was excellently attended: This afternoon I received a ticket for the Play to be acted this evening at the Bakehouse in the evening went down in company with Major Bloomfield Lieuts Curtis Wayman & Kersey but the house was so full that I could not get in then a number of Gent went to Major Parkers hut in the fourth where we spent the evening very merily.2

It is history’s loss that Ewing’s account is as barren of detail as it is of punctuation. The next theatrical performance at Valley Forge appears to have occurred several weeks later as part of a festive celebration. Indeed, a celebration was in order, for not only had the army survived the terrible conditions of the winter months, but news had reached the camp of the French alliance with America, which had been signed in Paris on February 6, 1778. On May 6, Washington issued an order for a grand military féte and jubilee to celebrate the signing of the treaty. ? Washington’s soldiers must have begun rehearsing immediately for a performance of Joseph Addison’s Cato (Washington’s favorite play —

perhaps because he identified with Cato as an opponent of Caesarism [tyranny] — and, according to Garry Wills, the most popular play in eighteenth-century America*) because the production was given only five days later. During that interval the camp was obviously in a festive mood. Washington dined in public with all the officers of

his army, to the accompaniment of an orchestra presumably made up of soldiers. One of those present entered the following in his diary:

The entertainment was concluded with a number of patriotic toasts, attended with huzzas. When the General took his leave, there was a universal clap, with loud huzzas, which continued till he had proceeded a quarter of a mile, during which time there were a thousand hats tossed in the air. His Excellency turned round with his retinue and huzzaed several times.>

American Military Theatre and ‘Entertainments,’ 1778 59 On May 11, Cato was performed for an audience that included General Washington. William Bradford, Jr., in a spirited letter written on May 14 to his sister Rachel, described the performance at Valley Forge: My dear Rachel

I find by a Letter from my father that you are on a visit at Trenton. I should be happy could you extend your Jaunt as far as full view — the Camp could now afford you some entertainment. The manoeuvering of the Army is in itself a sight that would Charm you. ~— Besides these, the Theatre is opened — Last Monday Cato was performed before a very numerous & splendid audience. His Excellency & Lady, Lord Stirling, the Countess & Lady Kitty, & Mr Green were part of the Assembly. The scenery was in Taste — & the performance admirable — Col. George did his part to admiration — he made an excellent die (as they say) — Pray heaven, he don’t dite in earnest — for yesterday he was seized with the pleurisy & lies extremely ill — If the Enemy does not retire from Philad? soon, our Theatrical amusements will continue — The fair Penitent with the Padlock will soon be acted. The “recruiting officer” is also on foot. I hope however we shall be disappointed in all these by the more agreeable Entertainment of taking possession of Philad* .. . Adieu ma chére soeur, je suis votre. W. B.®

Bradford’s greater wish was gratified. Six days later, on May 20, he again wrote to his sister: “I no longer invite you here — all is hurry and bustle — our plays and other amusements seem to be laid aside and every one is preparing for a sudden movement.” ’ The “sudden movement” culminated in the American forces retaking Philadelphia, following the British evacuation in June.

Whether any performances were given at Valley Forge before April 15, or between April 16 and May 11, is unknown. It seems clear that The Fair Penitent, The Padlock, and The Recruiting Officer, all scheduled for production after May 11, were canceled; but there

is no certainty that the two recorded performances were the only ones seen by Washington’s army in the spring of 1778.

6O The Theatre in America during the Revolution Philadelphia

Even before the British evacuation, Americans who supported the revolutionary cause were not without amusements in Philadelphia. An article in the Pennsylvania Packet on February 11, 1778, confirmed that life was not all somber for the Whigs of the city. It began: Last Monday evening a brilliant Ball was held in this place, at which a great number of Ladies and Gentlemen of the very first characters from the city of Philadelphia and the town and neighbourhood of Lancaster were present. The agreeable, easy, and truly chearful behaviour of the company, was a remarkable proof of the entire satisfaction and ease of mind en-

yoyed by those who are in the land of liberty and freedom, and that the virtuous will be happy in the enjoyment of those blessings in spite of all that British Tyranny can invent.®

The British, of course, had been far more active in the social realm than had the Americans. Those Philadelphians who had become accustomed to the lavish entertainments and parties furnished by the British military must have looked upon their departure with dismay, fearing that a period of austerity would follow; but that was not to be the case. A Philadelphian of 1778 who wished to continue in the pattern set by the British might hardly have noticed their absence. Mrs. Robert Morris did not miss them, it seems; she wrote to her mother from Philadelphia in July 1778, only a month after the British evacuation: I know of no news, unless to tell you that we are very gay as such. We have a great many balls and entertainments, and soon the Assemblys will begin.

Tell Mr. Hall even our military gentlemen here are too liberal to make any distinctions between Whig and Tory ladyes — if they make any, it’s in

favor of the latter, such, strange as it may seem, 1s the way things are conducted at present in this city.’

Some of the Whigs were bitter, however, and wished to punish the Tories who had shown Howe’s army such hospitality. The Whigs

gave a ball at the City Tavern in honor of “the young ladies who had manifested their attachment to the cause of virtue and freedom

American Military Theatre and ‘‘Entertainments,’’ 1778 GI by sacrificing every convenience to the love of their country.” Many of them wished to exclude the Tories from their celebration, but, in a remarkable burst of good fellowship, the Whigs invited a number of Tories to the ball and “Torv belles danced with American officers, as

the Whig belles had danced with the British.” ®

Others found the Philadelphians more hesitant about enjoying themselves so luxuriously. Conrade Alexandre-Gerard de Rayneval, the minister plenipotentiary of France, sent to America to supervise

French interests under the treaty signed in February, arrived in Philadelphia in 1778. Wishing to make public acknowledgment of the honors paid to him on his arrival, he proposed a banquet followed by a ball; but a letter of August 14, 1778, written by Rayneval to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count de Vergennes, demonstrates the difficulty of sponsoring such entertainments at the time in Philadelphia: They allege a law of Congress which forbids public entertainments. This law originated with the northern Presbyterians, at the time when Congress fervently besought the aid of Heaven. Things have taken another turn, and quite a number of senators dance every week. Northern rigidity has become mollified in contact with Southern sensuousness; but there is still hesitation in repealing the law.!!

Despite the law, American officers reopened the Southwark Theatre in September 1778, where the British had given regular performances some months before. The few details now extant about this short-lived engagement come primarily from John North, who reported them many years afterward. North could not recall the names of any of the American officer-actors who had performed in Philadelphia when he was a boy, but he did remember that one or two of the actors who had been employed by the American Company before the war had joined the officers 1n the performances, adding a degree of professionalism to the productions. !

How many performances were given and what plays were presented are not known. It seems likely, however, that one of the plays was David Garrick’s farce The Lying Valet, since a copy was pub-

62 The Theatre in America during the Revolution lished in Philadelphia in 1778 carrying the inscription: “Printed at the Desire of some of the Officers in the American Army, who intend to exhibit at the Playhouse, for the Benefit of Families who have suffered in the War for American Liberty.” !3 Although the productions given by American officers were for the laudable purpose of raising money for needy families, the simple act of presenting plays ran counter to the Continental Congress’s wishes expressed in its resolution of 1774. Congress — which was meeting in Philadelphia at the time — was clearly irritated, for on October 12, 1778, a motion was presented that Congress pass the following resolution:

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several states to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, and for the suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gam-

ing, and other such diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners. !*

Maryland and North Carolina voted against the motion, and Virginia’s vote was divided, but the other states (as they had begun to call themselves) agreed to it, carrying the vote in favor. Having gone on record in opposition to theatrical activities for the second time in four years, Congress must have felt confident that its views could not be misconstrued; but there is good reason to believe that a performance was given on the very evening on which the resolution was passed. That a performance was scheduled is certain, as this item in the Pennsylvama Packet attests: ANECDOTE

A PLAY being to be performed in the city last Monday evening, the Marquis de la Fayette being in company with his Excellency the President of Congress [Henry Laurens], asked him to accompany him to the play. The President politely excusing himself, the Marquis pressed him to go: The President then informed the Marquis that Congress having that day passed a resolution, recommending to the several states to enact laws for the sup-

American Military Theatre and “‘Entertainments,”’ 1778 63 pression of theatrical amusements, he could not possibly do himself the honour of waiting upon him to the play. Ah! replied the Marquis, have Congress passed such a resolution! then I will not go to the play.'!

Perhaps in direct response to this (possibly canceled) performance, Congress passed yet another resolution four days later, indicating a

further strengthening of its resolve. The October 16 resolution, far more emphatic than the first, was published in the Packet the day after its passage, perhaps in order to make certain that all Philadelphians, military and civilian, would be made aware of Congress’s injunction. In CONGRESS, October 16, 1778

Whereas frequenting Playhouses and theatrical entertainments, has a fatal tendency to divert the minds of the people from a due attention to the means necessary for the defence of their country and preservation of their liberties:

Resolved, that any person holding an office under the United States, who shall act, promote, encourage or attend such plays, shall be deemed unworthy to hold such office, and shall be accordingly dismissed. Ordered, That this resolve be published.!¢

Considerable opposition to such a strong resolution was expressed. New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia all vot-

ed against it, but the more somber voices of the other states carried the day. The resolution failed in its attempt to stamp out the production of all plays during the prosecution of the war, but one suspects that 1t must have made officers of the United States hesitant about attending them. Fortunately for the future of the theatre in America, the individual states frequently ignored the antitheatrical sentiments of Congress and showed far greater leniency in their attitudes regarding dramatic activities. Gérard de Rayneval, in another letter to Count de Vergennes, this one dated November 24, 1778, said, “It is the northern members [of Congress], called the Presbyterian party, that delight in passing moral laws so as to keep their credit and rigor in full exercise,”!’ and, indeed, the southern states showed considerably

64 The Theatre in America during the Revolution more tolerance for the theatre (both before and during the Revolution) than did their northern counterparts. For all the assiduousness of Congress (and its northern branch, in particular) in attempting to encourage the suppression of amusements, it seems to have failed utterly — at least by the standards of such public men as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Washington wrote to Col. Harrison of Virginia at the end of 1778: If I were to be called upon to draw a picture of the times and of men, from what I have seen, heard, and in part know, I should in one word say, that idleness, dissipation, and extravagance seem to have laid fast hold on most of them. That speculation, peculation, and an insatiable thirst for riches seem to have got the best of every other consideration, and almost every order of men; that party disputes and personal quarrels are the great business of the day, whilst the momentous concerns of an empire, a great and accumulating debt, ruined finances, depreciated money, and want of credit, which in its consequences is the want of everything, are but secondary considerations, and postponed from day to day, from week to week, as if our affairs wore the most promising aspect.!8

Nathanael Greene of Rhode Island was no less alarmed; in a letter of February 9, 1779, he wrote: Luxury and dissipation are very prevalent. These are the common offspring

of sudden riches. When I was in Boston last summer, I thought luxury very predominant there; but they are no more to compare with those now prevailing in Philadelphia, than an infant babe to a full-grown man. I dined at one table where there were an hundred and sixty dishes.!?

“Dissipation” was still prevalent eight months later and the condition had spread to Congress itself, according to Franklin’s account: The extravagant luxury of our country in the midst of all its distresses, is to me amazing. When the difficulties are so great to find remittances to pay for the arms and ammunition necessary for our defence, I am astonished and vexed to find upon inquiry, that much the greatest part of the Congress interest bills come to pay for tea, and a great part of the remainder is ordered to be laid out in gewgaws and superfluities.””

American Military Theatre and ‘‘Entertainments,’’ 1778 65 The historian George Washington Greene wrote in 1869, “every form of wastefulness and extravagance prevailed in town and country, nowhere more than in Philadelphia under the very eye of Congress; luxury of dress, luxury of equipage, luxury of the table. We are told of one entertainment at which eight hundred pounds were spent in pastry.” 2!

Clearly, the taste of Americans for amusements of various kinds was increasing, and legislators could do little about it. In the matter of theatrical performances, however, Pennsylvania did its best to conform to Congress’s wishes. On March 30, 1779, the state legislature prohibited the building of “any play house, theatre, stage or scaffold for acting, showing or exhibiting any tragedy, comedy, or tragicomedy, farce, interlude or other play or any part of a play whatsoever,” and the acting or being “in any way concerned” in them.” Before the war’s end, the Southwark Theatre would open again, plays would once more be seen in Philadelphia, and George Washington would again be in the audience; but these events were not to occur until a good deal of time had passed and the distaste of officialdom for the theatre had been given a chance to dissipate.

Portsmouth

American officers may have acted in several plays in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in 1778, although it is also possible that the performers were civilian amateurs. Evidence that plays were produced in Portsmouth comes from the poetry of Jonathan M. Sewall, who is not to be confused with the Jonathan Sewall who favored the Tory cause and wrote A Cure for the Spleen in 1775. The poems of Sewall of New Hampshire were published in 1801; included among them is

an “Epilogue to CATO,” which offers the notation underneath the poem’s title, “Written in 1778.”23 Although there is no indication

on the original manuscript that the epilogue was written to be performed, the words “for the Bow Street Theatre, Portsmouth,

66 The Theatre in America during the Revolution N. H.’’4 were added when the poem was subsequently reprinted by the Dunlap Society. Another poem, entitled “Epilogue to CORIOLANUS,” also appears in Sewall’s volume. This piece is undated but appears to have

been written at approximately the same time as the “Epilogue to CATO,” as it is placed only a few pages away from that poem. The significance of the “Epilogue to CORIOLANUS” 1s that its text reveals that it was spoken, presumably from the stage, and presumably at the conclusion of a performance of Shakespeare’s tragedy. Sewall’s poem reads, in part: Trembling with apprehension, doubt and pain, We have presum’d to tread this stage again. This stage — where late, by various passions mov’d,

A Juba triumph’d, and a Marcia lov’d. Where a Numidian, barb’rous as his clime, Stalk’d, black with ev’ry execrable crime. And where by demons fir’d from deepest hell, Sempronius bellow’d, fought, blasphem’d, and fell. Here Lucia wept with anguish torn, and love; And there th’ illustrious rival brothers strove. Here noble Marcus bled, in youthful pride, There Liberty, and Rome, and CATO dy’d!

A diffrent scene has been display’d to night; No martyr bleeding in his country’s right. But a majestic Roman, great and good, Driv’n by his country’s base ingratitude, From parent, wife, and offspring, whelm’d in woe,

To ask protection from a haughty foe... .

The poem clearly reveals that a number of plays were performed in Portsmouth, but whether the actors were officers or civilians, the epilogue does not say. Because Sewall was such a rabid American patriot (among his other poems are a “Song for Washington’s BirthDay” and “An Ode to Independence”’), it seems apparent that the performance was given for a Whig audience.

American Military Theatre and ‘‘Entertainments,’’ 1778 67 Also in Sewall’s collection of poems is an “Introductory Prologue

To the Plays at Portsmouth.” Unfortunately, it contains no further information concerning the plays and it bears no date. The final verse

gives the only possible clue to the date of its composition, and that is tenuous indeed: Oh, might th’ illustrious House their vote confer, Pass ev’ry act to night, without demur, And the fair Senate happily concur. Back’d by your suffrage, we’d the stage assert, With grateful pride the gen’rous 4:2// report, And quote your Statutes in each critic’s court!

Sewall added this footnote: ‘““The General Court was then in session, and most of the members present at the Theatre.”?° No other account of the performances at Portsmouth in 1778 has

come down to us, nor is there any record of theatrical activities in that city until after the Revolution. Indeed, American officers seem to have devoted themselves to military activities for the next several years, for not until 1781 is there any further report of American officers participating in dramatic performances anywhere in the United States.

A Setting the Stage: Britain Ascendant Osjecr IVE OBSERVERS RECOGNIZED that the ragtag American army could not possibly win the war. If the professionally disciplined British and Hessian troops did not defeat them, their own inexperience and internal bickering would. {T]he colonies hated each other almost as much as they hated the mother country,” J. H. Plumb has written.! Even some high-ranking American officers saw the futility of attempting to match strength against an enemy that was militarily superior in every respect. Some American soldiers became discouraged and quit the army to return to their homes. Others remained and suffered through one terrible winter after another. While the British army spent its winters in comfort, the Americans, poorly supplied and badly situated, faced the very real dangers of starvation and intense cold — which, combined with illness, claimed as many casualties as did the war. Despite their many advantages, the British seemed curiously unable or unwilling to press the war to a conclusion. The Americans fought bravely and often victoriously at Bunker Hill, in Canada, in the Carolinas, at Princeton, and at Germantown. Eventually, the French were persuaded that America’s cause 69

70 The Theatre in America during the Revolution was not lost and, seeing an opportunity to avenge its defeats against England in 1763, France joined forces with the rebellious Americans.

Even in the face of a more formidable enemy, the British stubbornly refused to change their tactics. They continued to fight a gentleman’s war, with lengthy intervals for leisure and luxury, thereby allowing the Continental army to grow in size, strength, and confidence. With each passing month it became

clearer that the rebellion would not be crushed, after all; that thirteen colonies, which often fought among themselves with the same ferocity with which they fought the British, could join together for their mutual advantage and become — to the astonishment of much of the world — united states.

)

9

~ Jee

ay)

Fsllgs

The Drama of the Revolution A; THE BATTLES BETWEEN American and British forces were being waged, a number of plays were written reflecting the passions on both sides. Most of these dramas are aesthetically unsat-

isfactory, but they were not intended to be taken as works of art. Instead, like the plays written immediately before the Revolution, they were works of propaganda, calculated to confirm the opinion of the reader (if it agreed with the opinion of the playwright) and perhaps to sway the undecided. The characters are painted broadly, and their actions tend to be unequivocally good or irredeemably evil. Subtleties of characterization and dramatic structure are almost invariably sacrificed so that the playwright may create a clearer portrait of valor on the one side and cowardice or malice on the other.

Nor were most of the plays intended for staging. As Norman Philbrick has noted:

An interested reader who could not afford the price [of the pamphlet] probably took advantage of the opportunities for free reading supplied by the inns, barber shops, post offices, taverns, and coffee houses, where the latest prints were available. . . . [where] people met to read, to discuss the latest news of the day, and to argue the merits and consequences of actions in London and in the colonies. [Those who were unable to read] could be 7I

72 The Theatre in America during the Revolution read to, as often occurred at public gatherings. And what is better designed for reading aloud than a play — an argument in dialogue?!

Most of the propaganda plays of the Revolution were satiric in their intent. A patriot playwright may have believed it unnecessary to demonstrate the goodness of American officers, so he was instead likely to devote his play to a demonstration of the stupidity of British

ones. No burlesque was too outlandish, no treatment too broad, it would seem, for the playwrights and their readers in the latter half of the 1770s. The Blockheads; or, the Affrighted Officers? — the farce written in 1776 (perhaps by Mercy Warren) in response to the performance of Burgoyne’s The Blockade of Boston by the officers of the British army in

Boston — celebrates the success of the American forces in fortifying Dorchester Heights. It shows the abortive attempt of the British to take the fortifications from General Washington’s troops, and the utter cowardice displayed by the British as they retreat. The dramatis personae include General Howe (identified as “Puff” in the play) and General Burgoyne, who is addressed as “B------e.” Throughout the

farce, the British are portrayed as foolish, venal, and cowardly. A stage direction describes the British troops as “looking like French cooks, in a hot day’s entertainment,” and their officers are castigated by an American Tory in the play for being as “terrify’d as old women.” The farce by Burgoyne that inspired the writing of The Blockheads

is sardonically recalled when the character of Dupe says to the General, as he cowers with fear at the thought of engaging the Americans in battle, “Now B---—-e, here is a matter for humor, you may give us a second edition of your farce.” American Tories are portrayed throughout the play as amazed and disgusted at the behavior of the British officers. Instead of fighting the Americans, one says, “our generals . . . are confin’d within three months of garrison, writing and acting comedies.” The potential effectiveness of The Blockheads as a burlesque is undermined by its extreme dramatic clumsiness. Nevertheless, Ameri-

The Drama of the Revolution 73 can soldiers and their supporters must have relished the opportunity to enjoy a hearty laugh at British expense.

The dramatic mirror image of The Blockheads is The Battle of Brooklyn, an anonymous Tory farce that was also printed in 1776. The play attacks the alleged cowardice, incompetence, and drunkenness of the American officers Washington, Putnam, Sullivan, and Stirling.

The farce, written soon after the Americans were defeated on Long Island, on August 27, 1776, was printed in New York on December 30. Gaine’s Mercury advertised: This DAY is PUBLISHED, And to be had at JAMES RIVINGTON’S

Price ONE SHILLING. THE BAT TLE OF BROOKLYN, A

FARCE OF

TWO ACTS: As it was performed on LONG ISLAND,

On TUESDAY the 27th Day of AUGUST 1776. By the REPRESENTATIVES of the TYRANTS of AM ERICA

ASSEMBLED AT PHILADELPHIA.

George Washington is portrayed in the play as a conniving tyrant. Speaking to General Sullivan, Washington says: My apprehension from the King’s troops believe me are trifling, compared with the risque we run, from the people of America at large. The tyranny,

that our accursed usurpation has made necessary, which they now feel, and feeling, I fear, will soon make them see through the disguise. Their

rage no doubt will be heightened by the slaughter that will probably ensue; and we, as members of the Congress will fall the first victims of it.*

74 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Washington, however, is treated a bit more gently in the play than his fellow Americans, who are portrayed as drunkards, horse thieves,

lechers, and cowards. The scurrilous nature of the satire is clearly seen in one character’s description of Benjamin Harrison as “such a slobbering, odious, unsavory smelling creature, that I wonder any woman 1n the world could sleep at night, by his side.” It seems to have been obligatory in these farces to show the offcers of one army quaking with fear at the thought of engaging the other in combat. The Battle of Brooklyn contains just such a scene, as the American troops go down to defeat offstage while their officers are seen babbling with drink and cowardice. If The Battle of Brooklyn resembles The Blockheads in its plot, its burlesque approach, and its contempt for the enemy, it also matches the American play for witless crudity. The only value these plays may be said to possess is as witness to the deep antipathies and passions of the time. The sole relationship between The Fall of British Tyranny and the two plays just discussed is that all were printed in 1776. Otherwise, The Fall of British Tyranny 1s completely unlike The Battle of Brooklyn and The Blockheads, in intention as well as in execution.

The author of The Fall of British Tyranny was named Leacock, but whether it was John Leacock, a Philadelphia coroner and goldsmith, or Joseph Leacock, a jeweler, is uncertain. Mr. J. H. J. of Cheviot, Ohio, who was a boy in Philadelphia at the time of the Revolution, claimed that John Leacock wrote the play,*> and Francis James Dallett, Jr., in a 1954 essay, makes a persuasive case for John Leacock as the author.°®

The playwright begins his work with a satirical “Dedication” to the British officers in America, which is of interest for its caustic commentary upon the British soldiers’ propensity for staging plays in the midst of the war: My Lords and Gentlemen:

Understanding you are vastly fond of plays and farces, and frequently exhibit them for your own amusement, and the laudable purpose of

The Drama of the Revolution 75 ridiculing your masters (the YANKEES, as you call ’em), it was expected you would have been polite enough to have favoured the world, or America at least (at whose expense you act them), with some of your play-bills, or with a sample of your composition. I shall, however, not copy your churlishness, but dedicate the following Tragi-Comedy to your patronage and for your future entertainment .. . Wishing you abundance of entertainment in the re-acting this Tragi-

Comedy, and of which I should be proud to take a part with you, tho I have reason to think you would not of choice let me come within three hundred yards of your stage, lest I should rob you of your laurels, receive

the clap [applause] of the whole house, and pass for a second Garrick among you .. ./

Included among Leacock’s listing of characters in the play are the American generals Washington, Lee, and Putnam, under their own names. Fictitious names are given to the British characters, with the actual names listed opposite:

LORD PARAMOUNT, Mr. Bute... LORD POLTROON, Mr. Sandwich

LORD CATSPAW, Mr. North LORD WISDOM, Mr. Chatham... LORD PATRIOT, Mr. Wilkes BOLD IRISH MAN, Mr. Burke

JUDAS, Mr. Hutchinson .. . LORD BOSTON, Mr. Gage... ELBOW ROOM, Mr. Howe MR. CAPER, Mr. Burgoyne. . .8

The Fall of British Tyranny is surely the most ambitious of the Revolutionary propaganda plays and one of the best. Its action takes place over a period of several decades, its locations include three countries. The scenes shift from England to Massachusetts to Virginia, back to Massachusetts, to Canada, and then to Massachusetts once again. The playwright’s description of the play as a tragicomedy is entirely too modest, as it also contains pathos, melodrama, satire, spectacle, and song. This combination of diverse elements would be remarkable in itself, but the dramatist’s impressive accomplish-

76 The Theatre in America during the Revolution ment is the way in which he successfully blends the ingredients. Moreover, he demonstrates skill at writing convincing dialogue, with his use of language occasionally approaching eloquence.

The main satiric thrust of the piece is to ridicule the ambition and arrogance of the British aristocracy and military. The play begins in London in the 1750s, where Lord Paramount (Bute) reveals his character in a soliloquy that ends, “[A]nd now since I hold the reins of government, since I am possessed of supreme power, every thing shall be subservient to my royal will and pleasure.” He intends to become “dictator” of all Britain, and, to carry out his design, he will “begin first by taxing America, as a blind — that will create an external animosity between us, and by sending over continually ships and troops, this will, of course, produce a civil war — weaken Britain by leaving her coasts defenseless, and impoverish America; so that we need not fear any thing from that quarter.” As the play proceeds, it becomes evident that Paramount is not alone. He has persuaded other corrupt individuals — an attorney and a clergyman, for example, each representing corrupt institutions — to join him, by playing skillfully on their ambitions. Paramount is further aided by Englishmen in America who are loyal to the crown; Judas (Hutchinson) encourages Paramount’s scheme by ridiculing the colonials: “[A]s to true courage, they have none. I know ’em well... . Iam very certain they would never face the regulars, tho’ with the advantage of ten to one.” Leacock’s intention in the play goes beyond satirizing America’s enemies, however. He also wishes to salute its friends. An example is Lord Wisdom’s (Chatham’s) speech in Act II, in which Wisdom laments the success of Paramount’s scheme: View that arch-dragon, that old fiend, Paramount, that rebel in grain, whispering in his [the King’s] ear. View his wretched ministers, hovering

around him, to accomplish their accursed purpose, and accelerate his destruction. View the whole herd of administration (I know ’em well) and tell me if the world can furnish a viler set of miscreants? View both houses of parliament, and count the number of Tyrants, Jacobites, Tories, Placemen, Pensioners, Sycophants, and Panders. View the constitution, is she

The Drama of the Revolution 77 not disrob’d and dismantled? Is she not become like a virgin deflowr’d? View our fleets and armies commanded by bloody, murdering butchers! View Britain herself as a sheep without a shepherd! And lastly view America, for her virtue bleeding and for her liberty weltering in her blood!

Lords Wisdom, Justice, and Religion vow to “bring about (if possible) unity, peace and concord,” as they declare themselves in opposition to Paramount’s faction, and in favor of America’s striving for liberty.

It is here that Leacock’s prose is at its most stirring. Lord Wisdom delivers the following tribute to freedom: I love the Americans, because they love liberty. Liberty flourishes in the wilds of America. I honour the plant, I revere the tree, and would cherish its branches. Let us, my friends, join hands with them, follow their example, and endeavour to support expiring liberty in Britain; whilst I have a tongue to speak, I will support her wherever found; while I have crutches to crawl with, I will try to find her out, and with the voice of an archangel will demand for a sacrifice to the nation those miscreants who have wickedly and wantonly been the ruin of their country. O Liberty! O my Country!

The location shifts to Boston as the fighting begins. British off-

} cers are portrayed (in the standard manner) cowering in the face of danger. Incidents crowd upon one another; a patriotic American song is introduced; and the wife of an American dies of heartbreak when she learns that her husband, son, and brother have all been killed in the Battle of Bunker Hill.

In a later scene, a group of British officers are shown bickering among themselves; the unexpected American successes against them have thrown their plans in disarray. Leacock uses the scene to mock the desire of some British officers for soft living. Lord Boston (Gage) refers contemptuously to Mr. Caper (Burgoyne) for having brought

to America “Monsieur Rigadoon, the dancing-master, and Signor Rosin, the fiddler forsooth; he thought, no doubt, to have country danc’d the rebels out of their liberty with some of his new cuts ~ with his soft music to have fascinated their wives and daugh-

78 The Theatre in America during the Revolution ters ...; he thought to have grown fat with feasting, dancing and drinking tea with the Ladies. . . .” In the final act, Generals Washington, Lee, and Putnam are shown marveling at the valor and bravery of the Continental army, after the victorious battle of Fort Ticonderoga. Putnam pays the soldiers tribute in these words: Posterity will stand amazed, and be astonish’d at the heroes of this new world, that the spirit of patriotism should blaze to such a height, and eclipse all others, should out-brave fatigue, danger, pain, peril, famine and even death itself, to serve their country; that they should march, at this inclement season, thro’ long and dreary deserts, thro’ the remotest wilds, covered with swamps and standing lakes, beset with trees, bushes and briars, Impervious to the cheering rays of the sun, where are no traces or vestiges of human footsteps, wild, untrodden paths, that strike terror into the fiercest of the brute creation.

The enthusiasm of the generals is dampened by a report brought to them of General Montgomery’s death in Quebec, but they swiftly resolve to avenge his death and bring the war to a victorious conclusion. The play ends as Putnam enjoins his countrymen to “let it [Montgomery’s death] redouble our ardour, and kindle a noble emulation in our breasts — let each American be determined to conquer or die in a righteous cause.” If a summary of the play hints at its strengths as a political diatribe, it also reveals its weaknesses as drama. Characters are reduced to caricatures of good and evil, complex arguments are limited to simplicities. Perhaps it could not have been otherwise in such a passionate polemic, but the play is entirely too melodramatic for one to accept it as a believable portrait of human nature and behavior. Equally unfortunate is the lack of focus on a single character or group of characters who remain prominent throughout the drama’s many scenes. Indeed, the scope of the play is perhaps too vast for an effective dramatic work. Nonetheless, the virtues of 7he Fall of Bnitish Tyranny stand out clearly and strongly; they make the play one of the most impressive of the American Revolution.

The Drama of the Revolution 79 It is unlikely that The Fall of British Tyranny was performed at the time of its composition, although Montrose J. Moses — who offers no evidence for his assertion — speaks of the play’s “being greeted by

the theatre-going public” in 1776, and Dallett maintains that “it was acted before it was printed.”’ That it was subsequently acted by students at Harvard is certain. Claude C. Robin, a chaplain of the French army in America in 1781, said that The Fall of British Tyranny was one of several plays performed by students there. Robin noted:

Their pupils often acted tragedies, the subject of which is generally taken from their national events, such as the battle of Bunker’s Hill, the burning of Charlestown, the Death of General Montgomery, the capture of Burgoyne, the treason of Arnold, and the Fall of British tyranny. You must easily conclude that in such a new nation as this, these pieces must fall infinitely short of that perfection to which our European literary productions of this kind are wrought up; but still, they have a greater effect upon the mind than the best of ours would have among them because these manners and customs are delineated, which are such as interest them above all others. The drama is here reduced to its true and ancient origin.!®

Two of the best plays to emerge from the Revolutionary period were Lhe Battle of Bunkers-Hill (1776) and The Death of General Montgomery (1777), both written by Hugh Henry Brackenridge. A fervent patriot, Brackenridge had been (with James Madison and Philip Freneau) a founder of the American Whig Society when he was an undergraduate at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton) in 1769. His first play, a collaboration entitled The Rising Glory of America, was read by Brackenridge at his commencement in 1771. He then accepted a position as a teacher at Sommerset Academy, a school on the eastern shore of Maryland, and subsequently became its principal. Brackenridge later joined the Continental army as a chaplain and often delivered vigorous political sermons to the soldiers. In 1781 he

took up the study of law and became a successful attorney in Pittsburgh. His crowning achievement was his appointment as Justice of

80 The Theatre in America during the Revolution the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1800, a post he held until he died in 1816. !!

The Battle of Bunkers-Hill was written by Brackenridge as a dramatic exercise for his students to perform at Sommerset Academy in 1776. The play commemorates the valor demonstrated by the American soldiers who fought in the epochal struggle that gives the play

its title. It does so without resorting to the burlesque treatment of the enemy favored by so many writers of the time. Instead, the play grants the British some dignity even while it attempts to demonstrate the moral superiority of the Americans. The cast of characters includes the American officers Warren, Putnam, and Gardiner, and the British officers Gage, Howe, Burgoyne, Clinton, and Pigot, all of whom are portrayed under their own names. Throughout the play, Brackenridge’s characters speak in blank verse. !2

The opening scenes, which take place before the battle commences, show first the American officers resolving to attack Bunker Hill, and then the British, wondering how their great army could be so bedeviled by “peasants.” The remainder of the drama focuses upon the battle itself, as the military advantage shifts from one side to the other. Even in the midst of battle, General Gage of the British army concedes the moral rightness of America’s position, and has a premonition of disaster for his forces. The Americans, too, believe that the “justness of [their] cause” must result in victory. Gardiner’s address to his troops typifies the play’s theme: Fear not, brave soldiers, tho’ their infantry, In deep array, so far out-numbers us. The justness of our cause, will brace each arm, And steel the soul, with fortitude; while they Whose guilt hangs trembling, on their consciences, Must fail in battle, and receive that death, Which, in high vengeance, we prepare for them.

Subsequently, after Howe’s soldiers have been repulsed, Gardiner again strikes the same chord: You see, brave soldiers, how an evil cause, A cause of slavery and civil death,

The Drama of the Revolution 81 Unmans the spirit, and strikes down the soul. . . . O noble spirits, let this bold attack, Be blood to their host. GOD is our Aid, Give them full scope, to just revenge this day.

The British army was victorious at Bunker Hill, of course, but at a staggering cost, losing 1,054 men dead and wounded, as opposed to 500 American casualties.’ In Brackenridge’s play, the dimensions of the British losses are exaggerated somewhat, as Clinton laments his Pyrrhic victory: *Tis true, full victory declares for us, But we have dearly, dearly purchased it.

Full fifteen hundred of our men lie dead. . .

The play ends as Howe salutes the fallen American General Warren, declaring that Warren should have a hero’s burial, “To teach our soldiery, how much we love, / E’en in a foe, true worth and noble fortitude.” Thus does Brackenridge have the victorious enemy endorse the courage of the American army, an effective dramatic method of demonstrating his countrymen’s valor. The Battle of Bunkers-Hill must have offered enormous difficulties

to the schoolboys who performed it. A stage direction in Act III calls for Gardiner to enter “with seven hundred men”; the first four acts, all brief, are overwhelmed by a fifth act, containing ten scenes, which is longer than the first four combined. Sophisticated dramatic structure is clearly lacking in the play, but the author’s passionate belief in the American cause and the skillful way in which that belief is revealed through language give the drama considerable stature aS a propagandistic, if not a theatrical, work. Brackenridge’s next play, The Death of General Montgomery, * like

The Battle of Bunkers-Hill, takes an American defeat as its subject, with the dramatist using it in an attempt to stir his countrymen on to victory.

The British officers in The Battle of Bunkers-Hill were portrayed as men capable of understanding and respecting the American cause. However, in The Death of General Montgomery, the British (especially Guy Carleton, commander in chief 1n Quebec and Governor of

82 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Canada) are shown as monsters of perfidy and bestiality. After his soldiers have repulsed the American attack upon the British camp at Quebec and killed General Montgomery, Carleton exposes the body of Montgomery to the rebels, and calls upon them to surrender. If they will not do so, he shouts, “[Y]our carcases / Shall feed the fowls and vultures of the Heaven, / Left long expos’d, and rotting

on the earth.” But when Oswald, “a gallant Volunteer from the State of Connecticut,” and Morgan, “Captain in the Virginia troops,” accept Carleton’s offer of leniency and surrender, Carleton immediately breaks his word and hands three captured rebel soldiers over to Indian warriors to be butchered. “Use them wantonly,” he tells the Indians, “with every pain, / Which flame’s fierce element can exercise.” His plans for the other rebels he has captured are no less grotesque: . . . whatever shape Of suffering horrible, can be devis’d, In dreary dungeon, and in obscure jail, Cold, dark and comfortless, and lacking bread, Shall be your lot, snake venom’d parricides.

In a footnote, Brackenridge claimed that his portrayal of Carleton’s behavior was in no way exaggerated, and that it accurately reflected the behavior of British officers in general. Clearly, the author’s intention was to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American character over the British. In this sense, 7he Death of Gen-

eral Montgomery is the completion of the argument begun in The Battle of Bunkers-Hill: that Americans are militarily capable of defeating the British, and that Americans must win the struggle because the enemy has shown itself to be utterly treacherous and inhumane.

The American characters in The Death of General Montgomery are somewhat less vividly portrayed than their enemies, but they are, in general, models of virtue and courage. In addition to Montgomery, the characters of Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold (who had not yet turned traitor) are represented. The ghost of General Wolfe appears

The Drama of the Revolution 83 after the death of Montgomery to speak Brackenridge’s conviction that the event will give rise to a new and more profound patriotism among Americans: Yes, from your death shall amply vegetate, The grand idea of an empire new, Clear independence and self-ballanc’d power, In these fair provinces, United States, Each independent, yet rein’d in and brac’d, By one great council, buckling them to strength, And lasting firmness of immortal date.

Abbé Robin’s account states that students at Harvard acted The Death of General Montgomery, but Brackenridge did not write the

drama with performance in mind. In a prologue to the play, the author requested “that the following Dramatic Composition may be considered only as a school piece. . . . It 1s intended for the private entertainment of Gentlemen of taste, and martial enterprize, but by no means for the exhibition of the stage.” !> Brackenridge was right: the play is not suitable for performance. The drama is static and the dialogue is used to make lengthy speeches rather than to further the action. Nonetheless, the play is animated by Brackenridge’s expression of faith in his country’s destiny. The last significant play written in America during the Revolution that took the conflict as its subject was The Motley Assembly, '® published anonymously (but attributed by some to Mercy Warren) in 1779.

The satire of The Motley Assembly is directed against those effete Bostonians who long for the gay and elegant times when the British occupied the city, before increasing American dominance in the war began to interfere with an active social life. All but two of the characters in the play are socially prominent Bostonians whose political

creeds are summarized by Mr. Turncoat: “never to take an active part on either side.” Mr. Turncoat and his friends do their utmost to ignore even the existence of the war. Contrasted to these “summer patriots” is Captain Careless, an American naval officer who is

84 The Theatre in .4merica during the Revolution not amused by those whose hearts race only for balls, assemblies, and fancy suppers. Careless fears that such attitudes could undermine the

progress made so far by the Americans in the war. “I am ashamed of the conduct of some in this town, who profess themselves whigs,” he confides to an army officer; “They are not barely doubtful, but in my opinion the most dangerous characters among you. .. .” As drama, The Motley Assembly has the slightness of a preliminary sketch. No dramatic action occurs in the play, only a series of conversations, some of which are animated by a sardonic wit. The play has little merit, other than as a reflection of the irritation felt by patriots at the behavior of certain luxury-loving Americans. It is not difficult to find fault with many of the plays of the Revolution on literary and dramatic grounds. Their scurrility and heavy-

handedness are readily apparent. Nevertheless, they represent the first important stirrings of American drama and an opportunity for American writers to confront American issues, develop American concerns, and explore American values in their own voices; for those reasons, if for no others, they retain a strong historical significance.

‘ Theatre, 1778-1779 Sie HENRY CLINTON succeeded William Howe as commander in chief of the British army in America in 1778. Clinton’s officers in New York wasted no time announcing their intention to continue the tradition of military theatricals established by Howe’s thespians. A notice appeared in Rivington’s Royal Gazette on January 3, 1778:

By Permission of his Excellency

Sir HENRY CLINTON, Knt of the Bath, &c. THE THEATRE will be Open’d early next week, by a Society of Gentlemen of the Army and Navy, for the laudable Purpose of raising a Supply for the Widows and Orphans of those who have lost their Lives in his Majesty’s Service, as well as for such other generous Charities as their Funds may enable them to perform; It is hoped that the good Intention of these Gentlemen will meet with the Indulgence of all those who are actuated by the same liberal Principles. Notice will be given in the next Paper of the first night of Performance, and every attention paid to render it a rational entertainment. Tickets will be delivered out at Mr. Rivington’s, Mr. Hugh Gaine’s, and Mills and Hick’s Printing Houses, at both Coffee-Houses, and at Marshal’s Tavern, opposite to the Theatre in John-street, and the Man85

86 The Theatre in America during the Revolution agers request that the Ladies will send servants in time to keep Places for them in the Boxes, that they may be more agreeably accommodated. !

New York, 1778 Thus was the most ambitious series of theatrical performances given by British officers in America first announced, and it was made possible because New York remained entirely in British hands until 1783. Secure against American attack and having little to do, British and Hessian officers as well as their Tory supporters spared no effort to pass the time in ease and comfort. “Gaiety ruled the hour,” according to one writer; “Extravagance was a virtue. Entertainments

were frequent, and so grotesque were the ‘fads’ of the time that dinners were often given with closed blinds and by candle light in the daytime.”? Every officer had his mistress, it seemed, and the young Tory women of New York competed with one another to see who could provide the greatest pleasures. The few Whigs who remained in New York during the occupation disdained the pleasureloving Tories, but James Rivington, speaking for the majority, said that Whig gibes were “scarcely noticed by those who are up to ears and eyes in Concerts, Plays, Balls and Charades.” ? Entertainments of all kinds were plentiful in occupied New York.

Elegant suppers were given frequently, and various kinds of gambling were always available to those who were so inclined. When the birthday of the king or queen was being celebrated, the New York taverns sponsored lavish amusements. Loosely Tavern, for example, provided fireworks, including one design of “George Rex with a crown imperial, illumined and furnished with a globe of fire.” * Inside the tavern, a transparent painting of the king and queen had “a crown supported by angels elegantly illuminated by different colored lights.” During dinner, all sang defiant songs, one of which declared that Aspiring France, and haughty Spain, With envy swol’n shall join in vain

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 87 To give rebellion aid; Brittania’s rage they soon shall feel Her seamen’s thunder, soldiers’ steel, A George’s wrath displayed.»

On many such occasions the officers and their guests sang on through the night.° As frequent as those diversions were, however, the theatre contin-

ued to be the chief form of entertainment provided for the occupying soldiers and their Tory friends in New York. The productions — which became ever more lavish and expensive — required the services

of many actors and theatrical craftsmen, far more than had been necessary in previous performances by the British military. As Seilhamer put it: Under Burgoyne’s inspiration the military Thespians at Boston produced plays partly as an affectation, but more in a spirit of offense to New England sentiment; under Howe, both in New York and Philadelphia, the productions were merely a divertisement of an idle soldiery in the name of charity; under Sir Henry Clinton theatricals became a business.’

‘Twenty-two performances were offered by the military players at the Theatre Royal in 1778 (see Appendix §7 for details).® This season and those immediately following were by far the best documented of all those presented by the British military, permitting a detailed discussion of all elements of the performances: acting, scenery, lighting, costumes, financial arrangements, and so on. Various sources contain a storehouse of information concerning the theatrical productions of the period. Douglas, the first play produced by Clinton’s officers in New York in 1778, was preceded by a prologue, written by Lord Rawdon, and spoken by Captain Garrard Laurence of the 57th Regiment, which began: Now that hoar winter o’er the frozen plain, Has spread the horrors of his dreary reign, Has bade awhile the din of battle cease, And mocks these regions with the mask of peace:

88 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Once more the Scenic Muse exerts her power, And claims her portion of the leisure hour . . .?

The Scenic Muse was often popular in 1778. Rivington’s Gazette

mentioned after the repeat performance of Douglas on January 9 that a “numerous and splendid audience” had been in attendance.!° More than {242 was taken in at the box office that evening, an increase of {101 over the premiere performance on January 6.!! Income averaged (181, 7S., 1d. during 1778, a slight drop from the previous year, but still highly respectable. The next play to be performed — The West Indian, on January 15 — was, according to William Dunlap, the first time that Richard Cumberland’s play had been produced in America. Again, the house was

crowded; Dunlap said that the theatre “was so thronged as to exclude numbers who had purchased tickets.” '* The managers must not have expected the theatre to be so well attended that evening. The box-office income, slightly in excess of £246, was the best financial showing the theatre made during the season.

The Royal Gazette offered further particulars attesting to the popularity of the performance. “There were present upwards of nine

hundred persons,” it said, “which exceeds by more than one hundred” the largest house that had ever seen a play at the theatre before. The size of the audience was especially gratifying, Rivington (the probable author of the article) felt, because of the benefits the widows and orphans were likely to receive: Thus, from these beneficent and liberal contributions very laudable purposes are answered; the gentleman who is so obliging as to superintend the conduct of the Theatre, a labor truly Herculean, is enabled to dispense relief and support to many objects of real distress and indigence, at the same time, with the assistance of the gentlemen of the army and navy, who

are at great expense in getting up, and performing the characters, the truly generous and well disposed inhabitants of the town are most agreeably and rationally entertained.!3

Capitalizing on the popularity of The West Indtan, the soldiers re-

peated the play on January 22. In some respects, at least, the per-

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 89 formance compared favorably with the professional productions that had been offered before the war by the American Company. Dunlap

said that “the military Major O’Flaherty shares with the original Moody, and with John Henry [two of the American Company’s performers], in making the picture of the best Irish gentleman belonging to the stage.” '* Rivington also enjoyed the performance. It was played “to a genteel and very numerous audience,” his newspaper

reported, and both The West Indian and the evening’s farce, The Citizen, were “received with universal and very just approbation.”!>

The West Indian was clearly a potent attraction, but the military actors evidently revived it once too often. On February 20, the boxoffice income for the third and final performance was only £153, a drop of £83 from the performance on January 22. This final presentation may have been relatively unpopular because, evidently, the

play was on that date given without an afterpiece. It seems that New York audiences expected a diverse and lengthy entertainment and penalized the management when they did not get It. The Citizen was revived for the performance on January 29; on that occasion, the main play of the evening was The Fair Penitent. Rivington’s “review” of the performance indicates that some mem-

bers of the audience were unable to restrict their enthusiasm to watching the play: The encouragement afforded, and the attention shewn by the ladies and gentlemen, as well strangers as inhabitants of this city is truly laudable; and it is expected that no farther indecorums may be committed in the Gallery, to interrupt the auditors, and the gentlemen who are performers for this generous charity.!®

The same “review” mentioned the next performance, which would

include a “SONG, which was omitted the last time thro’ the indisposition of a gentleman performer.” Only rarely did military duties interfere with the theatrical ambitions of the officer-performers that season. Indeed, although some soldiers went with Clinton when he besieged and captured Charleston in 1779, and many of these continued with Cornwallis during his southern campaign,!’ a large num-

90 The Theatre in America during the Revolution ber of the military under Clinton’s command remained in New York for several years.

Othello was produced with The Mayor of Garratt on March 27. Dunlap reports that Major Moncrieff, who played Othello, “had _performed for his amusement before the war, with [the American Com-

pany] in New York.” Dunlap quotes an unidentified “extract” as saying that Major Moncrieff “is eminent in tragedy, and has figured much to his reputation in that distinguished part some years ago in this

city, to a crowded audience, and therefore much may be expected from his talents for the charitable purpose which occasions his intended appearance.”!®

The role of Desdemona in the performance of Shakespeare’s tragedy was played by Major Williams’s mistress, who was the company’s leading actress in 1778. (In addition to Desdemona, some of her roles included Lady Randolph in Douglas, Charlotte in The West Indian, Calista in The Fair Penitent, Mrs. Oakley in The Jealous Wife, Belvidera in Venice Preserv'd, Mirandain The Busy Body, Rose in The Recruiting Officer, and Kitty Pry in The Lying Valet .)!° Mrs. Williams

(as she called herself, despite the fact that — in Dunlap’s words — she was not “the legal possessor” of the title’) was well compensated for her performances, although she was not a professional actress. Rather than paying her directly, the managers may have permitted

her to charge several of her bills to the theatre. One entry in the Theatre Royal’s account book for 1778 indicates that “silk for Mrs. Williams” came to £25, 178., 10 ; d.?!

Clinton’s military actors gave the first American performance of Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s great British comedy 7he Rivals on April 21, 1778, with a repeat performance on the twenty-seventh. Box-office receipts exceeded £171 on April 21, but slipped to only £90, 14s., 4d. on the second showing.” As The Rivals was far superior to most of the eighteenth-century plays offered at the Theatre Royal, its lack of popularity is difficult to understand; but Sheridan’s work was in the vanguard of a new movement to reduce sentimentality in comic plays, and perhaps the New York audience was not ready for such bold innovation. The productions on May 11 were originally announced as the last

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 91 of the season, but on May 16, the Gazette announced a change in plans: ““The Managers and Gentlemen of the Theatre, from a sense of the distress of those poor persons, who did not fall within their original design, propose to give a PLAY for that purpose.”2* Accordingly, in the Gazette of May 20, The Recruiting Officer and a farce

were announced “for the Benefit of the REFUGEE, and other POOR, of this City.”?*

Stull the officers were reluctant to end their theatrical season. Another performance was announced for June 8, the Gazette describing it as “For the benefit of Mrs. Tomlinson (Who performed during the last Winter).”*> Mrs. Tomlinson was an actress of considerable professional experience. She and her husband had appeared as members of the American Company from 1758 until 1772. She did

not accompany the troupe to Jamaica when Congress’s antitheatre resolution drove the other professional performers away from America, SO it is presumed that she had not acted for six years when she began performing with Clinton’s officers in the winter of 1778. Nonetheless, it may be supposed that the professional expertise she brought to her work was of considerable value to the amateur performers with whom she shared the stage. Among Mrs. Tomlinson’s roles in 1778 were Mrs. Fulmer in The West Indian, Lavinia in The Fair Penitent, Lady Freelove in The Jealous Wife, Julia in The Rivals,

and Emilia in Othello. The record indicates that Mrs. Tomlinson was given the only bene-

fit performance in 1778, which makes it probable that she was the only professional of repute who performed at the Theatre Royal that season. Professional actors of the eighteenth century were traditionally given at least one benefit performance per season, in which all the money collected at the door — after expenses of the theatre were deducted — was given to the actor as payment for his services. 7’ If other professionals had been members of the military theatrical com-

pany, it may be presumed that they, too, would have demanded benefits of their own.

Other civilian performers acted with the military thespians in 1778, but they were apparently not regarded as professionals. One such was William Hewlet, the dancing teacher who had performed

92 The Theatre in America during the Revolution on the stage of the Theatre Royal the year before. In 1778, he was joined by his son, who generally played women’s roles. A Mr. Phillips and a Mr. Earl acted occasionally; the latter was given one fine role — Young Marlow in She Stoops to Conquer. Other actresses included Mrs. May, Mrs. Saltmarsh (or Salmarsh), and Jane Tomlinson, Mrs. ‘Tomlinson’s daughter.?’ It is unclear whether or not they were paid for their services in 1778. In the following season, however, Mr. Earl and Miss Tomlinson, among others, received cash payments for their performances in various plays,”? as the receipt book of the theatre for 1779 confirms.

The names of other military actors were provided in a handwritten, unpublished commonplace book that now resides in the Spencer Research Library of the University of Kansas Libraries. The book describes events — some of them theatrical — that took place between 1729 and 1803. A label pasted on the cover of the book identifies the

author as belonging “to a very old family descended from the late Bishop Berkeley.” Above the label, in faint handwriting, “Miss Berkley [stc]” can be made out. Whether or not this identification is gen-

uine cannot be authenticated. At any rate, the book provides many details concerning the 1778 theatre season in New York. For example, Miss Berkeley (if that is the author) includes in her record of each performance the names of the actors and the roles they played; she also gives the dates of performances, some of them at variance with those announced in the newspapers of 1778.2 It 1s impossible to verify the authenticity of “Miss Berkeley’s” recollections, which evidently were recorded twenty-five years after the

events occurred. The author agrees with Dunlap?! on some details and contradicts him completely on others. Nevertheless, the commonplace book represents the most detailed record of the performances at the Theatre Royal in 1778. “Miss Berkeley” includes the names of many officer-actors not mentioned by Dunlap: Lieutenant Joel, Lieutenant Andenbrook (whom she also calls “Adenbrook” and “Addenbrook”), Doctor Tov-

ey, Doctor Shuckburgh, Captain Cocker, Ensign Bingham, and many more. Her list does not include most of the officers mentioned by Dunlap, which raises the possibility that Dunlap’s account of the

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 93 1778 season actually applied to 1779. For example, nowhere does “Miss Berkeley” identify Major André as having played a role in any performance during 1778, which must cast some doubt on whether André, who is more frequently mentioned as an actor in the military

theatricals than any other British officer (by William Dunlap and John North), ever really performed in them until 1779, when there is conclusive evidence that he took part in the productions.”

Dunlap recalled that the managers of the theatre in 1778 were Colonel Guy Johnson and Dr. Hammond Beaumont,* but he may have been only half right. “Miss Berkeley’s” commonplace book clearly states that the managers were Colonel Guy Johnson and Cap-

tain Garrard Laurence. A letter of Johnson’s proves that he was indeed one of the managers, but “Miss Berkeley’s” assertion that Laurence, who acted frequently during the season, shared the managerial duties is unsupported, as is Dunlap’s statement that Dr. Beaumont was comanager. Dunlap remembered having seen a number of drop scenes during the military performances (“we remember the usual variety — streets — woods and wilds — chambers and palaces”) that were painted by Andre and Thomas Barrow, but he commented that “their scenery is said to have been wretched.” * Unlike modern-day theatre practice, when new sets are designed for each production, eighteenth-century theatres maintained a num-

ber of all-purpose settings, allowing all plays that took place in a forest, for example, to be performed in front of the same rusticappearing backdrop. The drop scenes painted by André and Barrow, then, would have been generic in nature.

The costumes worn by the actors and actresses were “elegant,” according to Dunlap, as well they should have been. A notice of receipts and expenditures for the theatre, printed in the Royal Gazette after the season concluded, revealed that the incredible sum of £3,169, 19s., 11d. had been spent on “repairs, dresses, and all other contingent expences.”

The same notice states that, of the £3,795, 6s., 9d. taken in at the box office during 1778, only £140, 1s., 4d. were distributed to “the widows and orphans of sundry regiments.”?® After such an ad-

94 The Theatre in America during the Revolution mission, it is remarkable that the managers continued to advertise future productions as benefits for the needy; but that is precisely how all the military entertainments were advertised during each of the seven seasons the British gave performances in New York.

Tickets for the plays given at the Theatre Royal (which were priced at “Box 8s., Pit 6s., Gallery 4s.” throughout the 1778 season) were only infrequently purchased at the theatre during the night of performance. Advertisements regularly stipulated that “no money” would be taken at the door.*’ Perhaps the managers were apprehensive that they would be unable to collect the correct admission price

as members of the audience entered the theatre. Nonetheless, the account book kept by the managers in 1778 reveals that money was indeed taken at the door, although it was insignificant compared to the amounts paid for tickets distributed elsewhere. For example, the account book’s entry for March 7 states:

TAs ad

Mar. 7 Rec! at the Theatre Door 16 13 4 Tickets sold at the door 22 16 —

Marshall’s tavern 53 8 — Mr. Rivington 100 14 —

Mr. Gaine 14 3 — Mills & Hicks 18 16 — Coffee House 6 8 —

232 18 438 One indication of the problems faced by the managers when they

attempted to collect money at the door is evident from an entry indicating that {1, 5s., 9d. had to be subtracted from the total remitted by the audience at one performance because that amount was paid in “light gold,”*’ meaning that the coins in question had been shaved so that they were less valuable than their face value indicated. ” The final accounting of receipts and expenditures published in the Royal Gazette included the following information:

Bnitish Military Theatre, 1778-1779 95 The Managers of the THEATRE ROYAL in this city for the last Winter, give Notice, that the Receipts and Expenditures are as follows:

£ S. d.

Paid for repairs, dresses, and all other

contingent expences as per account 3169 19 II

Paid rent for the Theatre 50 OO 00 Paid a debt due by the theatre the

preceding year 132 06 08

Paid the widows and orphans of sundry

regiments, as per account 140 OI 04

Balance yet to be disbursed, in the hands

of Mr. John Porteous 302 18 10

3795 06 09 Amount of receipts for twenty-one Plays, during the season 1778 3795 06 09 *! Before the second season of the military players in New York came to

a close, Colonel Guy Johnson, comanager of the Theatre Royal and acting Superintendent of Indian Affairs, wrote a letter to his friend

John Blackburn in London, in which he reported some facts accurately but distorted at least one significantly. His letter reads, in part: During the last Winter I turned Manager of the Play House at N York by which I happened to have more Success than those the preceding Year, & raised about 500 Ster. Clear profits for the Widows & Orphans of Soldiers. I acted one of Mr. Cumberlands plays with great Success & wish (if you know him) you’d tell him so, with my best compliments to him — This you'll Say is a New Trade for a Super Intendant, but I’m not ashamed of it.*

Johnson may have claimed to have raised £500 for charity, but the managers’ notice in the Royal Gazette clearly stated that the sum was far less. It seems likely that Johnson had been criticized on that score and felt it necessary to exaggerate the size of the charita-

ble contribution. Perhaps it was just this sort of criticism that led him to announce defensively that he was not “ashamed of” having assumed the management of the Theatre Royal.

96 The Theatre in America during the Revolution It should also be noted that Colonel Johnson’s name does not appear on “Miss Berkeley’s” list of actors who appeared in The West Indian. If her attribution of roles in that play is correct, Johnson did not appear in Cumberland’s play as he claimed. Perhaps Johnson be-

lieved he could not justify his management of the theatre to his friend unless he exaggerated both his own importance in the venture and the worthiness of the activity itself. Given the difficulties inherent in any managerial position in the theatre, Johnson’s defensive attitude was probably unnecessary. His assumption of the job must have been on assignment by his superior officers, and if, as the published account indicated, he was able to end the season with a profit of more than £300, he seems to have done his job reasonably well.

New York, 1779 Before the third season of military theatre in New York commenced, a notice in the Royal Gazette informed all interested civilians that a new series of performances was imminent, and that their participation would be welcomed. It began: As it seems to be the general Wish to have the THEATRE opened this Winter, and that, as early as possible - Such Gentlemen as are inclined to give their Assistance to that useful and extensive Charity, are requested to signify it by a sealed Note directed to the Managers, to be left at Mr. John Barrow’s, in Broad Street, near the Main-Guard.#

The announcement, appearing on December 9, 1778, reappeared on December 12, 16, 19, 23, 26, and 30, perhaps indicating that the response was less than overwhelming. Somehow, however, actors, stagehands, and musicians were recruited, for the Theatre Royal reopened on January 9, 1779, with a lavish entertainment that included two plays, “an Occasional Prologue to each Piece, and Songs between the Acts.” In addition to “the Officers of the Navy and Ar-

my” who portrayed “the principal Characters,” the “Parts of the QUEEN, MAIDS of HONOUR, Lady PENTWEAZLE, &c.” in

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 97 Chrononhotonthologos were played “by young Ladies and grown Gen-

tlewomen, who never appeared on any Stage before.” The 1779 theatrical season sponsored by the British military in New York is the most thoroughly documented of all the theatrical endeavors during the American Revolution, largely because the treasurer’s book containing all the receipts for the bills paid by the theatre in that season still exists. The receipts reveal a great deal about many aspects of the theatre’s operation: how much money was expended for actors’ salaries, costumes, properties, and the like; what kinds of jobs were necessary in order to make the theatre function, and who performed them; how the actors managed to acquire a sufficient number of scripts; and a vast miscellany of additional detail.* Newspaper advertisements and a list of admission receipts kept by the managers reveal that twenty-two performances were offered in 1779 (see Appendix §8 for details). *

The production of The Lyar on January 22 was the most popular of the season, bringing in slightly more than £274. Richard III was also excellently attended; the receipts on March 6 exceeded { 264, and when the play was repeated on March 18 it still drew £ 225. By far the worst showing at the box office occurred on May 22 for the second performance of Fielding’s The Miser. The play had drawn £1so on May 5, but at the repeat performance only £96, 19 shillings were taken in. In general, the performances given in the cold-weather months of January, February, and March proved to be much more popular than those given during April, May, and June, when New Yorkers were able to engage in outdoor activities and when the theatre was likely to be uncomfortably hot. The average nightly box-office income for the season was slightly in excess of £192, 14 shillings, but the average figure for a performance given in the second half of the season dipped to less than £150. The attractiveness of Richard III to the paying audience was not an unusual phenomenon. Shakespeare’s plays were produced infrequently at the Theatre Royal, but they always played to sizable au-

diences. It was also predictable that the audience for the repeat

98 The Theatre in America during the Revolution showing of Richard IIIT would decline. Whenever a play was repeated

during the 1779 season, it drew a smaller house than it had on its first appearance.

Ticket prices for the first performance of the season were adver-

tised as “Box and Pit Tickets, One Dollar each, Gallery, Half a Dollar.” *’ For all subsequent performances the prices were listed in their British equivalents as “Boxes and pit — 8s, Gallery — 4s.”* These prices remained stable not only during 1779 but throughout the remaining four years of military performances. According to an abstract of receipts and expenditures published in Gaine’s Mercury at the end of the season, the price of Sir Henry

Clinton’s box in 1779 was £186, 13s., 4d., exactly twice what he had paid the year before. Other boxholders were Lord Rawdon, who was charged {£70, 8 shillings; Major General Tryon, who paid £46, u1s., 4d.; and Rear-Admiral Gambier, who seems to have gotten a bargain, as he paid only £28, 16 shillings. ” The advertisement for the first production of the season attempted to make clear all procedures dealing with the purchase of tickets, time of performance, and the proper mode of arrival at the theatre entrance. It read, in part: The Managers advertise the Public, that as they have issued as many Tickets as the House will contain, no money will be taken at the Door of the Theatre. Places for Boxes to be taken, at the Theatre, where . . . it is requested that Gentlemen who send their servants to keep places, will give a note of their name, and the number of places to be kept. Ladies and Gentlemen are requested to order their carriages to draw up with their Horses heads towards Nassau-Street, and to go off that way in order to prevent confusion. No person whatever can possibly be admitted behind the Scenes without a STAGE ticket. The Doors to be opened at Five o’Clock and the Performance to begin precisely at Seven.”

All season long, the managers fretted about the proper use of tickets. An advertisement on February 3 stated: “Some abuses hav-

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 99 ing arose from the former mode of issuing Tickets, a fresh set will in future be struck off for every Play, and no other Tickets will gain admittance to any part of the Theatre.”’! The “abuses” referred to apparently involved the attempt to use tickets for one play, but not specified as such, for another. The problem was emphasized in a notice in the Mercury, explaining that tickets issued for a performance of The Busy Body on February 13, which had to be cancelled “on Account of the Indisposition of a principal Performer,”** would be accepted for the February 17 production of Douglas: “but Ladies or Gentlemen who have taken Boxes for the Busy Body, and do not chuse to make use of them, will please to return their Tickets where they were purchased . . . and the Money will be returned, as a new

set of Tickets will be issued when the Busy Body will be performed.” A similarly involved message appeared on May 15, announcing the

postponement of a play along with the procedure for patrons to receive refunds.* With frequent cancellations and postponements of productions necessitating a never-ending parade to and from the ticket sellers for purchases and refunds, it sometimes seems remarkable that the military performers were able to assemble any audience for their productions at all.

The managers were also concerned that customers who paid for specific seats would leave them for better ones, thus irritating those theatregoers who found their higher-priced seats usurped. On February 27, in the Royal Gazette, the managers requested “that Gentlemen who have places in the same box, will upon coming to the House, occupy those seats ONLY for which they are registered in the Box-keepers Book; and that servants sent to keep places may not be turned out, or otherwise molested.” *»

The custom of sending servants to occupy box seats until their employers arrived may have been a convenience to the boxholders, but it was a nuisance for the managers. After their employers had assumed their places in the boxes, some servants would illegally take seats in the pit, forcing the managers to chase them away. A notice on February 20 was placed in the Gazette in an attempt to eliminate

100 The Theatre in America during the Revolution the difficulty, requesting “that Gentlemen will put a stop to such practice in future.”>°®

The behavior of the pit audience was occasionally unruly. They were sharply rebuked for misbehaving on February 27: The disturbances made in the Pit on the last night of performance, having compelled the Managers to the disagreeable necessity of interfering, in

order to preserve the decorum due, not only to the audience, but also to the gentlemen concerned in the theatre, it is hoped that such improprieties will not be again attempted.*”

The manager of the theatre at the beginning of the 1779 season was Dr. Hammond Beaumont. His tenure lasted only from January 9 to February 20, after which Dr. Michael Morris, who had been comanager in 1777, assumed the managerial responsibilities.>2 Howev-

er, it is clear that most of the day-to-day work of maintaining the theatre was taken over by submanager Thomas Barrow, whose regular occupation was as a coachmaker. Barrow paid the bills and was responsible for the safekeeping of all money taken in at the door until he turned it over to the manager. Notices in the newspaper periodically suggested that “the Managers propose settling the Accounts of the Theatre every Fortnight. Such persons as have any demands, are desired to send their accounts sealed, directed to the Managers, at Mr. Thomas Barrow’s, No. 233, in Broad Street.”>?

One of the managers’ thornier responsibilities was to acquire scripts of the plays the actors wished to perform and to see that a sufficient number of scripts was available. In the January 13 issue of the Royal Gazette, the management announced to the public (some of whom, it was hoped, might own personal copies of the plays) that “The following Pieces are much wanted”: The Lyar, Tom Thumb, The Orphan of China, Tancred and Sigismunda, High Life Below Stairs,

Hob in the Well, The Guardian, The What d’ye Call [t?, The Wonder; or, a Woman Keeps a Secret, and The Cheats of Scapin.®® Only two of

the plays asked for were performed during the season, so the response to the announcement must have disappointed the management.

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 101 At least one detailed answer to the request was received. A person identified only as “S. M.” wrote to the managers: GENTLEMEN:

HAVING seen in one of last week’s papers an Advertisement from you, signifying that you wanted the Comedy called The Wonder a Woman Keeps a

Secret; an acquaintance of mine having this same play in his hands, together with the four following Comedies, viz. The Provok'd Husband, The Recruiting Officer, The Suspicious Husband, and The Tunbridge Wells, in one vol-

ume, being the 7th of the English Theatre, desired me to inform you that hell lent [sic] you this volume upon condition of receiving One Half fohannes [a Portuguese gold coin commonly in use in America; Pennsylvania rated the “half joe” as the equivalent of 60 shillings®!] for each play therein contained, and a promisary note for the book, assuring the restitution of the same within a fortnight, or at highest three weeks time. If you please to take them upon these conditions, please to direct an answer to S. M. and leave it at the Coffee-House in Water-street. . . . P. S. From the same hand may be had, though upon no other conditions as those made above, and no more than one volume at a time, the other seven volumes of the English theatre.©

Beaumont and Barrow responded sardonically that they were “much indebted to S. M. for the disinterested attention he has paid to their Advertisement, and would most readily have embraced his generous

offer, had they not, the very day before” purchased all eight volumes at a much lower price. ©

When the Theatre Royal found a copy of a play it wished to produce, the next step was to provide sufficient copies of the play for the actors. In 1779, William Kirby was employed by the theatre to copy scripts by hand. In order to make the most efficient use of his time, Kirby probably copied out only what was necessary in order for each actor to function: the actor’s lines and the last words of the cue lines. On six occasions in 1779, the receipt book lists payments to Kirby for his work, totaling £54, 4 shillings. ™ Scripts may occasionally have been carried by the actors during performances. Minimal rehearsal time makes this a probability, al-

102 The Theatre in America during the Revolution though a prompter was present at all performances, ready to aid an actor in distress.

Maintaining the theatre and its appointments in good condition necessitated several expenditures in 1779. In the managers’ abstract published after the season ended, £308, 5s., 5d. was listed as “Total expence on fitting up the house” for the first six weeks of operation.®> A number of civilian New Yorkers obviously benefited from the Theatre Royal’s existence, supplementing their regular incomes with the money paid to them for various jobs performed for the theatre.

Properties for use in the productions (such as the £1, 2 shillings paid for “A shield for douglas” on February 27)© represented a mod-

erate expense; but if props were reasonably inexpensive, the same cannot be said for costumes and accessories, which were no less extravagant in 1779 than the season before. One example is a feather made by Fred Guion for the use of Major Williams costing nearly {2.81

Audiences must have looked forward to seeing new costumes as well as new plays, which may help to account for the lavishness of the expenditures. The advertisement in Gaine’s Mercury advised theatregoers that “new Dresses” would be a prominent feature in the production of The Orphan of China on May 18.

For the first six plays alone, the bill for “sundry new dresses” came to £429, 138., 8d.°? The costume bill for the remainder of the season cannot be precisely determined because the abstracts of receipts and expenditures printed in the Mercury simply lumped all expenses for the final sixteen performances together, claiming that £2,440, 9 shillings had been paid out “for expences incurred, after being examined and approved of by the Managers.” ” The job of caring for the costumes and accessories fell to a Mrs. Martin and to David Coutant. They seem to have shared the responsibility at the outset, but eventually Coutant became sole wardrobekeeper. He received various payments throughout the season for “attendance on the wardrobe.””’!

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 103 Wigs represented an enormous expense. For example, Alexander Leslie received £37, 6s., 8d. for “Wig &c. and attendance” on February 10.” The theatre was lit primarily by tallow candles in chandeliers over the stage and auditorium. Several entries in the receipt book indicate that the supply of candles was replenished constantly throughout the season. Spermaceti candles were especially costly: The theatre paid £85, 16s., 9d. for five boxes on March 23, less than two weeks after paying £4, 4s., 6d. for tallow candles. Oil was used for lighting, as well, but it cannot have been used often, as the only entry in the receipt book to mention its use occurred on April 23, when “Money” was “disbursted” for “Candles and lamp oil.”

On February 27, and again on March 12, John Aymar, Sr., received £1, 7 shillings “in full for 3 Night attendance the lamps and fires below the stage.” Possibly these expenditures covered the costs of operating footlights that rose and sank during the performance at the Theatre Royal and required Aymar’s “attendance.” More prob-

ably, it refers to an area underneath the stage that Aymar maintained and kept heated.

Civilian stagehands were paid for their work at the theatre in 1779, as an entry for April 23 attests. Submanager Barrow noted that “the Scene Shifters and other Stage attendants” were paid more than {12 for “2 plays and 1 rehearsal.” The receipt book does not indicate any expenditures whatever for the painting or building of scenery in 1779; evidently no new settings were required for the new productions.

One Martin Cregier seems to have been in charge of hiring and supervising the doorkeepers and boxkeepers, each of whom was apparently paid one dollar per performance, according to an entry on January 26. Other functionaries performed various odd jobs; E. Smith, for example, was paid almost £14 “for his Work for the theatre,” and John Aymar, Jr., was given {4, 1 shilling “for attendance and Errand-Man on the Theatre.”

104 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Of course, the theatre also continued to advertise in the newspaper and print handbills. James Rivington received more than £80 on March 23 for approximately one month’s printing. William Dunlap claimed that fourteen musicians were employed in 1777, each being paid at the rate of one dollar per night. % If he was correct, then the orchestra neither grew in size nor received a higher salary in the following seasons, for the receipt book confirms that there were again fourteen musicians in 1779, and they were indeed paid “a dollar each man.”” Phillippe Pfeil, who evidently conducted the orchestra, signed receipts regularly throughout the season. The rate of pay never varied, except for an extra payment of {1, 4 shillings for a rehearsal of Richard III and “a new comic dance.” Pfeil’s orchestra perhaps deserved extra pay for the two occasions on which The Mock Doctor, an operatic afterpiece, was presented in 1779, but no such bonus was received. Although The Mock Doctor was the only production in which musical elements predominated, singing and dancing were significant ingredients in many of the performances. The production of The Absent Man on March 13 featured “Entertainments of singing, &c. between the Acts,”’> and the new comic dance in Richard III was added “by particular Desire.”’° Military performers continued to fill most of the roles in the plays during the 1779 season, but more civilians took part than in the previous seasons. Among the officers, Lieutenant Smith was evidently featured in women’s roles, for an entry in the receipt book indicates

£2, 15 shillings paid for “Necklace and Earrings” for Lieutenant Smith.’?

Major André was definitely active during this season; his contemporary, William Smith, noted in his diary that André “has acted upon the stage all winter.”’® André’s performances in 1779 were his last. This brilliant young officer, whose rise in the British army was meteoric, owing partially to his military acumen and partially to his charismatic personality, seemed in 1779 to have a brilliant future; but he negotiated Benedict Arnold’s treasonous activities and was

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 105 captured by American militiamen. André died on the gallows in 1780.

Major Williams, who had appeared at the Theatre Royal in 1777, did so once again. The extravagantly priced feather for which Fred

Guion was paid nearly £2 was made for the talented major.” A Captain Watson is also mentioned several times in the receipt book. These are the only names of officer-actors in 1779 that can be positively verified, but the advertisements continued to refer to “Char-

acters by the Officers of the Navy and Army” throughout most of the season. On May 15, the notice omitted mention of the Navy: “The Characters to be by the GENTLEMEN of the ARMY.’”° It may be that Naval officers severed their connection with the theatre during the 1779 season at this time. Of the civilian actors who were paid, the rate of pay varied with the importance of the role portrayed and probably with the experience of the performer. Mr. Earl, Master Shaw, and Thomas Selly were among those receiving payment.®!

A number of actresses were seen at the Theatre Royal in 1779. With one exception, only the names of those who were paid are known, but it is clear that some women played without reimmbursement. One such was Major Williams’s mistress, who remained faith-

ful to the theatre (and presumably to her lover) in 1779. No payment to her is recorded in the receipt book, but reference 1s made to services performed for her.” In 1779, as in 1778, the only benefit performance was given for Mrs. Tomlinson. The date of the performance was June 19, which must have caused the actress some apprehension, since no previous performance had ever been offered so late in the season at the Theatre Royal. ‘The advertisement in the Royal Gazette announcing her performance carried a note of concern: “Mrs. TOMLINSON humbly

hopes for the kind protection of her friends, the Gentlemen of the Navy and Army, and the City in general, by their honouring her with their appearance at her benefit on that evening.” A note at the bottom of the advertisement tried to allay fears that the theatre

106 The Theatre in America during the Revolution would be uncomfortably warm: “The greatest care will be taken to kzep the House cool.”83

The receipt book did not record the income for Mrs. Tomlinson’s benefit, so one cannot know if her appeal was answered generously or not. On the two evenings of performances just prior to June 19, however, admission receipts were low, averaging less than f{ 110, which certainly seems to indicate that individuals were as reluctant

as Mrs. Tomlinson feared to attend the theatre in warm weather. Perhaps, however, the special nature of the benefit performance drew more customers than would otherwise have attended.

If the actors were not always well paid, they certainly seem to have been well fed. Throughout the season, large quantities of food and drink were ordered from various merchants to be delivered to the theatre. These ranged from £14 for a “Quarter Cask of Sherry” to “a supper sent to the Theatre for the King and Miller of Mansfield” on February 6 costing £4, 14 shillings. Some of it was probably used on the stage as edible props, but the bulk of it must surely have been consumed by the actors, musicians, stagehands, and doorkeepers during rehearsals and after performances.**

The officers must have enjoyed their suppers, for they ordered four of them altogether in February, March, and April. No expense seems to have been spared in order to keep the officers and their colleagues in good spirits.

In addition, a coach to and from the theatre was provided for the use of the actors and the theatre staff. Joseph Stevens’s bills “for Coach-hire attending the Theatre” varied from £7, 4 shillings on one occasion to {10 on another, to a staggering £40, 16 shillings on a third. This service was a genuine luxury, since New York was still a small town in 1779, covering about one square mile,® and the Theatre Royal was easily reached by a short walk from every section of the city.

The extravagances indulged in by the officers and their friends were deeply resented by those few Whigs who remained in New York in 1779. One referred derisively to “the military gentlemen”

British Military Theatre, 1778-1779 107 who “amuse themselves with trifles and diversions.” ® Another, Hannah Lawrence, expressed her feelings of disgust in verse: This 1s the scene of gay resort, Here Vice and Folly hold their court,

Here all the Martial band parade, To vanquish — some unguarded Maid. Here ambles many a dauntless chief Who can — oh great! beyond belief, Who can — as sage Historians say, Defeat — whole bottles in array! . . .°/

But the officers who were performing at the Theatre Royal in John Street would probably have taken little notice of such sentiments. They were surrounded by approving soldiers and admiring Tories who seem to have taken no offense whatever at the officers’ avid pursuit of pleasurable activities. It must have been difficult for some of the officers to remember that a war was 1n progress. The patrons of the Theatre Royal demonstrated their firm support of the officers’ continuing pursuit “of theatric glory.” Theatregoers paid a total of £4,187, 5s., 10d. to see the plays presented 1n 1779, an amount considerably higher than had been spent in either of the previous two years. That gave the managers a profit of more than £70, even after they donated the rather meager total of £219, 19S., 8d. to charity. ®

The charitable contribution of 1779 — less than £220 out of an income that exceeded £4,000 — offered a potential embarrassment to the Theatre Royal’s managers, so they apologized for it at the time the donation was made. In the abstract of receipts and expenditures published in Gaine’s Mercury at the end of the season, this note was included:

N.B. The great expence incurred previous to opening the Theatre [in 1779|, and the many new dresses the Managers were under the necessity of

purchasing to conduct it with propriety, deprived them of the means of extending this Charity to as many objects as they could have wished: but

108 The Theatre in America during the Revolution these reasons being now in a great measure obviated, they flatter themselves that a very considerable sum will be applied in the course of [the following] season to the relief of disabled Seamen, Soldiers, Widows, Orphans and others who may be considered as proper objects of this Charity.°?

The managers may have felt uneasy about making such an insignificant contribution to the widows and orphans. That certainly seems to have been the case after the 1778 season, for early in 1779 they donated an additional £179, 5s., 4d. to charity. On January 20, 1779, an advertisement in the Royal Gazette announced the disbursement of twenty shillings each to forty-four widows, “1 pair shoes and 1 pair

stockings” for forty widows at a total cost of £27, a payment to seventy-two children of twenty shillings each, and, finally, a gift of £36, 5s., 4d. to sixteen orphans.?° Not even an implied apology, however, can conceal the fact that charity — the ostensible purpose for which the plays were being given — benefited little from the military performances of 1778. The same can surely be said of the Theatre Royal’s productions in the 1779 season.

pS ’ None of those operas was produced in 1782, so the advertisement was evidently not answered satisfactorily. None of the male performers’ names in 1782 are known, but four actresses were given a joint benefit performance on May 8. Mrs. Batten, Mrs. Fitzgerald, and Mrs. Smith, who had all received benefits at the end of the 1780-1 season, did so again. However, Mrs. Shaw,

whose tenure at the Theatre Royal extended over several seasons, was not included in the benefit in 1782; instead, her place was taken by a Mrs. Hyde,*® who would later begin a professional career with

128 The Theatre in America during the Revolution a company of American actors. The benefit play and afterpiece were supplemented by a comic lecture “attempted by a Gentleman” and a song by Mrs. Hyde.» A special benefit performance was held on March 23 for “a Distressed WIDOW, with a Large Family.” The advertisement that contained this information also asked “Commanding Officers of Corps ... to send certified lists of such Military Widows and Orphans, as they may deem proper objects of this charity, to the Treasurer Doctor Beaumont, No. 80, King Street, as a sum of money will soon be issued for their relief.” It may be that the commanding officers did not respond satisfactorily to this request: A subsequent notice, placed only three weeks later, appealed to “either Refugees or Poor of this City . .. to send their names properly certified,” to the Managers. ®! In addition to undertaking the duties of the treasurer, Hammond Beaumont was a comanager once again in 1782, sharing that responsibility with Williams, Vallancey, and D’Aubant. According to the broadside they issued after the season’s close, the theatre’s contribution to charity exceeded £827 in 1782. Although that represented only 20 percent of the total income for the year, it was a far greater contribution than the theatre had made before. More than £4,138 was taken in during the sixth season, despite the fact that fewer performances were given than in previous years. The nightly average of receipts (including boxholders’ rents, but not

counting the two benefit performances, which were not included in the managers’ accounts of receipts and expenditures) was almost £276, a much better financial showing than the theatre had achieved in

previous seasons. Never before had the nightly average reached £200, and the 1782 average was far in excess of that figure. Why so much money was received at a time when fewer performances were offered — and almost all of those repeats from earlier seasons — 1s probably explained by New York’s increasing population. After Cornwallis’s defeat, British soldiers poured into the city, nearly doubling the population from approximately 30,000 (two-thirds of whom were civilians) to roughly 55,0006 Another possibility is that, whereas the

accounting for previous years had been falsified in order to conceal

British Miltary Theatre, 1779-1782 129 payments to the officers and others, the receipts and expenses for the 1782 season may have been authentically reported. Perhaps the loss of the war made the managers of the theatre fearful that their figures would be inspected more closely than before.

The broadside issued by the managers at the close of the 1782 season gives a general picture of the theatre’s income and expenditures in its last full year of operation: RECEIPTS By Cash received from his Excellency General Sir

Henry Clinton, 186 —- 13 —- 4

Do. from his Excellency Admiral Digby, 186 — 13 - 4 Do. from his Excellency Lieut. General Knyphausen, 120 - 10 — 8

Do. his Excellency Lieut. General Robertson, sI —- 4- O

Do. Lieutenant General Campbell, 67 - 4-0 Do. Major General Paterson, I2 —- 16 — oO

Do. Major General O’Hara, I2 —- 16-0 Do. Major General Dalrymple, I2 - 16-0 Do. Brigadier General Birch, sl - 4 - 0

Do. Brigadier General Gunning, I2 —-16- 0 Do. at the Doors of the Theatre, 3423 - 17 - 8 £4138 - 11 - Oo DISBURSEMENTS

Paid to liquidate the Debts of last Year, 300 —- 6-TII Do. House Rent to 31st December 1782, 100 - O- O

&c. &c. 251 —II § Do. hired Performers, 314 - O- O

Do. for Repairs, Decorations, Scenery, Painting,

Do. weekly and nightly Servants, Extra Attendants,

Band of Music, Door-keepers, &c. &c. &c. 803 — 18 — oOo

Do. for Men’s Wardrobe, 386 - I- I

Do. for Women’s Wardrobe, 342 -— 12 - 7; Do. for incidental Expences, 158 — 10 - 8

130 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Do. for Printing, Advertising, Stationary [sic], &c. &c. 216 — 15 — 4

Do. for Lamp Oil, Candles and Wood, 189 — 10 —10 Do. in CHARITY to the Widows and Children of

the following Regiments, &c. VIZ. 827 —- 7 - 6 £3890 — 14 — 42

Following is a long list of regiments — thirty-seven in all — to which charitable contributions were made, and a precise accounting of the amounts of money given to each. The broadside concludes with the following information:

Receipts for 1782 4138 I1 oO

Disbursements for 1782 3890 14 42 Balance in Hands the 24th of June, 1782, N. York Cur. £247 16 73 The above is an exact Copy from the Books of the Theatre, now in the Possession of the Treasurer No. 80, King-street, for public inspection. . . .° *% % HK *

THE BRITISH MILITARY was not quite finished with their performances in New York after the close of the 1782 season. They appeared in a number of productions in 1783, in most of which they joined with American professional actors who returned to the city during the last days of the war. With this exception, however, the six-year history of British military theatricals, during which at least one hundred forty-six performances were given and tens of thousands of pounds were paid to see them, came to a close. Unknowingly, the British military actors were laying the foundation for the return of American theatre in New York. Historically, when a country has been engaged in a war fought on its own soil, its citizens have understandably paid little attention to the performing arts; but the period of the Revolution in America was a notable exception, at least insofar as the theatre was concerned. Far from destroying the infant American theatre, the Revolution stimulated it

Bnitish Military Theatre, 1779-1782 131 by producing new plays from England (many of which remained in the American repertory for years afterward) and by producing those plays with lavish care. It may also be reasonably argued that a new and dedicated audience was formed by these productions, an audience composed of New Yorkers who had rarely, if ever, attended the theatre in the past, but who did so during the Revolution because the British, whom they admired, demonstrated by their example that

playacting and playgoing were legitimate activities. Thus, when American professional actors returned to New York in 1783, a sizable portion of the audience continued to patronize their performances as eagerly as they had those of the British military.

BLANK PAGE

é

A /

Setting the Stage: America Ascendant Seen FROM ONE POINT OF VIEW, the British forces seemed unconquerable. They were better trained, better equipped, superior in numbers, and supplemented by thirty thousand mercenaries from the German states. However, the quality of lower-ranking British officers was generally not high, since commissions 1n the cavalry and infantry regiments were sold to wealthy English gentlemen, often unqualified for leadership. The typical soldier was anything but a model of military efficiency; more likely, he was fighting only for the opportunity to make some money, having been recruited from a prison cell or from an urban slum. German mercenaries were all too often — from the British point of view — insufficiently commit-

ted to victory. So enamored of the New World were they that one-sixth of them voluntarily remained in America after the war.

Continental victories began to mount. George Rogers Clark captured the “Illinois Country” (a vast geographical area that now includes IIlinois, Ohio, and Indiana) in 1779 with only 200 men, defeating not only the British but their Indian allies — a feat the British Lieutenant Colonel Henry Hamilton called 133

134 The Theatre in America during the Revolution “unequal perhaps in History.” Despite Clinton’s successes in Savannah and Charleston, patriots administered a crushing defeat to Cornwallis’s troops when he tried to extend British control to North Carolina in 1780. Then American raiders retook the British outposts in South Carolina, leading to victory in the South. Under Washington’s command, the Americans and French won a decisive victory at Yorktown, and the demoralized British had to consider what had once seemed impossible: Despite all their advantages, including a tradition of military conquest, this was a war they might not be able to win.

or ‘ Ag

Amusements, 1780-1782 A FTER SEVERAL YEARS during which the theatrical battleground was left entirely to the British military and their Tory sympathizers, American patriots began — tentatively, and in extremely small numbers — to participate in plays and theatrically oriented social entertainments once again in 1780.

Reading, 1781 In 1781, an American soldier, Lieutenant Enos Reeves, was stationed at Reading, Pennsylvania, where British prisoners of war were being

held. American officers gave a series of theatrical performances in Reading, some of which Reeves recorded in his letter-books. His initial notation occurs in a mutilated letter, the first section of which is lost. The letter, dated “Septr. 1781,” gives a partial cast list for a performance of The Lying Valet. Reeves’s name is not included, but he was evidently cast in the play, for he remarked: We were as busy as possible and as assiduous as if we expected to make a

living by it, so eager are all men for Applause, that we cannot think of being excelled even in the character of a player. The task is so severe on 135

136 The Theatre in America during the Revolution me that I believe I shall give it up for the future, but the parts I have had, have been exceeding long, and mostly the person in trouble, which affects me almost as much as if it was real.!

Reeves’s letter indicates that the women’s roles were acted by American officers: He identified the character of Mrs. Tippet as having been played by Doctor Allison. Reeves does not state whether or not the productions were given for charity or simply for amusement,

nor does he say much about the circumstances under which they were given.

A bit more detail 1s supplied in another letter Reeves wrote later that same September: On Monday last we performed the Revenge again, with the Lying Valet for a farce; our house was much crowded, a number of people that had not tickets beg’d to be admitted. We had the satisfaction to hear that every charac-

ter in the Tragedy was better supported than the last evening, Carlos excepted, which was not done so well. Leonora made a brilliant appearance this evening dress’d in a pink silk with an extraordinary head dress. The Farce pleased the Dutch inhabitants exceedingly; and kept them

in one continual burst of laughter... . Sharp and Kitty Any was well supported, and all the rest [here the letter is badly torn and indecipherable] Lawyer Biddle, Lawyer Graydon and several others was pleased to compliment the performers. So much for plays.’

Reeves’s letters do not betray any feeling of guilt that the performances were given despite Congress’s disapproval. Nor do they indicate that Reeves was even aware of Congress’s attitude. The commanding officer must have known that the productions would have been frowned upon, however: Presumably he decided to permit them regardless of the disapproval of Congress. Army life offered other social diversions in Reading that autumn.

Reeves also described a “Ball and entertainment,” given in September by “the officers of the garrison,” which “all the ladies and gentlemen of the town” attended: The Ball was opened about 7 o’clock with a Minuet — we then proceeded to Country Dances; and spent the evening. . . . About 1 o’clock adjourned

American Plays and Amusements, 1780-1782 137 to a genteel supper, our wines were tolerable, the music good. After supper

our dances were chiefly Cotillions, and concluded the evening in a very agreeable manner about two o'clock in the morning, and waited on the ladies home.?

But there was still a war to be won, and orders reached the American officers from General St. Clair to move the troops from Reading “to the City of Philadelphia with all expedition.”* Lieutenant Reeves was highly aggrieved at the thought of giving up the pleasurable round of balls, suppers, and plays. On a Saturday in September, he wrote: Our detachment marched off yesterday morning for Philadelphia. I have remained behind, having a horse and shall set off this day. The town looks distressed since the departure of the troops, no drums beating in the morning or evening, nor crowd of men parading up and down the Streets, nor gay officers gallanting the gayer ladies to and fro — the ladies look disconsolate and confess their loss. I am just going to take my leave, and to horse, and away to Philadelphia.°

Fortunately for the Lieutenant, he seemed able to find high life everywhere. In early 1782 he was in Williamsborough, North Carolina, where, although no theatrical performances were given, a good

deal of social activity made up for it. In a letter of February 5, Reeves described “an Entertainment at Colonel Eaton’s” which was attended by “about twenty ladies of the first Rank” and “a number of gentlemen.” The company had an “elegant dinner, of such things as the country here affords.” After dinner, a marathon of dancing and card playing began. [T]he Ball was opened by a Minuet with each Lady in the Room; which is the custom here; that done we stood up for Country Dances; from that to

Reels, and then to Jiggs... . We continued dancing ’till about 4 o’clock in the morning, when the Ladies retired and the gentlemen set in for drinking and mischief. ... During the night it snow’d, hail’d, rain’d, and froze, all at once. We had the ladies out on the ice sliding, falling and playing, as it is a thing very unusual in this part of the world, to have a sleet. There remained none of the company [the following day] but the

138 The Theatre in America during the Revolution particular acquaintances of the family; we set in for Dancing again and canc’d ‘till dinner time, and after dinner till ten o’clock at night. . . . On the third morning of the frolic we again began with drinking and cards,

... after which we again danced several Country dances, and a great number of Reels and Jiggs, Minuets, etc.®

The pleasures afforded at Reading and Williamsborough may not have helped to defeat the enemy, but they serve as a reminder that the British were not the only ones who were able to find occasional enjoyment in America during the Revolution.

Philadelphia, 1780-1782: The Theatre After the series of plays presented by American officers in 1778 and the subsequent reaction of Congress, Philadelphia maintained a strict prohibition against theatrical performances. The only formalized entertainment in Philadelphia until the end of 1781 seems to have been a series of six performances on the slack wire given by a “Mr. Tem-

pleman, of Virginia, lately from Europe.” Beginning in February 1780, and continuing intermittently until the end of April, Mr. Templeman presented his one-man show at the Southwark Theatre. The prices charged for his exhibitions seem to have been incredibly

high — box tickets were priced at forty dollars, seats in the pit at thirty dollars, and gallery tickets twenty dollars, and, according to Charles Durang, “children from five to fifteen years of age [were] admitted at fifteen dollars” — but Continental money was greatly inflated at the time. ’ George Washington was in Philadelphia at the end of 1781 in or-

der to meet with Congress and discuss the course of the war. On December 11, Luzerne, the French minister, gave an entertainment in Washington’s honor, which the Freeman’s Journal described thus: On Tuesday evening the rth inst. his excellency the minister of France, who embraces every opportunity to manifest his respect to the worthies of America, and politeness to its inhabitants, entertained his excellency general Washington, and his lady, the lady of general Greene, and a very

American Plays and Amusements, 1780-1782 139 polite circle of the gentlemen and ladies, with an elegant Concert, in which [an] ORATORIO, composed and set to music by a gentleman whose

taste in the polite arts is well known, was introduced, and afforded the most sensible pleasure.®

The patriotic oratorio, Francis Hopkinson’s Temple of Minerva,?

presumably was not regarded as the sort of “theatrical entertainment” that Congress had found so odious in its resolution of 1778.

The performance of a comedy on January 2, 1782, could not be regarded in any other light, however. Had Congress’s second 1778 resolution been obeyed to the letter, George Washington would have been dismissed from his command, for, as the Freeman's Journal reported: On Wednesday evening the 2d instant, Alexander Quesnay [de Glouvay, a

teacher of French] exhibited a most elegant entertainment at the playhouse [the Southwark Theatre], where were present his excellency general Washington, the Minister of France, the president of the state, a number of the officers of the army and a brilliant assemblage of ladies and gentlemen of the city, who were invited. After a prologue suitable to the occasion, EUGENIE an elegant French comedy was first presented (written by the celebrated M. Beaumarchais) and in the opinion of several good judges was extremely well acted by the young gentlemen, students [of Quesnay de Glouvay’s] in that polite language. After the comedy was acted the LYING VALET, a farce, to this succeeded several curious dances, followed by a brilliant illumination, consisting of thirteen pyramidal pillars, representing the thirteen states — on the middle column was seen a Cupid, supporting a laurel crown over the motto ~ WASHINGTON -— the pride of his country and terror of Britain. On the summit was the word — Virginia — on the right — Connecticut, with the names GREENE and la FAYETTE -— on the left — the word Pennsylvania with the

names WAYNE and S TEUBEN; and so on according to the birth place and state proper to each general. The spectacle ended with an artificial illumination of the thirteen columns.!°

The production of Eugenie was so successful that Quesnay de Glouvay announced a repeat performance to be given on January 11, with

The Cheats of Scapin as the afterpiece. This performance was to be

140 The Theatre in America during the Revolution offered as a charitable benefit for “the virtuous American Soldiery in the Barracks of Philadelphia” and the poor in the Pennsylvania Hospital. On this occasion, however, the Philadelphia authorities stepped in to cancel the event. Quesnay de Glouvay had to announce “that no public Play will be exhibited at the Theatre in Southwark, on Friday evening, nor any Exhibition made contrary to law.”!!

The cancellation was a special disappointment to “Maria Flutter,” who said in a letter to “The Pilgrim” at the Freeman’s Journal: SIR,

I was present at tne acting of the French play Eugenie, about a week ago, and was extremely pleased with it, though I do not understand a word of the language. The show was so fine, the scenes so pretty, the company so brilliant, that I really should have thought myself in an enchanted world, had it not been for the noise and vulgarities of some tasteless fellows who sat in the gallery. I wish that sort of people would build a play house of

their own, and not come and disturb people that go to be entertained agreeably at Southwark. But, O sir! judge what must have been my melancholy, when, as I afterwards heard, Mr. Quesnay was threatened with the

law if he had any more plays acted. Do, sir, say something in favour of plays. The young people of the city are really tired of their lives for want of some entertainment now and then in the winter evenings. There are several philosophers in this place who do all they can to discourage amusements of this sort; but as you, sir, have travelled thro’ the polite nations of the east, and know mankind, I am sure you will not write anything against so pretty a pastime. Your humble servant, MARIA FLUTTER

Whether the letter was intended to be taken as sarcasm or as a Serious lament is questionable. In any case, the Freeman’s Journal printed a response; but if “Maria” meant to be taken seriously, the answer she received could scarcely have satisfied her: The Pilgrim is sorry Miss Flutter was pleased with a comedy she did not understand, and he hereby prohibits her from ever attending plays ’till she is able to collect a number of useful morals and rational sentiments

American Plays and Amusements, 1780-1782 I4I from what she sees and hears; and can convince her friends that she returns from that species of diversion better and wiser than she went. As to Eugenie, the French comedy, it is a pity any lady or gentleman of condition should be ignorant of the polite language it is written in... . Yet by no means do I consent that regular theatrical entertainments shall immediately come into fashion. The diversions of the stage are doubtless (under proper restrictions) noble, manly and rational; but at present I judge them to be rather unseasonable, at least if generally permitted. ... You languish for public shows. Have patience, madam, ’till the war is successfully finished — reflect how many of your countrymen are at this moment per-

ishing in sickly prisons; dying with painful wounds, hunger and nakedness; facing death in the field of battle, or suffering all the vengeance that a cruel and exasperated enemy can inflict. Think on these things, madam, and be merry if you can.!4

Merry or not, contrite or not, “Maria” remained silent, writing no further letters to “The Pilgrim.” In any case, there were no further performances given in Philadelphia until 1784.

Philadelphia, 1782: The Dauphinade

An entertainment of a different sort, reminiscent of the elaborate British celebration the Meschianza, was given by Luzerne, again with Washington in attendance, in Philadelphia on July 15, 1782. The Pennsylvania Packet described the event: Last Monday his Excellency the Minister of France celebrated the birth of Monseigneur the Dauphin. Seven hundred and fifty persons were present at the entertainment given at this occasion. A TE DEUM was sung at

ten in the morning: In the evening there was a concert of musick in a room erected for that purpose, and large enough to contain all invited. The concert finished at nine o’clock, when the fire works began, after which a general illumination succeeded, upon an amphitheatre erected in front of the hotel of the Minister, and likewise in the groves. At the same time began a very brilliant ball, which continued till midnight; this was followed by a supper, served upon seven tables of eighty covers each. The ball was resumed after supper, and lasted till 2 o’clock in the morning. . . .

142 The Theatre in America during the Revolution The presence of His Excellency General Washington and the Count Rochambeau rendered the entertainment as compleat as could possibly be wished. !3

A contemporary writer, noting the pageant’s elegance, observed that Luzerne had borrowed “thirty cooks from the French Army to assist in providing an entertainment suited to the size and dignity of the company.” !* Forty tickets were sent to the governor of each state

and forty more to General Washington for distribution to the most distinguished governmental and military officers of the country. One of the guests, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, has left the most thorough description of Luzerne’s party:

About 8 o’clock, our family . . . entered the apartment provided for this splendid entertainment. We were received through a wide gate by the Minister and conducted by one of his family forward to the dancing room. The scene now almost exceeds description. The numerous lights distributed through the garden, the splendor of the room we were approaching, the size of the company which was now collected and which amounted to about 700 persons, the brilliancy and variety of their dresses, and the band of music which had just begun to play, formed a scene that resembled enchantment. . . . We entered the room together, and here we saw the world in miniature. All the ranks and parties and professions in the city, and all the officers of government were fully represented in this assembly. Here were ladies and gentlemen of the most ancient as well as modern families. Here were lawyers, doctors and ministers of the gospel. Here were the learned faculty of the College . . . painters and musicians, poets and philosophers . . . merchants and gentlemen of independent fortunes, as well as many respectable and opulent tradesmen. Here were whigs and men who formerly bore the character of tories. Here were the president and members of Congress, governors of states and generals of armies, ministers of finance and war and foreign affairs. ... Here were to be seen men who had opposed each other in councils and parties of their country, forgetting

all former resentments and exchanging civilities with each other... . Here were to be seen men of various countries and languages, such as Americans and Frenchmen, Englishmen and Scotchmen, Germans and Irishmen. !>

American Plays and Amusements, 1780-1782 143 Thousands of spectators observed the party from the grounds out-

side the house, and together the guests and spectators watched a fireworks display shortly after nine o’clock. Rush said that “a number of rockets” were set off “from a stage erected in a large open lot before the Minister’s house. They were uncommonly beautiful and gave universal satisfaction.” !©One of the spectators, Jacob Hiltzheimer, agreed that he had been treated to “some fine fireworks.”!’ Despite “all the agreeable circumstances” of the party, Dr. Rush noted that “many of the company complained of the want of something else to render the entertainment complete. Everybody felt plea-

sure, but it was of too tranquil a nature. Many people felt sentiments, but they were produced by themselves and did not arise from any of the amusements of the evening.” What was lacking, Dr. Rush

felt, was a genuine touch of theatricality, a performance of some kind. “An ode on the birth of the Dauphin, sung or repeated, would have answered the expectations and corresponded with the feelings of everybody. The understanding and the taste of the company would have shared with the senses in the pleasures of the evening.” An ode had, in fact, been composed for the occasion, “but from what cause

I know not,” said Rush, “it did not make its appearance. It has great merit, and could it have been set to music or spoken publicly, must have formed a most delightful and rational part of the entertainment.”!8 Even without the appearance of the meritorious ode, however, the party was memorable. Few entertainments so lavish were given for American patriots during the Revolution; but Luzerne had long been known as an agreeable host. Two years before his entertainment to

celebrate the birth of the Dauphin, Dr. Rush had written to John Adams that “the Chevalier de la Luzerne has made even the tories forget in some degree, in his liberality and politeness, the Meschianzas of their British friends.”!?

John Henry John Henry, one of the leading actors of the American Company, turned up in Philadelphia that same July. The American Company

144 The Theatre in America during the Revolution had temporarily disbanded when their Jamaica performances had proven to be unprofitable.” Henry’s first stop after leaving Jamaica was in Baltimore in January 1782, where he gave his comic specialty,

“The Lecture on Heads.”?! He then went to Annapolis in May, where he persuaded the Maryland Assembly to pass an act confirming the title of the American Company to the theatre it had built in

Annapolis in 1771. Henry next journeyed to Philadelphia in July, where he attempted to win permission to offer a performance at the Southwark Theatre “for one night only” of the “Lecture on Heads.” His request was denied by William Moore, President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (on the grounds that the “Lecture” was in fact “merely one of the various subterfuges so often employed to circumvent the laws against the theatre”).*3 The actor immediately left Philadelphia for New York, where he hoped to gain approval to give a series of professional performances.

As it turned out, Henry lost more theatrical battles than he won. Although New York would agree to his request, Pennsylvania had turned him down; 1n addition, the right he gained on behalf of the American Company to the exclusive use of the theatre in Annapolis was overturned within five months. Even more significantly, Henry was frustrated in his apparent intention to reestablish the professional theatre in America, for he arrived too late: A professional troupe of American actors had already been formed in Baltimore and was in full swing by the time Henry returned.

A tt

Setting the Stage: America ‘Triumphant “Le DEFEAT OF CORNWALLIS in October 1781 was decisive. American independence had been won, although no one on either side grasped that fact immediately. The war continued on other fronts for a time, but the news of Cornwallis’s defeat persuaded Great Britain to give up the attempt to crush the American rebellion. British soldiers in America were instructed only to defend themselves until they could be brought home.

General Washington entered New York following the British evacuation of the city in late 1783. As soon as he could do so, he bade farewell to the officers who had served with him, resigned his commission as commander in chief, and returned to Mount Vernon. As many as fifty thousand Tories left the United States as the war concluded. The majority of those who departed went to Canada, some emigrated to England, and others scattered to various locations around the world. Most Tories remained in America, however, and were gradually absorbed into the mainstream of American life. The patriots had won their liberty, but they were physically 145

146 The Theatre in America during the Revolution and emotionally exhausted. The war had wreaked economic, political, and social havoc, and those disruptions created more turmoil in the years ahead. The individual states distrusted one another; new taxes were denounced; the work of the law courts was obstructed; the country’s problems were only beginning. Even so, forged from the crucible of suffering for the cause of freedom, Americans had created a new nation, and the future was theirs.

y

fi

>Sa

ois

I shige:

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 C ONGRESS’S INJUNCTION against American theatrical entertainments during the prosecution of the Revolution was faithfully obeyed in most of the states; but in Maryland — which, it will be remembered, had voted against Congress’s antitheatre resolution in 1778 — that resolution was thoroughly ignored. In 1781, Maryland gave further evidence that it saw no connection between a successful prosecution of the war and the prohibition of theatrical activities

when it became the first state to permit an American professional theatre company to perform during the Revolution.

Baltimore and Annapolis, 1781 and 1782 Thomas Wall, a former actor with the American Company who supplemented his income by giving guitar and mandolin lessons, gained permission from the State Council of Maryland! on June 8 and offered the first in a series of performances in Annapolis beginning on June 14, 1781. (David Douglass of the American Company had organized the building of the 6oo-seat theatre ten years before.) Wall advertised “a medley of theatrical trifles” including “A Critical Disser147

148 The Theatre in America during the Revolution tation [on] Noses.”? In Baltimore, eight days later, he appeared at Mr. L’Argeau’s Dancing-Room, where his handbill specified that he had come “From Annapolis.” On this occasion, Wall presented “A New Lecture on Heads,” which was followed on June 28 by “The

Old Lecture on Heads, not performed here these Eight Years.” The entertainments also featured Wall’s seven-year-old daughter, who, in addition to participating in the comic lecture, recited two monologues.

In all, Thomas Wall, along with his wife and daughter, offered sixteen performances in 1781, nine of them at the theatre in AnnapOlis and seven more at various locations in Baltimore (including “Mr.

Johnson’s Sail-Warehouse” and “Mr. Lindsay’s Coffee-House, on Fell’s Point” in addition to Mr. L’Argeau’s Dancing-Room). The presentations were variously advertised as “A Medley of Theatrical Trifles” and “A Farrago of Theatrical Amusements.” Wall had waited patiently for his opportunity. At last, in 1781, he was able to return to the theatre — the first sustained occasion on which an American actor performed in a professional context since before the outbreak of the war. On September 20, in Annapolis, Wall’s performance included music provided by a band which “belong’d to the Regiment of the Count de Chalour, who with the French Army were on their March to Virginia, to attack Lord Cornwallis, posted at York Town.”* The inclusion of the French band may have been intended to appeal to the French troops stationed 1n the area. By October, several other actors had joined Wall’s company, and the group began offering performances of a more ambitious nature —

consisting of scenes from full-length plays such as The Beggar’s Opera, The Recruiting Officer, Love for Love, and others, including one-act afterpieces that had already proven popular with eighteenthcentury audiences in England and America. The productions were given at Lindsay’s Coffee-House,’? with Adam Lindsay himself performing in the expanded company. Nearly forty Baltimore citizens

protested to the Governor and the Maryland State Council in ad-

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 149 vance of the performances, but the protests had no apparent effect, as the entertainments went on as scheduled. ®

Although seven performances are known to have been given in Baltimore in 1781, there may have been more. The surviving handbills establish that the performances listed in the Appendix (§16), were scheduled, and presumably given. ’

One of the “amusements” featured an alliance of Wall’s company with the American military. In Garrick’s afterpiece Miss in Her Teens, presented on October 3, Lieutenant Street of the Maryland Line joined Wall’s actors. ®

Since the Baltimore performances were interspersed with those presented in Annapolis, the arrangement obviously forced the troupe to travel back and forth from one city to the other several times. (The Annapolis schedule is given in Appendix §17.)? While Mr. Wall was journeying between Baltimore and Annapolis

in 1781, he oversaw a plan that would allow him to minimize his travel: With the financial backing of Adam Lindsay and George J. L”Argeau, he converted stables in Baltimore into the New Theatre, the first such structure in that city. The brick theatre was ready for operation at the beginning of the following year, '?and Wall, in partnership with Adam Lindsay, became the manager of the Maryland Company of Comedians: a professional company (for most of the actors were paid) but not necessarily a well-trained one (only a handful of the performers had had prior professional experience). Wall’s initial hopes for the success of his expanded troupe cannot have been especially high. Even the American Company had accepted what appeared to be the inevitable likelihood that citizens would

not patronize a theatrical troupe while the Revolution was in progress — and Wall’s company, comprised of inexperienced performers, was not the equal of the American Company. Despite the bleak outlook, however, Wall persisted, gradually increasing the number of his performances, the number of actors and actresses in his company, and the size of the audiences. Although his managerial career

was brief, he is a significant, if neglected, figure in theatre his-

150 The Theatre in America during the Revolution tory, for it was he who reestablished the professional theatre in America.

Perhaps because Wall and Lindsay felt it necessary to instill an atmosphere of professionalism in their fledgling company, they drew up two documents to govern the actors’ activities and behavior. One of them, “Articles to be strictly observed by the Managers and Per-

formers belonging to the Maryland Company of Comedians,” set forth rules to deal with all sorts of eventualities. Article 3, for example, states ““That when a Morning Rehearsal is Order’d The Prompter shall at the hour of Ten, call over on the Stage, all the Performers Names belonging to the said Rehearsal, and every Absentee to be fined One Shilling.” The other document established “Rules to be Observ’d in the Baltimore Theatre, respecting Benefits,” outlining a complicated procedure to determine when benefits would be given, on whose behalf, what sorts of entertainments would be presented during benefit performances, and so on.!! The rules, as Lynn Haims suggests, “clearly reflect the troubled relationships of a company trying to keep itself together,” but also propose “new solutions ~ democratic ones — to old problems of theatre management.” !? Wall and Lindsay do not seem to have had much difficulty locat-

ing a sufficient number of actors and actresses for their purposes. Musicians, on the other hand, were harder to find, as the managers noted in the Maryland Journal on January 8, 1782, stating that their inability to locate musicians capable of playing in the orchestra was preventing them from opening their theatre.!3 The advertisement must have borne fruit, for the theatre opened a week later. The season began on January 15 with a performance of Richard ITI and Miss in Her Teens. A handwritten note on the broadside advertising the performance indicates that the “Gross Proceeds” came to £96, 8s., 9d.!* Wall played Richard with Mrs. Wall as Queen Elizabeth. Their daughter played the Duke of York, and Adam Lindsay took the role of Lord Stanley. Listed among the other actors were a Mr. Shakespeare (who later continued his professional career with another company) and “gentlemen” who played the minor roles of Tressel, Richmond, and Prince Edward. !> (These gentle-

American Professtonal Theatre, 1781-1783 151 men are identified by handwriting on the handbill as Major Brice, Mr. Finley, and Billy McFadon.) Evidently Wall and Lindsay honored the old custom of permitting amateurs to pay for the opportunity to perform with the professional actors. Curiously, the prologue spoken by Mr. Wall for the first produc-

tion of the Maryland Company contained no reference whatever to the Revolution that was still in progress.!® Perhaps the managers felt

that the subject should be mentioned as little as possible since they were flouting the expressed wish of the Congress by performing during wartime. On the other hand, the prologue written and spoken by Mr. Heard on March 5 for the production of Venice Preserv'd concluded by complimenting the American patriots on their courage in battle, while asking them to approve the efforts of the acting company. “You’ve fought like Romans,” said the last line of the prologue; “now like Romans feel.” !’ Not all of the plays the company presented during its first season are known because the productions were not always advertised. Fortunately, however, William Tilyard, a lawyer who served as the company’s clerk, preserved nearly all of the broadsides for the Maryland

Company’s productions in 1782 and 1783, which gives an almost complete accounting of those performances; fortunately, too, someone — presumably Tilyard — recorded the “gross receipts” on most of

the broadsides in 1782, offering a rough gauge by which to measure the company’s success.'® The list in the Appendix (§18), compiled from handbills and advertisements, presents an exhaustive repertory but may not be complete; also listed therein is the amount of money taken in at each performance.!? The repertoire was clearly a challenging one, even if some of the advertised performances were canceled. Only Mr. and Mrs. Wall are known to have had previous professional experience, so the other actors may not have been inhibited by an awareness of the difficulties involved in producing so many plays in so short a time. One of the actors, Mr. Heard, who first performed with the company on January 25 as “A GENTLEMAN,” later appeared in New York as a professional performer. He was evidently the finest actor

152 The Theatre in America during the Revolution in Lindsay and Wall’s company during the 1782 season. In a review of Venice Preserv'd, the Maryland Journal noted that “Mr. Heard, in [the role of] Jafher convinces us he can be as excellent in the Tragic Path, as he is great in the Comic.” Mrs. Robinson was also highly praised for her performance in that play. The Journal noted: The character of Belvidera was supported with great Judgment and fine Feelings, by Mrs. Robinson. .. . The expression in her Countenance, at Jaffier’s recommending their little Infant to her particular Care, drew Tears from almost all the Audience; nor do we ever remember feeling the frantic Dying-Scene supported with such exquisite Sensibility.”°

Some have conjectured that Thomas Wall, who played most of the leading male roles during the company’s first season, was a mediocre performer; that only Wall’s management of the company permitted him to appropriate the best parts for himself. Indeed, after Wall retired from the management the following year, he was generally given less prominent roles to perform. In 1782, however, except for certain notable occasions, such as the one on which Mr. Heard played

King Lear (he’d chosen the role for his benefit, as the “Rules to be Observ’d in the Baltimore Theatre, respecting Benefits” specified he could), most of the best roles fell to Mr. Wall. Mrs. Wall, on the other hand, was quickly supplanted as the leading lady by Mrs. Robinson, who, like Mr. Heard, may have had prior theatrical experience, although probably not as a professional.

The names of Mr. Lewis, Mr. Street, Mr. Willis, Mr. Tilyard, Mr. Atherton, and Mrs. Elm are among those that appear in the cast lists on Lindsay and Wall’s handbills during 1782.7! Their lack of training and professional experience was painfully apparent at times. Even in 1782, when critics in America were uncommonly kind to actors, “Philo-Theatricus” of the Maryland Fournal noted in his review of Venice Preserv’d that “we could wish the other Performers to be more perfect... .” Even Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Heard, who generally received praise, were singled out for criticism. According to Philo-Theatricus, Mrs. Robinson “repeats her Lines rather too fast

...{Mr. Heard was] rather too indolent . . . in his Walk” and “he

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 153 appears dashed at any little Noise that happens amongst the Audience; which accounts for a very sudden Change in his Countenance in the Dagger-Scene.”?2

Still, the accomplishments of the Maryland Company of Comedians in their 1782 season, quantitatively if not qualitatively, must be counted as impressive. Offering so many plays in so short a time attests to their perseverance; and their popularity can be measured by the fact that, in a theatre with limited seating capacity, they took in

as much as {154 for the productions of The London Merchant and The Lying Valet on April 1. On the other hand, the box office plummeted to £52, 17s., 6d. for the very next performance and dropped to less than £40 for a production of The Wonder! A Woman Keeps a Secret 3 Perhaps the fact that the latter performance was a repeat of one given only three days earlier accounts for its lack of appeal; conversely, it may have been the novelty of The London Merchant, which

was presented only once in Baltimore during the 1782 season, that accounted for its popularity. Popular plays were the exception, however: An analysis of the box-office receipts indicates that the house was probably less than half full most of the time. Information derived from the broadsides of 1782 also reveals that the company requested “Any Gentleman possessed of good Farces” to lend them to the managers; that “Some Tunes” gave offense to some members of the audience; and — an indication that an actor’s life in Baltimore was not merely financially precarious but physically hazardous as well — a warning included in the advertisement for the performance on March 22: Whereas several evil-disposed Persons frequent the Theatre, for no other Purpose than to create Disturbance, by throwing Apples, Bottles, &c. on the Stage, — This is to give Notice, that proper Means will be taken to detect such Practices for the Future, and bring the Perpetrators to the most exemplary Punishment.”

The performances of Gustavus Vasa; or, The Deliverer of His Coun-

try on June 21 and 28 were significant in that they were dedicated to George Washington. For many years afterward, the play (celebrat-

154 The Theatre in America during the Revolution ing the monarch who saved Sweden from barbarians) was produced on patriotic occasions and always associated with Washington. The June 21 performance marked the first time that the play — which had been officially banned in England?’ — was given in America. It was chosen by Mrs. Bartholomew, whom Arthur Hornblow called “an ambitious and capable actress,” for her benefit. The epilogue,

written by Mr. Heard, hinted at America’s triumph in the War of Independence,’ despite the fact that victory was not official at the time the play was produced. A series of events still had to take place before America could declare official victory: On February 14, 1783,

George III would issue a proclamation calling for the cessation of hostilities; Congress would be presented in April with the treaty acknowledging the complete independence of the United States; and the final peace treaty would not be signed until September 3, 1783.

Baltimore and Annapolis, 1782-1783

An August 6, 1782, advertisement in the Maryland fournal notified the actors in Lindsay and Wall’s company of the date on which they were to report to the managers for the following season and requested prospective actresses to apply: THE PERFORMERS belonging to the BALTIMORE THEATRE, are de-

sired to repair to Baltimore, by the 25th Instant, as the House will be opened in a short Time afterwards.

The Managers being desirous of giving all the Satisfaction in their Power to the Public, will give the highest Encouragement to ACTRESSES of real Merit, who will apply to Mr. ADAM LINDSAY, in Philadelphia, or Mr. WALL, in Baltimore.?°

Few actresses of real merit applied, it seems, as the only female performer scheduled to appear in the first production of the 1782-3 season (who had not appeared with the company the season before) was a Mrs. Parsons. She received special billing in the advertisement in the Maryland Journal on Tuesday, September 3, which noted that

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 155 her appearance in The Ghost on September 13 (the scheduled afterpiece with Mahomet) would be “her first Appearance on this Stage.” However, the advertised performance was “obliged to be deferr’d

. . .on Account of particular Scenery that cannot be finished on Friday.” 3! Instead of Mahomet and The Ghost, the season opened with two other plays on September 17. A remarkable total of seventy-three performances were advertised and presumably given in the 1782-3 season, of which thirteen were produced in the theatre in Annapolis. 32 The complete list appears in the Appendix (§19), along with the

box-office receipts of the first seventeen performances (the only receipts listed on the handbills).>? The Annapolis performances were given despite the Maryland Assembly’s passage of John Henry’s request in May 1782 that only the

old American Company be permitted to use the Annapolis theatre. Henry, however, had left the city shortly afterward to head for what he must have assumed would be more sizable audiences 1n Philadelphia and had, by his action, effectively forfeited his claim. Thus, in October 1782, the Maryland Company was able to give its performances in Annapolis.

In addition, four performances were advertised for production in Upper Marlborough, beginning with The Grecian Daughter and The Lying Valet on April 30, 1783.°4 Evidently, the same plays were given on all four nights. Still, both the actors and the prompter must have been near exhaustion by the end of the season. It would be difficult to imagine a more demanding season even for the most experienced actors. ‘The Baltrmore—Annapolis company presented at least thirty-five full-length plays and thirty afterpieces (not

counting repeat performances) in less than ten months’ time. About one-third of the full-length plays were repeated from the previous

year’s repertory; but, considering the fact that several new cast members joined the company during the season and others dropped out, making it necessary to restage the productions, the number of plays presented 1s still formidable.

Seven of Shakespeare’s plays were given in 1782-3. All Shakespearean performances given during the Revolution would have followed the standard eighteenth-century practice of cutting the plays

156 The Theatre in America during the Revolution drastically, revising the order of the scenes, and adding miscellaneous elements, which might include new dialogue, songs, and dances, and even new scenes and characters. Playwright Nahum Tate’s seventeenth-century revision of King Lear and Colley Cibber’s

eighteenth-century version of Richard III are probably the bestknown examples of this phenomenon, which was based on the notion that Shakespeare, although a genius, was too “unruly” for the “more civilized” English audiences of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The most popular full-length plays were not Shakespeare’s, however, but The West Indian, Douglas, and The Grecian Daughter, each performed five times (plus four more performances of The Grecian Daughter 11 Upper Marlborough). The Lying Valet, which was seen on eight occasions (including four in Upper Marlborough) and The Witches, offered seven times, proved the most popular afterpieces. Sixteen of the plays and eight of the afterpieces (or nine, depending upon which afterpiece was given on December 20, 1782) were presented only once, testifying both to the relative lack of popularity of certain plays and to the industriousness of the Maryland Company, which was willing to invest time and money 1n rehearsing produc-

tions only to abandon them immediately if they did not meet with the audience’s approval.

Lindsay and Wall continued to permit “gentlemen” to pay for the privilege of appearing with the company during 1782-3. One of these gentlemen was the Reverend James Twyford, who played Friar Laurence in Romeo and Juliet on October 18. Twyford seems to have been the first clergyman ever to have acted a role in a play in America. He continued to perform with the Maryland Company for the remainder of the season. In 1782-3, Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Ryan, who had been professional performers in Ireland,?> joined the company and immediately proved themselves to be among its most accomplished actors. As professionals, it must have pained the Ryans to witness the shoddy management of the Maryland Company. Not only did Thomas Wall continue to play leading roles despite the fact that he seems to have been

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 157 less gifted than other actors in the troupe, but the company’s boxoffice income was generally unimpressive. The receipts for the first seventeen performances, handwritten at the bottom of the playbills now collected at the New-York Historical Society, show that the income never exceeded £127, 10s., 8d. (collected for the October 18 performance of Romeo and Juliet; perhaps friends of the Rev. Mr. Twyford made up the bulk of the audience), and often dipped below £100. The worst showing occurred at the performance of Mahomet on October 1, when only £54, 11s., 3d. was taken in.%6 The average nightly income for the first seventeen performances was below {/94.

There is no indication whether or not the company managed to attract larger houses after November 6 (the last date on which receipts were recorded), but the likelihood is that attendance did not improve markedly during the following two months. In February 1783, Lindsay and Wall retired or were forced out of the management of the theatre, and Dennis Ryan took charge of the company’s fortunes.?/ Adam Lindsay evidently returned to his former profession, but Thomas Wall remained with the troupe. Mrs. Robinson also left the Maryland Company in 1783, perhaps

because Mrs. Ryan was given the best female roles after her husband assumed managerial control, but most of the other actors remained with the troupe. According to the information included in the theatre’s handbills and advertisements, twelve members were given benefits during the season. Others were paid salaries that must have varied depending upon the value of each performer to the company. It is likely that some of the actors were not paid on a regular basis, for the list of performers in 1782-3 is a long one, and Ryan’s overhead would have been extremely high if everyone who appeared in his productions drew a regular salary. Included in the casts adver-

tised in the newspapers were such newcomers as Mr. Foster, Mr.

Street, Mrs. Lyne, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Kenny, Dr. Shood, Master Snyder, Mr. Tobine, Mr. Church, Mr. and Mrs. Davids, Mrs. Foster, Mrs. Pileur, Mrs. Potter, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Smith, in addition to those who had performed with the company during its first two seasons.?®

158 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Dennis Ryan seems to have taken over a debt-ridden company. He began his managerial career by announcing that any tickets issued before the change of management would not be honored for new performances.*? He then solicited help from a number of Baltimore “GENTLEMEN,” who agreed to appear in The West Indian on February 18 in order “to enable Mr. Ryan to accomplish the Purpose of his Undertaking.” Admission receipts for that performance are unavailable, but they were presumably high, and they undoubtedly helped Ryan pay some of the debts under which his company was laboring.

In April 1783, Ryan took his company, by then renamed “The American Company of Comedians,”*! to Annapolis, where they gave

six performances in nine days. Not a single play or afterpiece was

repeated during this brief engagement. For the April 24 performance of The Roman Father in Annapolis, Mr. Heard wrote and recited a prologue in which he thanked the citizens of Maryland for their liberality in permitting the company to perform in 1782 and 1783. The prologue concluded: When War surrounded us with dreadful rage, The State alone indulg’d our infant Stage, Grateful to you our Ardour will increase With Glorious Independency and Peace.*

An unsigned article appeared in the Maryland Journal of March 28, 1783, discussing arguments for and against “Theatrical Entertainments.”’ Because it is one of the few genuinely critical discussions of the theatre during the Revolutionary period, and because it explains a great deal about the mode of performance of the Maryland Company of Comedians, most of it is reproduced here: OBSERVATIONS on the BALTIMORE THEATRE, &c. After what has been said against and in favour of Theatrical Entertainments, it would not be easy to advance any thing new on the subject. While one party urges that the Stage, under a proper administration, tends to improve the morals, it is contended by another, with equal shew of argu-

ment, that as the Stage is managed, it has a contrary effect. Should the

Amenican Professtonal Theatre, 1781-1783 159 Manager of our little Theatre be desirous of supporting this last judgment, he will persevere in an abuse, which has already given great offence to a number of persons who are disposed to countenance his undertaking. From some cause or other, the Players have taken it into their heads, that the Plays which they act are not witty enough in themselves, and that they

require to be spiced with their own wit to make them more palatable. When it is considered that there is not, perhaps, a single Comedy or Farce in the English language without indelicacies, and that even many of the most celebrated English Tragedies are not clear of this fault, one would think it unnecessary for the Players to subjoin any loose balderdash or gross obscenities of their own. The business of a Player, as I view it, is to please

the Public, by representing life and manners, agreeable to the spirit in which they are described. Instead of attending solely to this, our Players are degenerating into a group of obscene blunderers and abominable interpolators. It is to be hoped, however, that Mr. RYAN will, in future, confine them to their author, and set the example himself, as the principal.

No one can tell where liberties of this nature are to end; nor will it be prudent for a modest woman to be seen at the Playhouse, should they be continued. If any Actor thinks he has wit, let him cast it into a play, that it may be judged of in the usual manner, and not keep popping it upon the audience, who come only prepared to relish the wit of another. J flatter myself these few observations will not be looked upon as proceeding from ill nature, but from a desire to improve our little Stage, and render it more deserving of patronage. Under the reform we suggest, the Playhouse opens an entertainment suited to persons of every taste; and men themselves will be to blame, and not the Playhouse, should they leave it with worse dispositions than when they enter it.

Mr. and Mrs. RYAN are real acquisitions: The latter, in particular characters, has few equals. In Euphrasta in The Grecian Daughter, which we

have seen acted for her benefit, she was throughout interesting, and held the tender affections under the most absolute controul. Mr. RYAN has merit also and seems to possess talents for rising on the Stage. Mr. WALL’s abilities in Comedy are generally known. Mr. HEARD is a clear, distinct, penetrating speaker; and when he does not exceed the natural pitch of his voice, seldom fails to affect the heart. Without mentioning some of the other performers, it is but justice to acknowledge, that we may pass away an evening, both rationally and agreeably, at the Playhouse. There is no doubt but further encouragement will still further improve the present Actors,

160 The Theatre in America during the Revolution as well as invite others capable of increasing our pleasures. The people of Baltimore are a generous people, and, I dare say, while the Stage is conducted with decorum, will not withold [sic] their protection.”

After the final performance of /sabella and The Wrangling Lovers had been given in Baltimore on June 9, 1783, the Ryans and some of their actors departed for New York, where they began performing only ten days later. ** HK *

OTHER KINDS of theatrical entertainments were offered in Baltimore during 1782 and 1783. One of them was announced in a handbill that advertised a performance by THE NOTED BAYLY [who] Will exhibit his grand medley of ENTERTAINMENTS, Consisting of sundry curious Performances, by DEX TERIT Y

OF HAND, Interspersed with moral and entertaining LECTURES On the Art of Deception and Force of Credulity, with the COMICAL, FARCICAL, OPERATICAL, WHIMSICAL Humours of Seignor PUNCHINELLO, and his Artificial COMPANY OF COMEDIANS, near four Feet high, properly dressed, &c.

This production, which was to include a “PLAY or FARCE, with sundry DROLLS [scenes taken from full-length plays] and INTER-

LUDES [brief comic plays],” as well as “sundry incidental PROLOGUES and EPILOGUES,” was advertised for December 2 “and every Monday and Thursday following ... for a few Weeks.” It was to be given, not at the Baltimore Theatre, but “At the Sign of the Indian King, IN BALTIMORE, In a large Room fitted up in a Theatrical Manner.” Tickets for the performance were priced at Five Shillings each, with “Children at Half a Dollar, or One Ticket for two, if under ten Years.” The engagement was evidently successful, for on December 24, 1782, an advertisement in the Maryland Journal noted that “A SOBER YOUNG MAN, of an affable and obliging temper, whose pride will not conquer his reason” was want-

ed “to attend on and assist the NOTED OLD ARTIST in his domestic and theatrical business.”* Mr. Bayly had been referred to as

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 161 an “old noted Artist” in the handbill for the December 2 performance. Another handbill indicates that Mr. Bayly gave another performance on January 9, 1783, so it seems safe to assume that Bayly’s performances continued for at least the “few Weeks” for which they were originally advertised.

Another entertainment was announced for May 26, 1783, in a

handbill. It was to take place “At the next Door to the NEWENGLAND COFFEE-HOUSE, in FELL’S POINT, BALTIMORE.” Featured was “JACOB HENNINGER, [who] will exhibit his grand Medley of ENTERTAINMENTS, Consisting of sundry curious Performances” that, by coincidence, resembled Mr. Bayly’s entertainments in almost every particular. It, too, included “the TRAGICAL COMICAL FARCICAL OPERATICAL WHIMSICAL Humours of Seignior PUNCHINELLO, and his artificial COMPANY of COMEDIANS, four feet high.” Either Mr. Henninger was a plagiarist, or this was Mr. Bayly performing under another name. In either case, this performance was enhanced by “an Address to Everybody, not aimed at Anybody, by Somebody, in Character of Nobody.” “Ladies and Gentlemen” were assured that “the strictest Regularity, Decen-

cy, and Decorum, will be observed throughout the whole Performance.” Since this last note did not appear in Mr. Bayly’s advertisement, it may indicate that the performances in December 1782 were marred by a noisy or rowdy audience. * % H&K %

BALTIMORE WAS NOT regarded as a city particularly receptive to the theatre prior to the Revolution (few documented performances were given there before 1776), but beginning with Thomas Wall’s productions in 1781, plays and entertainments were in great abundance in and around the city. Perhaps the residents of Baltimore had been starved for entertainment. Whatever the reason, their support for the only professional theatrical troupe in the United States during the period of the Revolution gives them (and the citizens of Annapolis and Upper Marlborough) a unique distinction.

162 The Theatre in America during the Revolution New York, 1782-1783

John Henry, formerly of the American Company, arrived in New York in late July 1782, after having failed to win permission to perform in Philadelphia. New York was still occupied by thousands of British soldiers, the last of whom would have to wait another year and a half before they would be evacuated. Henry, evidently calculating that the idle soldiers would welcome the entertainment he could provide, placed an advertisement in Rivington’s Royal Gazette announcing his arrival. “By Permission,” it began (indicating that the Governor of New York, like his counterpart in Maryland, intended to ignore Congress’s antitheatre declaration), “To-Morrow the rst of August, Mr. HENRY, Will deliver, in TWO PARTS, A Lecture on

Heads .. . After which, Mr. HENRY will recite a MONODY [an ode or elegy] called the Shadows of Shakespeare, or Shakespeare’s CHARACTERS paying Homage to GARRICK”* (who had died in 1779).

Henry’s second performance was advertised for August 5 but was postponed until the eighth. His next exhibition, on August 16, billed

as “the Third and positively the last Night,” saw Henry offering the Lecture on Heads “with Alterations.” In it were “introduced the Heart of a British Sailor, and the Head of a Fanatic, followed by Hippisley’s Drunken Man.”*

Despite Henry’s assurance that the performance on August 16 would be his last, he gave two more entertainments, featuring selections from the Lecture on Heads, Shadows of Shakespeare, and Dry-

den’s “Ode to St. Cecilia” on September 11 and (possibly) on the twelfth. As a special attraction on those occasions, he noted that “To please his Friends in the upper Regions,” he would “conclude the whole with their favorite INTERLUDE of Alippisley’s Drunken Man.” Having been offered five performances (see Appendix §20), New Yorkers were evidently more than satisfied, for John Henry did not appear on the New York stage again until three years later.

A performance of another kind took place at “Mr. Roubalet’s Tavern” on November 20, 1782. This featured the “Celebrated Isaac

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 163 Levy,” who had performed “before the Nobility of Great-Britain” and “the French King.” The performance was offered “by Permission of the Governor.” Mr. Levy’s entertainment featured sleight of hand, and his announcement in the Royal Gazette made clear that he was willing to exhibit his skill wherever and whenever an audience could be assembled: “Gentlemen and Ladies will be waited upon at their own lodgings by Mr. Levy and be gratified with the Exhibition of his Dexterity of Hand, upon reasonable terms, at any time they chuse to appoint, provided it does not interfere with his Public Performances.”»°®

Another entertainment, also given in November, featured “A Cu-

rious Fish, almost in the shape of a Woman, with a Head resembling a Woman’s Cap, a pair of Stays, with a Busk, and Petticoat like that of a Woman, to be seen the Corner of Pump-Street, No. 81, in Bowery Lane, at One Shilling each Person.”°! All in all, the entertainments given in New York in 1782-3 would seem to be an intriguing precursor of P. T. Barnum’s “museum” attractions of the following century. ** KK *

THE BRITISH MILITARY may have intended to meet this competition with a new series of performances at the end of 1782; but Dr. Hammond Beaumont, manager and treasurer of the Theatre Royal for several seasons, died on the first day of October.°* Beaumont’s absence may explain why the British officers participated in relatively few theatrical productions in 1783, and why several of those

in which they did perform were given in conjunction with Dennis Ryan’s professional company from Maryland.

Ryan’s New York engagement began on June 19, 1783, with Douglas and The Wrangling Lovers. Tickets were priced at eight shil-

lings for the boxes and pit, four shillings for the gallery — exactly the same amount that the military actors had been charging since 1779. Che performance was successful enough to launch Ryan on a season that lasted for more than four months.

164 The Theatre in America during the Revolution Ryan brought with him most of the actors he had employed in Baltimore and added four new ones to his troupe. These included Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Fitzgerald, both of whom had acted with the military players in New York, as well as a Mrs. Garrison and a Mr. Coffy.

Mrs. Fitzgerald played many of the best women’s roles in 1783, including Maria in The London Merchant, Miss Hardcastle in She Stoops to Conquer, and Rose in The Recruiting Officer.** Before the season came to an end, however, Mrs. Fitzgerald vanished. Ryan placed an advertisement in the Royal Gazette: WHEREAS a certain ELEANOR MASSEY FITZGERALD, has defrauded

the Subscriber, of the sum of FORTY-SIX POUNDS SIXTEEN SHILLINGS, by entering into Articles of Indenture, and immediately absconding. —- A Reward of TWENTY POUNDS will be paid to any Person, who

can inform the Subscriber where she is harboured, so that she may be brought to justice, previous to the 30th of this Month. DENNIS RYAN»

Where Mrs. Fitzgerald went and whether she was ever “brought to justice” remain mysteries. Perhaps, as Seilhamer believed, she formed a liason with a British officer and followed him back to England. °°

Civilian amateurs acted with Ryan’s company at least twice in 1783. The advertisement for the August 13 performance of Richard IIT notes that “Richard, Richmond, Tressel, Lieutenant of the Tower, and Oxford [would be played] by Gentlemen for their Amusement.” In the same play, Queen Elizabeth was played by “a Lady for her Amusement.” *’ The production of The Recruiting Officer three

days later also featured three “gentlemen” in the cast. * When his company performed in Baltimore, Ryan produced plays

and prologues that had appealed to American patriotic sentiment. Now that he was in British-occupied New York, however, Ryan abruptly became a Tory. Advertisements for his performances noted:

“Between the Acts will be performed, the celebrated air of ‘GOD SAVE THE KING.”””

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 165 Two months before the British finally evacuated New York, Ry-

an’s company and the officer-actors joined forces. “Some of the Characters” in Ryan’s performance of Macbeth on September 27, 1783, were played “by GENTLEMEN of the NAVY and ARMY.” Again, on September 30, British military officers acted with Ryan’s

company; that performance also featured “a SONG and an EPILOGUE by Miss WALL.”! Moreover, the “Gentlemen of the Navy and Army for their Amusement” performed Love in a Village on October 16, with the professional actors playing in the afterpiece.® The British officers took over the theatre for a total of six perfor-

mances, justifying the efforts as being for the “Benefit of a Distressed Family”® or for “an ORPHAN FAMILY.’** It is probable that Ryan’s actresses played the women’s roles. (All the performances given by Dennis Ryan’s company in New York in 1783, including those given in conjunction with the British military, are listed in Ap-

pendix 21 and 22.) The last production by the officers of the army and navy was given on October 25, 1783, exactly one month before the last British soldiers evacuated the city.

In all, New Yorkers had the opportunity to see thirty-three performances in 1783. Considering the fact that the city was occupied by soldiers and sailors who had already lost a war and were only waiting for the day on which they would return home, it may be regarded as surprising that the military continued to have zest for producing and attending plays; but the British seem to have determined to

enjoy themselves to the last. Their attitude remained that of Sir William Howe in 1776, when Thomas Stanley wrote that Howe had adopted the motto: “De /a gaité, encore de la gaité, et toujours de la gaite.”

32