The Theatre in America during the Revolution (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

The Theatre in America during the Revolution The Theatre in America during the Revolution is a first comprehensive atte...

Author: Jared Brown

42 downloads 822 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

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 Anglia Errol Hill, Dartmouth College C. Lee Jenner, Independent 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 Revisionist 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 in America during the Revolution JARED BROWN Illinois Wesleyan University

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao 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/9780521495370 © 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 recordfor 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

Contents Preface Prologue SETTING THE STAGE: BEFORE THE REVOLUTION

vii i 9

1 The Drama of the Approaching Revolution

11

2 British Military Theatre, 1775-1777 Boston, 1775-1776 New York, 1777

22 22 29

3 Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 The Theatre The Meschianza

45 46 51

4

American Military Theatre and "Entertainments," 1778 Valley Forge Philadelphia Portsmouth

SETTING THE STAGE: BRITAIN ASCENDANT

5 The Drama of the Revolution

57 57 60 65 69

71

vi 6

7

Contents British Military T h e a t r e , 1778-1779 New York, 1778

85 86

New York, 1779

96

British Military Theatre, 1779-1782 Staunton, 1779 Savannah, 1781

109 109 no

New York, 1779—1780 New York, 1780—1781 New York, 1782

113 120 127

SETTING THE STAGE: AMERICA ASCENDANT 8

133

American Plays and Amusements, 1780-1782 Reading, 1781 Philadelphia, 1780-1782: The Theatre Philadelphia, 1782: The Dauphinade John Henry

135 135 138 141 143

SETTING THE STAGE: AMERICA TRIUMPHANT

145

9

American Professional Theatre, 1781-1783 Baltimore and Annapolis, 1781 and 1782 Baltimore and Annapolis, 1782-1783 New York, 1782-1783

147 147 154 162

Epilogue

166

Appendix Notes Bibliography Index

173 189 211 221

Preface

I

N F O R M A T I O N C O N C E R N I N G 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. OdelPs 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 OdelPs 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 OdelPs; 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. vu

viii

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 between 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 material 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

ix

"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.

Prologue

G

CHRONICLERS 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 is 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."1 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

2


"Puritan attitudes,"2 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?"3 Whenever performances of plays seemed imminent, antitheatre diatribes were distributed. Titles such as "The Theatre, the High Road to Hell," were typical.4 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).5 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


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, Pennsylvania, 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 every 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 ofParthia. (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 objected to being parodied in the play. The Prince ofParthia was rushed into production and performed on April 24.)6 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 growing, 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 likewise tend generally to increase Immorality, impiety, and contempt ofreligion"1

In order to counter this hostility, the American Company advertised some of their plays as moral tracts8 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 Philadelphia, 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 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.9 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.10 If the lawmakers' intention was to eliminate all theatrical productions 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 professional 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 demonstrate 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.11 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


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.

Setting the Stage: Before the Revolution .MERICA 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 III 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

io


only a foretaste of what might occur if the Americans were not 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 century 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 Revolution. . . .*

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.

The Drama of the Approaching Revolution >EFORE 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),1 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." 2 Walter J. Meserve calls these plays, disseminated in "newspapers or in privately printed pamphlets, . . . a major source of literature during the war." 3 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 11

12


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.4 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."5 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."6 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.7 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."8 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).9 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. Warren 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,10 was a man she detested. The Adulateur represented her attempt to expose Hutchinson's duplicity. In the play, Rapatio's tal-

14


ent for dissembling is 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]11 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 - is 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. Warren as a writer having "no equal that I know of in this country." 12 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.13 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,14 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 is again the play's villainous figure, although his character remains offstage.


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,15 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,16 &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 Adulateury 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, I'll hazard all, but ne'er give up my place, For that I'll 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." 17


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.18 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.19 Although The Blockheads and The Motley Assembly lack 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 is 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.20 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 designed 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 animated discussion between articulate Tories on the one hand and inarticulate, bumbling Whigs on the other.21 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, if they did but know it!" Another Tory expresses the play's view of the Continental Congress: u[T]hey have blown up a spark, which was but kindling, into a raging conflagration. Their resolves are nothing short of high treason . . . they have remov'd us infinitely further from peace and


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."22 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."23 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.24

20


Trueman and Mean well 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, in Trueman's description, is "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 Mean well. The committee is 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 Mean well 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 opinion with me. During the committee's interrogation of the protagonists, Trueman 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


21

question and in its use of genuine dramatic action rather than mere discussion.25

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, irrevocable plunge into a bloody and uncertain destiny: revolution.

British Military Theatre, 1775—1777

T

HE FIRST THEATRICAL PERFORMANCES given by

JL British v the 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 references 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,"l 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.2 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


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 playbills3 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 handbills 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.4 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 convenient 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, 177s-1777

25

On SATURDAY next, will be PERFORMED, By a Society of LADIES and GENTLEMEN, atFANEUIL 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 Soldiers5 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 5 th Regiment; the epilogue was spoken by a ten-year-old girl.6 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, quelPd 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.7 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.8

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." 9 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 gaite, encore de la gaite, 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.10 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. T h e best known of Burgoyne's productions was The Blockade of Boston, & 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, reveals the irritation many Americans felt when the farce was announced:


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. (It is more probable, before that time, the poor wretches will be presented

with a Tragedy, called the BOMBARDMENT of Boston.)11 On January 8, 1776, after the chief play of the evening, The 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 11:00 or later.) 12 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 . . . immediately 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.13 Timothy NewelPs 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. 14

28


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.15 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 cowardice 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 in 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-


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.16 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.17 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 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.18 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.19 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 1777.20 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 Jones21 - 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.22 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


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."23 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.24 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."25 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 selling 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.26 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


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.27 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 1777.29 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 - departed 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.30 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


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, Jan. llth, to Friday, 17th. All quiet. Great preparations making for the Queen's Birth day on tomorrow the 18th. The King's Commissioners gave their first dinner on this day; a Ball and Fire Works at the General's in the Evening."31 Hugh Gaine provided an account of the festivities held in 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 ?2 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 intended 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


As in Boston, "Widows and Orphans" were billed as the beneficiaries 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,34 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, Tom 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 [sic] 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.35

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,"36 was repeated the following year in Philadelphia when Howe's officers began a series of performances there.37


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 performers 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 30th: For the BENEFIT of the ORPHANS and WIDOWS 0/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 CHARACTERS by GENTLEMEN of the NAVY and ARMY. BOXES, ONE DOLLAR. PIT, THREE SHILLIN GS , and GALLERY, TW O SHILLIN GS 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


productions scheduled for May i 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 expenditures, 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.)39 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-


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 century, that gesture with the right hand must always take precedence over gesture with the left: The left hand could supplement the gestures 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."41 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."42 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 influence of Charles Macklin and, especially, David Garrick, both of whom rose to prominence in England in the 1740 s, 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 portrayals 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 disliked 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.43 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


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 approach 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 is 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.

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 Inconstant [scheduled for February 27], they will perform on Thursday the Comedy of the Beaux Stratagem, with the Farce of, The Dfejuce is in Him: for the Relief of such of distressed Inhabitants of New-York as may be deemed Objects of Charity.44 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


men expected in Town, who were to have played it, are not yet returned."45 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.46

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 Spanish dollar The English pound sterling New England and Virginia New York and North Carolina New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland

For sterling subtract

4s 6d 6s 8s

9/16

7s 6d

3/5

1/4

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

41

comfortable income, and that the wealthy who lived in cities often spent in excess of £1,000 per year.47 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, 48 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." 49 A general rule of thumb is that the New York pound was worth roughly half as much as the British pound sterling.50 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 Half-Johannes Moidore Spanish dollar English shilling

£1

£3 £2

17s

4s 8s 8s is

9c!51

Attempting to reduce some of the confusion, Congress asked the states to stop printing money in 1777, but the states refused. 52 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 (i.e., a large cask) of wine was inflated from £48 in July 1774 to an incredible £12,375 l e s s t n a n seven years later.53 In 1779 alone, the inflation rate was 300%. 54 By 1780, Congress estimated that forty Continental dollars were required to equal one Spanish dollar.55 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. 56 American soldiers received Continental currency before April 1781

42


and were, therefore, notoriously badly paid. A month's wages in 1779 could purchase no more than one bottle of rum, 57 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 n a d been taken in, and nearly £2,765 expended. If fifteen performances were given, as is 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:

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 To amount of Candles as per acct 292 To amount of some Losses by tickets and bad money received at the doors 19

5 19

4 o

10

o

2,722

6

0

78 74

15

4 8

Income for 1777 was broken down as follows:

Credit By amount of fifteen plays By amount of Ld. Howe's subscription By amount of Sir Wm. Howe's do [ditto]

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." 58

British Military Theatre, 177$-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."59 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, nd Foot, Captain Wm. Loftus, Guards, Captain Edward Bradden, 15th Foot, Lieut. Pennefeather, Captain Phipps, Captain Stanley. . . ."60 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.61 However, Dunlap, who was eleven years old in 1777, relied heavily in his account of that season's performances (published in 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 is 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."62 If his figure is accurate, amateur presentations would have cost a good deal of money in a theatre that the

44


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. Andre 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,"63 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."64 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

Miscellaneous Diversions: Philadelphia, 1778 I J L F T E 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. l 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 hillsides 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


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 is a capital joke."2 Benjamin Franklin also noted Howe's inability to put military matters ahead of social ones. When he was informed that Howe had captured Philadelphia, he is said to have responded, "No, Philadelphia has captured Howe."3 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,4 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."5

The Theatre Dramatic activities began to be planned as soon as the city was fortified.6 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,7 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.8 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 performances 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 MONDAY 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 Haifa Dollar.9 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 exist10 (approximately one thousand handbills were printed and posted throughout Philadelphia to advertise each performance); others were advertised in the Pennsylvania Ledger (see Appendix §3). The prologue for the inaugural production of No One s Enemy but His Own and The Deuce is in Him was written by the Reverend Jonathan 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.n

48


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, is desired to send to the Office of the Theatre in Front-Street, that it may be returned."12 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,"13 and on February 28 a handbill announced the postponement of another play "for very particular Reasons,"14 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."15 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 The 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."16 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.17 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.18 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 Andre and Captain Delancey were among the performers. Delancey was an outstanding actor, North remembered, but Andre, he said, was not.19 On the other hand, Seilhamer doubted that Andre acted in Philadelphia, believing that Andre's "connection with the amateur theatricals of the period was confined to his contributions as a scenic artist."20 Unfortunately, the newspapers of the day offer no information whatever concerning the identities of the actors.

5/fe Aj»g Henry IV and The Mock Doctor King Henry IV and L^A^ 77^ Wonder and y4 7h/> ^ Scotland 77^ Wonder and 7%^ Tkfo^ Doctor 7%^ Lfy]ar and v4 7>^ ^ Scotland 77^ Lfyjar and Dw&£ ^wi A/i? Z)w^ Douglas and 77^ Citizen

4. Productions of the American Military at Valley Forgey 1778 Apr. 15 May 11

? Cato

$. Productions of the American Military in Philadelphia, 1778 A brief series of plays beginning in September, one of which was 77^ Lying Valet

Known Theatrical Productions Given during the Revolution

175

6. Productions of the American Military in Portsmouth, 1778 A brief series of plays including Coriolanus and Cato

7. Productions of the British Military in New York, 1778 Jan. 6 Douglas and The Apprentice Jan. 9 Douglas and The Apprentice Jan. 15 The West Indian and Lethe Jan. 22 The West Indian and 77^ Citizen Jan. 29 77^ / w Penitent and 7%£ Citizen Feb. 5 77^ i w Penitent and /W/y Honeycombe Feb. 16 or 18 The Jealous Wife and 77^ ykfo^ Doctor Feb. 20 77^ ^ t f Trc&w Feb. 27 77^ Jealous Wife and 77^ Z/ymg Valet Mar. 6 J^mV^ Preserv[']d and 77^ Lj/mg J^/^ Mar. 13 7%£ i?z/sj/ j?orfj/ and The Lying Valet Mar. 16 Venice Preserv[']d and an unspecified farce Mar. 20 77^ i?wsj/ Body and 77^ Mayor ofGarratt Mar. 27 Othello and 77^ Mayor ofGarratt Apr. 3 77^ Recruiting Ojficer and 77^ //ymg F#/

The Theatre in America during the Revolution (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Censorship of the American Theatre in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

African American Theatre: An Historical and Critical Analysis (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

American Drama: The Bastard Art (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Expressionism and Modernism in the American Theatre: Bodies, Voices, Words (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Professions in Contemporary Drama (Theatre Studies)

Theatre and Empowerment: Community Drama on the World Stage (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

Strindberg on Drama and Theatre

The Royal Court Theatre and the Modern Stage (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

The Playful Revolution: Theatre and Liberation in Asia (Drama and Performance Studies)

The Cambridge History of American Theatre

Theatre Studies: the Basics

Key concepts in Theatre Drama Education

Drawing Upon the Past: Classical Theatre in the Contemporary American Theatre (Artists and issues in the theatre)

Theatre and Humanism: English Drama in the Sixteenth Century

The Political Theatre of David Edgar: Negotiation and Retrieval (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

Theatre Matters: Performance and Culture on the World Stage (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

The Edexcel AS Drama and Theatre Studies Student Book

Theatre and The City (Theatre &)

Ghosts of Theatre and Cinema in the Brain (Palgrave Studies in Theatre and Performance History)

Anthropocosmic Theatre: Rite in the Dynamics of Theatre (Routledge Harwood Contemporary Theatre Studies)

Directors and the New Musical Drama: British and American Musical Theatre in the 1980s and 90s

Greek Tragic Theatre (Theatre Production Studies)

Applied Drama: the Gift of Theatre

Gardzienice: Polish Theatre in Transition ((Contemporary Theatre Studies))

American Theatre: A Chronicle of Comedy and Drama, 1930-1969 (American Theatre : a Chronicle of Comedy and Drama)

Women in Theatre (Contemporary Theatre Review Series)

Holocaust Drama: The Theater of Atrocity (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

Opera and Drama in Eighteenth-Century London: The King's Theatre, Garrick and the Business of Performance (Cambridge Studies in Opera)

Jacobean Public Theatre (Theatre Production Studies)

The Theatre in America during the Revolution (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Censorship of the American Theatre in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Dramaturgy: A Revolution in Theatre (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

African American Theatre: An Historical and Critical Analysis (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

American Drama: The Bastard Art (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Expressionism and Modernism in the American Theatre: Bodies, Voices, Words (Cambridge Studies in American Theatre and Drama)

Professions in Contemporary Drama (Theatre Studies)

Theatre and Empowerment: Community Drama on the World Stage (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

Strindberg on Drama and Theatre

The Royal Court Theatre and the Modern Stage (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

The Playful Revolution: Theatre and Liberation in Asia (Drama and Performance Studies)

The Cambridge History of American Theatre

Theatre Studies: the Basics

Key concepts in Theatre Drama Education

Drawing Upon the Past: Classical Theatre in the Contemporary American Theatre (Artists and issues in the theatre)

Theatre and Humanism: English Drama in the Sixteenth Century

The Political Theatre of David Edgar: Negotiation and Retrieval (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

Theatre Matters: Performance and Culture on the World Stage (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

The Edexcel AS Drama and Theatre Studies Student Book

Theatre and The City (Theatre &)

Ghosts of Theatre and Cinema in the Brain (Palgrave Studies in Theatre and Performance History)

Anthropocosmic Theatre: Rite in the Dynamics of Theatre (Routledge Harwood Contemporary Theatre Studies)

Directors and the New Musical Drama: British and American Musical Theatre in the 1980s and 90s

Greek Tragic Theatre (Theatre Production Studies)

Applied Drama: the Gift of Theatre

Gardzienice: Polish Theatre in Transition ((Contemporary Theatre Studies))

American Theatre: A Chronicle of Comedy and Drama, 1930-1969 (American Theatre : a Chronicle of Comedy and Drama)

Women in Theatre (Contemporary Theatre Review Series)

Holocaust Drama: The Theater of Atrocity (Cambridge Studies in Modern Theatre)

Opera and Drama in Eighteenth-Century London: The King's Theatre, Garrick and the Business of Performance (Cambridge Studies in Opera)

Jacobean Public Theatre (Theatre Production Studies)

Recommend Documents