Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of illustrations
- Acknowledgements
- Note on dates and texts
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Look, my lord, it comes
- Chapter 3 An obstinately shadowy Titan
- Chapter 4 An actor of London: early years, 1635–1659
- Chapter 5 A walk in the park
- Chapter 6 In the Duke’s Company, 1660–1663
- Chapter 7 Equal with the highest
- Chapter 8 Actor management
- Chapter 9 In the Company of the Duke
- Chapter 10 Union
- Chapter 11 Back to the future
- Chapter 12 Books and pictures
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Chapter 10 - Union
Betterton and theatrical monopoly, 1682–1695
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of illustrations
- Acknowledgements
- Note on dates and texts
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Look, my lord, it comes
- Chapter 3 An obstinately shadowy Titan
- Chapter 4 An actor of London: early years, 1635–1659
- Chapter 5 A walk in the park
- Chapter 6 In the Duke’s Company, 1660–1663
- Chapter 7 Equal with the highest
- Chapter 8 Actor management
- Chapter 9 In the Company of the Duke
- Chapter 10 Union
- Chapter 11 Back to the future
- Chapter 12 Books and pictures
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Even without the Popish Plot crisis, the Duke’s Company’s rivals would have driven themselves into the ground. Years of squabbling led to a prolonged closure of the King’s Theatre in 1681, the old season ending early and the new one scarcely beginning. Merger talks followed. On the King’s Company’s side sat Charles Hart, by now trying to provide for his own retirement, and Edward Kynaston, Betterton’s oldest acquaintance in the theatre world. The trust that came of old alliances was vital, for no other King’s personnel knew about the talks, least of all their owner-manager, the vexed and devious Charles Killigrew.
Betterton and Smith took the initiative in complete accord with their own patentee, Charles Davenant, who had inherited his right from Sir William. On 14 October 1681, Hart and Kynaston agreed startling preliminary conditions: not to act for their company or assist it, to pay the Duke’s any money they received from it, and to yield all rights to King’s plays and properties. They would encourage a union between the two companies and, if necessary, sue Killigrew to achieve it. Hart was to be paid five shillings per acting day and Kynaston ten, but the old prohibition against actors moving companies presented an obstacle. It took months to bring the agreement into daylight: the Articles of Union were not signed until 4 May 1682. In the midst of these machinations Betterton had one of his quietest winters as a performer. Desperate to see a return on his investment, Charles Killigrew agreed to the deal and he did well enough from it to suggest that Hart had been pushing at an open door – fifteen per cent of the new company’s profits and joint ownership with Charles Davenant. Killigrew did not stop to ask the investors who held shares in the Drury Lane theatre, so inviting a raft of unsuccessful legal challenges.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Thomas BettertonThe Greatest Actor of the Restoration Stage, pp. 137 - 153Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010