1. Writing in the 1960s and 70s for example, Richard Moody and Walter Meserve discussed Burk's Bunker-Hill at some length in their books, but they categorized it simply as a patriotic piece and did not discuss its political subtleties. See Meserve, , An Emerging Entertainment: The Drama of the American People to 1828 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), 119–125Google Scholar, and Moody, , ed., Dramas from the American Theatre 1762–1909, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1966), 61– 69Google Scholar. Although more conscious of the political and cultural context of theatre than Meserve and Moody, Gary Richardson in his recent book has helped to perpetuate the image of the play as nationalistic by highlighting its “romance and theatrical spectacle” rather than its partisan political rhetoric. Richardson, Gary, American Drama from the Colonial Period through World War I (New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993), 55Google Scholar.

2. I have dealt earlier with some of these issues in “Federalist and Republican Theatre in the 1790s,” Theatre Symposium, 5 (1997): 78–94Google Scholar.

3. Clapp, William W., A Record of the Boston Stage (Boston: James Munroe and Company, 1853), 55Google Scholar.

4. Meserve suggested that Adams's strident reaction to the play stemmed from a strong scene in which Warren goes into battle. “Warren and Prescot prepare for war with the rallying cry, 'Liberty or Death.' It is probably this scene, in which Burk made Warren act with strong determination for victory, that offended John Adams. Warren draws his sword and makes the following speech: 'Now savage strife and fury fill my soul - / And when my nature yields to self-compassion/ Let Boston's injuries rise before my view/ And steel my heart to pity' (IV, ii).” Meserve, Emerging Entertainment, 123. Meserve may be partly right in proposing that these words made Warren out to be more savage than he was in real life, but in addition there is an important underlying rhetoric and a partisan quality to which Adams was very sensitive. For example, Adams may have been more aggrieved by Warren's denunciation of social inequalities and aristocratic titles. Meserve also expressed difficulty in explaining the early critical response to Burk's play. “The odd part of the response to Bunker-Hill is the conscientious effort on the part of most early historians and critics to deplore it, particularly when the play was certainly no worse than many of the plays being produced at that time and even better than a substantial number. Although no one would contend that the play is great drama, the ardor with which some of the early condemnations seem to single out this play suggests a confluence of criticism for whatever reasons may be imagined” (122). Later, he suggested surprisingly that the continuing success of the play might have caused critics to attack it “Perhaps its repetition simply gave critics more opportunity to express their views” (123). Rather than placing Dunlap's comments in the context of a partisan reaction to the play, Richard Moody discussed their financial implications, “Perhaps Dunlap's later failure as a theatre manager resulted from such fanciful disregard for the box office.” Moody, Dramas from the American Theatre, 65.

5. There was, of course, a fundamental contradiction in the position of many Democratic Republicans (including Jefferson) who promoted the egalitarian principles of the French revolution while engaging in the practice of slavery.

6. Adams, John, The Political Writings of John Adams, ed. Peek, George A. Jr. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1954), 115Google Scholar.

7. See Curti, Merle, The Growth of American Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 184Google Scholar. Adams managed to push through the Senate the title “His Highness the President of the United States of America and the Protector of the Rights of the Same” but it foundered in the House of Representatives. See Morison, Samuel Eliot and Commager, Henry Steele, and Leuchtenburg, William E., The Growth of the American Republic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 1: 285Google Scholar.

8. Warren, Mercy, History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution. (New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1970), 3: 392Google Scholar.

9. McDonald, Forrest, Alexander Hamilton (New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1982), 104Google Scholar, and Morison, et al. , Growth of the American Republic 1: 327Google Scholar.

10. Quoted in Curti, Growth of American Thought, 184.

11. Quoted in Morison, et al. , Growth of the American Republic, 1: 300Google Scholar.

12. See Peterson, Merrill D., Adams and Jefferson: A Revolutionary Dialogue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 58Google Scholar.

13. Richard Butsch in his valuable article “American Theatre Riots and Class Relations, 1754–1849” tends to imply that the two factions divided along class lines, i.e. rich employers and professionals against artisans. While there is some truth in this, the alliances were more complex. For example, the rich planters in the south tended to favor the Democratic Republican position because they opposed a strong central government and because they feared having to repay their debts to Britain. See Butsch, Richard, “American Theatre Riots and Class Relations, 1754–1849,“ Theatre Annual 48 (1995): 41–59Google Scholar.

14. Dunlap, William, History of the American Theatre, 2 vols. (London: Richard Bentley, 1833), 1:214Google Scholar.

15. According to the theatre historian Arthur Hobson Quinn, “In 1798 the Chestnut Street Theatre was nightly a scene of rivalry between the two parties as to which could stir up more enthusiasm for its favorites.” Quinn, Arthur, History of the American Drama from the Beginning to the Civil War (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1923), 130, note 1Google Scholar. William Dunlap also refers to a disturbance in the New York theatre when the orchestra leader was not “ready with a popular air when called upon” by Democratic Republicans. Dunlap, , History of American Theatre, 1:210Google Scholar.

16. See Clapp, Record of the Boston Stage, 22–23.

17. Quoted in Clapp, Record of the Boston Stage, 26.

18. Burk, John, Bunker-Hill; or, The Death of General Warren (New York: Publications of the Dunlap Society, 1891), 12Google Scholar; Clapp, Record of the Boston Stage, 50–51.

19. New England Magazine 3(1832): 38–39Google Scholar.

20. Hornblow, Arthur, A History of the Theatre in America (Philadelphia: Lippincott Company, 1919), 1:237Google Scholar.

21. Clapp, Record of the Boston Stage, 14–15.

22. The manager of the Haymarket theatre, according to William Clapp, “availed himself of the strong political antagonism which prevailed between the Federalists and so-called jacobins to induce the latter to believe that the old theatre was managed with a view of promoting political animosities.” Clapp, , “The Drama in Boston,” in The Memorial History of Boston, ed. Winsor, Justin (Boston: J.R. Osgood and Co., 1881), 4: 363Google Scholar. It may also have been partly to appeal to Democratic Republican tastes that Powell hired French and Irish and not just English actors for his company. The actor who played General Warren, for example, was an Irishman.

23. Clapp, Record of the Boston Stage, 36–7.

24. Boston Gazette, 9 May 1796.

25. Dunlap, , History of the American Theatre, 1: 312Google Scholar. The rivalry between the theatres continued until the Federal Street Theatre burned down in 1798. See William Clapp, “The Drama in Boston,” 363–64.

26. Polar Star and Daily Advertiser, 26 October 1796.

27. Polar Star and Daily Advertiser, 6 January 1797.

28. Burk, Bunker-Hill, 1.

29. Burk claimed impartiality for his Polar Star and Daily Advertiser, but it was clearly pro-French, anti-British, and anti-monarchist. During the 1796 election campaign between Adams and Jefferson, Burk hinted at his support for Jefferson. The Time-Piece, which he edited in 1798, was much more outspoken about its Democratic Republican sympathies. (See The Time-Piece, April-July 1798.)

30. At the same time that Burr negotiated for Burk's case to be dismissed on condition that Burk leave the country, Burr wrote to James Monroe asking him to help Burk. “Mr. Burk who will present you this, is a young Gentleman in whose Welfare I feel much interested—His enthusiasm in the cause of liberty, his talents, and his literary acquirements, very uncommon at his period of life, entitle him to respect, attention and patronage.” Political Correspondence and Public Papers of Aaron Burr, ed. Kline, Mary-Jo (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1983), 1: 361Google Scholar.

31. Bruce McConachie has observed that “bashing the Brits played a targe role in defining republican nationalism.” See McConachie, , “American Theatre in Context, from the Beginnings to 1870,” in The Cambridge History of American Theatre, ed. Wilmeth, Don and Bigsby, Christopher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1:135Google Scholar.

32. Dunlap, , History of American Theatre, 1: 314Google Scholar.

33. Quoted in Dunlap, , History of American Theatre, 1:313–314Google Scholar.

34. Quoted in Peterson, , Adams and Jefferson, 54–55Google Scholar.

35. Quoted in Banning, Lance, The Jeffersonian Persuasion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 13Google Scholar.

36. Quoted in Dunlap, , History of American Theatre, 1: 313–314Google Scholar.

37. Columbia Centinel, 22 February 1797.

38. Ibid.

39. Ibid.

40. Sollee's name is often also spelled Solee.

41. Dunlap, William, The Diary of William Dunlap (New York: The New York Historical Society, 1931), 1: 144Google Scholar; also Dunlap, , History of the American Theatre, 1: 313Google Scholar.

42. Dunlap, , History of the American Theatre, 1: 371–372Google Scholar.

43. Major John André acted and helped in the staging of British military plays from 1777 until he was captured and hanged by the Patriots for espionage in 1780. See Dunlap, , History of the American Theatre, I: 94–95Google Scholar, and Brown, Jared, The Theatre in America During the Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44. William Dunlap, Darby's Return in Ford, Paul L., Washington and the Theatre (New York: Dunlap Society, 1899), 12Google Scholar. Although Dunlap admitted in the preface to the play that it was a slight piece, it was printed many times apparently with the encouragement of his friends. See Dunlap, , The Diary of William Dunlap, 1: 160Google Scholar.

45. Coad, Oral S., William Dunlap (New York: The Dunlap Society, 1917), 49–50Google Scholar.

46. Dunlap, , The Diary of William Dunlap, 1: 175Google Scholar.

47. Richardson, American Drama, 57 and 60.

48. Dunlap, William, André, in Representative American Plays, ed. Quinn, Arthur Hobson (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953), 108Google Scholar.

49. Commercial Advertiser, 31 March 1798.

50. Dunlap, , The Diary of William Dunlap, 1: 237Google Scholar.

51. Coad, William Dunlap, 62.

52. According to Joseph Shulim, Matthew Davis, the other co-editor, probably carried out the editorial duties until Burk took charge from 11 April 1798. Shulim, Joseph I., “John Daly Burk: Irish Revolutionist and American Patriot,” in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54 (October 1964): 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This would mean that the advance publicity for Female Patriotism (quoted in the text) appeared in The Time-Piece on the same day as Burk took over as editor.

53. Time Piece, 4 April 1798.

54. Ibid.

55. Dunlap, , The Diary of William Dunlap, 1: 221Google Scholar.

56. Ibid., 226.

57. Ibid., 244.

58. Burk used the scene in which Joan La Pucelle recognizes the king in disguise and introduces herself. Burk used the same name for Joan of Arc as Shakespeare. Pucelle means young virgin.

59. Beauvais is spelled Beuvais for the first half of the play.

60. Burk, John, Female Patriotism, or The Death of Joan D'Arc (New York: Printed by R.M. Hurtin, 1798), 21Google Scholar.

61. Miller, John C., The Federalist Era: 1789–1801 (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), 212–213Google Scholar.

62. Time Piece, 11 April 1798.

63. Time Piece, 25 April 1798.

64. Dunlap, , The Diary of William Dunlap, 1: 251Google Scholar.

65. Monthly Magazine and American Review 3 (December 1800): 455Google Scholar.

66. Quoted in Moody, Dramas from the American Theatre, 66.

67. Bunker-Hill continued to be performed successfully in New York and elsewhere through the Jacksonian era. It was printed in 1797 and reprinted in 1808 and 1817. Charles Blake attested to its ongoing success, observing that the play “has proved very remunerative to the theatrical treasury in Boston. It was very well received here [in Providence when it was first produced] and the company then left town, to produce it in Newport. Miserable as the play was it survived many dramas superior to it in every respect, and is now sometimes brought out on the fourth of July in New England cities for the benefit of visitors from the rural districts.” Quoted in Burk, Bunker-Hill, 12.

68. Because 4 July 1803 was a Sunday, the play was performed on the following day.

69. Quoted in Coad, William Dunlap, 74–75.