Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T18:27:38.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Love à la Mode and Macklin's Return to the London Stage in 1759

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Matthew J. Kinservik
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the 1750s, Charles Macklin's theatrical career was in limbo. While he is now remembered and studied as an important playwright and one of the principal (and longest-lived) actors of the eighteenth century, by the mid-1750s he can only have felt that he was a failure. Poor relations with the managers of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, a series of unsuccessful plays, and a diminishing repertory of roles led to his (enforced) retirement in 1753. He then opened a tavern, which quickly bankrupted him. Too little attention has been paid to this grim period in Macklin's career and to the triumphant retrieval of his theatrical fortunes in 1759 with his farce Love à la Mode. The importance of Macklin's return to the stage was recognized by William W. Appleton, who devoted an entire chapter of his 1960 biography of Macklin to this episode. Nonetheless, several important biographical questions remained unanswered or insufficiently answered—questions I would like to reopen based on some newly discovered evidence.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Survey , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , November 1996 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © American Society for Theatre Research 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Charles Macklin: An Actor's Life (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1960), 109–126Google Scholar.

2. The farces are as follows: A Will and No Will; or, A Bone for the Lawyers (1746), The New Play Criticiz'd; or, The Plague of Envy (1747), The Club of Fortune-Hunters; or, The Widow Bewitched (1748), and Covent Garden Theatre; or, Pasquin Turned Drawcansir (1752). Macklin's one full-length play was the tragedy King Henry VII, or, The Popish Impostor (1746), a response to the Jacobite rebellion of 1745. Macklin also wrote an adaptation of John Ford's Lover's Melancholy in 1748. Three of these plays have been reprinted in Augustan Reprint Society editions: Covent Garden Theatre; or, Pasquin Turned Drawcansir, Kern, Jean B., ed. (Los Angeles: Clark Memorial Library, U. of California, Los Angeles, 1965)Google Scholar; A Will and No Will; or A Bone for the Lawyers; and The New Play Criticiz'd; or The Plague of Envy; Kern, Jean B., ed. (Los Angeles: Clark Memorial Library, U. of California, Los Angeles, 1967)Google Scholar.

3. Appleton calls it an epilogue (97), and The Gray's Inn Journal prints it as an epilogue on 29 December 1753. The Public Advertiser calls it a both a prologue and epilogue in advertisements from 12–20 December 1753, but Richard Cross calls it a “farewell Prologue.” See the 20 December 1753 entry in The London Stage, 1660–1800, Part 4: 1747–1776, ed. Stone, George Winchester Jr (Carbondale: Southern Illinois U. Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

4. See also The London Stage entry for 20 December 1753, which quotes a Winston ms. as saying “Macklin discharged last June from Covent Garden, one night given him at Drury Lane.”

5. Stone's inclusion of Macklin in the Drury Lane roster for 1753–54 is misleading, because Macklin acted only in his farewell performance that season. Indeed, The Gentleman's Magazine of December 1753 suggests that Macklin's farewell performance was made possible by the generosity of Samuel Foote, not of Garrick. A note on Macklin's final performance says that “Mr Foot resigned his turn of a benefit to him, and acted Buck” (589). Foote later had a benefit on 22 February 1754.

6. See The Public Advertiser for 11 March 1754.

7. For a fuller treatment of Macklin's misfortunes as a tavern-keeper and orator, see Appleton, 98–108.

8. Cooke, William, Memoirs of Charles Macklin (London: 1804), 212Google Scholar.

9. See Stockwell, La Tourette, Dublin Theatres and Theatre Customs (1637–1820) (Kingsport, Tenn.: The Kingsport Press, 1938), 117–173Google Scholar; Kavanagh, Peter, The Irish Theatre (Tralee: The Kerryman Ltd., 1946), 279–296Google Scholar; and Sheldon, Esther K., Thomas Sheridan of Smock-Alley (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1967), 225–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10. Cooke, 213. Stockwell suggests that Barry had begun negotiations with the owners of the Music Hall in Crow Street (the site on which the theatre was built) alone in 1756, with Macklin joining the project after the negotiations had begun (118–23). But Appleton, following Cooke, says that Macklin and Barry were partners from the outset (110).

11. Seldon establishes the 1756 date (225–26).

12. Cooke, 213; Appleton, 110.

13. The headnote to the 1757–58 season in The London Stage says that Barry's contract entitled him to one-third of the take (minus £80 house charges) for each night that he performed.

14. Victor, Benjamin, The History of the Theatres of London and Dublin From the Year 1730 to the Present Time, vol. 1 (London, 1761): 223–226. Victor claims he made the trip in 1758, but Sheldon certainly is right in dating the trip 1757 (227–29)Google Scholar.

15. Stockwell, 121.

16. Sheldon establishes this date from a notice in The Dublin Journal of 5–7 July 1757 (229:74)Google Scholar.

17. Sheldon, 229. Cooke says that Macklin remains in Dublin from June 1757 to fall of 1758 to supervise construction of the theatre (219–20), which Sheldon shows is untrue.

18. Appleton, 113; Cooke, 163; Kirkman, James T., Memoirs of the Life of Charles Macklin (London: Lackington, 1799), 1; 377Google Scholar.

19. Call no.: Y.c.98 (2–3).

20. Indeed, she did not go to Dublin, although Barry had assigned her one-eighth of his share in the Crow Street profits. See the entry on her in A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660–1800, Highfill, Philip H. Jr, Burnim, Kalman A., and Langhans, Edward A., eds. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois U. Press, 1973–1993), 11; 64–67Google Scholar.

21. While Barry merely refers to “Chambers” in the letter, he seems to have meant Mr. Chambers, the stagehand, and not Elizabeth Chambers, the actress. In a list of actors and stagehands that Drury Lane and Covent Garden lost to Crow Street, Cross specifically refers to “Mr Chambers;” see the 16 September 1758 entry in The London Stage.

22. Crow Street proved to be a disastrous investment for Woodward, who supposedly lost £3000 in just four years. See the Biographical Dictionary, 16; 256Google Scholar.

23. Call no.: Y.c.98 (2–3).

24. This explanation seems to have originated with Cooke (217–19). It is repeated in Genest, John, Some Account of the English Stage (Bath: Carrington, 1832), 10, 414–415; in Stockwell, 342; and in Appleton, 113–14. Sheldon is far more circumspect, offering a number of possible explanations but settling on none (248:146)Google Scholar.

25. Memoirs of the Life of David Garrick, 4th ed. (London: 1784), 1:266–267Google Scholar.

26. Call no.: bMS Thr32.

27. Edward Abbott Parry claims that Macklin had negotiated an agreement with Barry and Woodward through a third party to appear in comic roles at Crow Street for a “large salary” but offers no proof for this claim. See his Charles Macklin (New York: Longman, Green, and Co., 1891), 110. See Stockwell for the sale to Woodward (383)Google Scholar.

28. Stockwell, 342; Appleton, 114.

29. Folger, call no.: Y.c.1428 (1).

30. Victor, 1:266; Stockwell, 125; Appleton, 116; Sheldon, 249.

31. Victor, 1:258–59; 265–66.

32. Cooke, 223–25. James Boswell records a 1781 conversation with Macklin in which Macklin says that Love à la Mode first was conceived at his house in Great Russell Street: “He said he wished to give a trueborn Scotsman, a trueborn Englishman, a trueborn Irishman, and a trueborn Welshman.” See Private Papers of James Boswell from Malahide Castle, eds. Scott, Geoffrey and Pottle, Frederick A. (USA: published privately, 1932): 14, 238Google Scholar.

33. Appleton, 117; Cooke, 1, 226–28.

34. Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Second, ed. Holland, Lord (London: Henry Colburn, 1846), 3, 251Google Scholar.

35. Conolly, L.W., The Censorship of English Drama 1737–1824 (San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1976), 81Google Scholar. After Love à la Mode's premiere, the farce inspired a bitter anonymous pamphlet entitled A Scotsman's Remarks on the Farce of Love à la Mode (London, 1760)Google Scholar.

36. Findlay, Robert R., “Macklin's Legitimate Acting Version of Love à la Mode.” PQ 45:4 (October 1966): 749–760, esp. 756–58Google Scholar.

37. Findlay, 757–58. While Findlay surmises that Bute may have been responsible for instigating the Scotch outcry against the farce, he seems to have been unaware of Walpole's claim that Bute sought to have it suppressed (756).

38. The entire contract is transcribed under the 12 December 1759 entry in The London Stage.

39. The prologue is bound into the extra-illustrated Kirkman 1:2, opposite p. 410. Interlinings are bracketed by carets, and single-underlined words are actually double-underlined in the MS.

40. Appleton says that the Drury Lane actors greeted Macklin's return with hostility (118).

41. See the 12 December 1759 entry in The London Stage.

42. While receipts do not reflect exclusive interest in Love à la Mode (spectators on any given night may have come to see whatever mainpiece was offered), my figures suggest the maximum amount of money generated by the farce.

43. “P. Pit” refers to the half of the pit on the prompter's side of the stage; “O. Pit” refers to the opposite side.

44. See the 17 January 1760 entry in The London Stage for reference to the amphitheatre.

45. A total of 546 persons is a feasible number for Drury Lane by this date. See Langhans, Edward A., “The Theatres” in The London Theatre World, 1660–1800, ed. Hume, Robert D. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois U. Press, 1980), 35–65; esp. 62Google Scholar.

46. Obviously Drury Lane kept only house charges when Love à la Mode was played for Maria Macklin's 25 March 1760 benefit.

47. Stone writes, in a note in The London Stage about the 4 April 1761 performance of The Merchant of Venice and Isaac Bickerstaff's Thomas and Sally, that “Macklin seems to have received nothing for this performance as receipts did not equal the house charges of £63.” However, because no Macklin play was featured, there is no indication that he would have received a fifth of the profits. The only other night that Macklin acted when a play of his was not on the bill was the 4 May benefit for Jonathan Ballard, the treasurer. Macklin obviously took no cut for that performance.

48. Appleton mistakenly says that the three author benefits were for Love à la Mode and omits the final performance of Love à la Mode on 15 April in his account of its 1760–61 run (122).

49. This amount does not include the four nonbenefit nights when The Married Libertine played with Love à la Mode (i.e., 2, 3, 7, and 9 February), because Love à la Mode on the playbills for those nights may have attracted the audience more than The Married Libertine. By counting only the three author's benefits and the two nights that the play ran without the farce (i.e., 28–29 January), we can determine how much money The Married Libertine generated on its own.

50. See Appleton, 125–26; and the 2 February and 7 February 1761 entries in The London Stage.

51. See the 24 April 1761 entry in The London Stage.

52. Memoirs, vol. 2 (York, 1790): 262Google Scholar.

53. See also the letter from Macklin to Wilkinson of 22 April 1769 transcribed in Appleton, 123.

54. Findlay, 752:10.

55. See also Matthews', W. “The Piracies of Macklin's Love à la Mode.” Review of English Studies 10 (1934): 311–318. Findlay responds to thisCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. Findlay, 753:16.

57. The Folger Shakespeare Library owns a manuscript copy of Love à la Mode that is not in Macklin's hand (call no.: D.a.48). The copy is very neatly transcribed and includes stages directions that suggest it was copied from a prompt book, not a pirated edition. The volume also contains MS versions of Sheridan's The Duenna (1775, published 1794); Foote's The Devil on Two Sticks [partial] (1768, published 1778), and Piety in Pattens (1773, but not published until 1973); Garrick's Harlequin's Invasion [partial] (1759, published 1926) and Linco's Travels (1767, published 1785); and George Saville Carey's The Old Women Weather wise (published 1770). All of the plays are in the same hand. An inscription on the first leaf reads as follows: “Isabella Donnman presented by M' Riotti 1812;” and the volume contains the book plate of “I. Booth Corker.”