Full text of "The stage history of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third"

See other formats

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH

THE STAGE HISTORY OF
KING RICHARD THE THIRD

THE STAGE HISTORY

OF SHAKESPEARE'S
KING RICHARD THE THIRD

ALICE I^PERRY WOOD, PH.D.

ftt

fork

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS
1909

Printed from type May, 1909

PRESS OF

THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY
LANCASTER. PA.

This Monograph has been approved by the Department of Eng
lish in Columbia University as a contribution to knowledge worthy

of publication.

A. H. THORNDIKE,

Secretary.

fflntltrr

WITH GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION

PREFACE

In the following pages it is my purpose to trace the fortune
upon the stage of one of the most popular of Shakespeare's
plays, " The Tragedy of King Richard the Third." In such
a history, the consideration of -the play as literature must be
entirely subordinated to the exhibition of its capacity for stage
effectiveness, and its success, deserved or not, with the public.
For this reason, discussions of text, date and authorship, are
deemed out of the province of this enquiry. While the mate
rials for such a study, especially in the earlier history of the
play, are scant, it has been my aim to give such records of
performances as are extant, with the conditions of staging, the
use of scenery, properties, and costume, the methods of actors,
especially of those who have taken the principal part, and the
attitude of the audience in successive periods and under vary
ing conditions. Since there is little direct information con
cerning the play during the Elizabethan period, I have at
tempted to supply this lack in some measure, by an examina
tion of the typical plays of the time, with a view to discovering
the stage conditions which affected the original presentation.
Having established the prevailing methods of staging by care
ful reference to the directions in contemporary plays, and by
noting the favorite devices, and the management of situations
similar to those occurring in this play, I have thought it pos
sible, by a comparative method, to reconstruct the presentation
of " Richard the Third " in Shakespeare's time.

The work naturally falls into well-marked divisions. First,
the history of the play from its earliest performance to the
closing of the theatres. The next period extends from the
opening of the theatres to 1700, a time of general rather than
particular importance to our subject. With the beginning of
the eighteenth century, the Gibber version of " Richard the
Third," the best known of all the adaptations of Shakespeare,
appeared, and this constitutes the main feature of the history
of the play during the century. Garrick initiates a new era
in the history of acting in the mid-eighteenth century and I
have therefore made his age the beginning of a fourth period.
This extends through the career of Sir Henry Irving. The

fortune of " Richard the Third " in America deserves a place
in the history of this play, both because of its intrinsic interest
and because of its importance in American theatrical develop
ment, and the last chapter therefore gives the main facts of its
history in this country, from its first performance in 1750,
through the life-time of Edwin Booth. The study ends with
such indications of general tendencies in the presentation of
the play as I have gathered in the course of this investigation.

While the general purpose is expressed in the opening sen
tence of these introductory remarks, it is hoped that a farther
aim has not been entirely lost sight of, and that this work has
served to add some slight evidence for the worthier estimation
of Shakespeare's genius as one that but turned to most signifi
cant use the common materials lying close to the hands of all.

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for many
courtesies received at the Astor, Lenox and Columbia libraries,
and my indebtedness to the various members of the English
department at Columbia University. Especially do I wish to
thank Professor G. R. Carpenter, whose advice and encourage
ment have been invaluable ; Professor W. P. Trent, for helpful
counsel; Professor W. W. Lawrence, for reading the manu
script; Professor Brander Matthews, for reading the manu
script and furnishing some data; Professor W. A. Neilson,
now of Harvard University, at whose suggestion this subject
was undertaken ; and Professor A. H. Thorndike, whose
method of procedure I have adopted and who, throughout the
work, has aided generously with suggestion and criticism.

A. I. P. W.

VASSAR COLLEGE,
December 13, 1908.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RICHARD THE THIRD IN ITS RELATION TO CONTEMPORARY
PLAYS i

II
RICHARD THE THIRD ON THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE 25

III

RICHARD THE THIRD AND THE DRAMA OF THE RESTORA
TION 60

IV
THE GIBBER VERSION OF RICHARD THE THIRD 76

V
FROM GARRICK TO IRVING — 1741-1897 101

VI
RICHARD THE THIRD IN AMERICA 134

VII

CONCLUSION 166

BIBLIOGRAPHY 172

INDEX 179

L'opinion generalement etablie sur Richard a pu contribuer au succes de
la piece qui porte son nom : aucun peut-etre des ouvrages de Shakspeare
n'est demeure aussi populaire en Angleterre. Les critique ne 1'ont pas en
general traite aussi favorablement que le public ; quelques-uns, entre
autres Johnson, se sont etonnes de son prodigieux succes ; on pourrait
s'etonner de leur suprise si Ton ne savait, par experience, que le critique,
charge de mettre de 1'ordre dans les richesses dont la public a joui d'abord
confusement, s'affectionne quelquefois tellement a cet ordre et surtout a
la maniere dont il 1'a congu, qu'il se laisse facilement induire a condamner
les beautes auxquelles, dans son systeme, il ne sait pas trouver une place
convenable.

GUIZOT : Notice sur La Vie et La Mort de Richard III.

RICHARD THE THIRD IN ITS RELATION TO CONTEMPORARY

PLAYS

Documentary facts of presentation and stage history — Earlier and con
temporary plays — " Richardus Tertius " — " The True Tragedy " — References
to other plays on the subject — Theatrical conditions in 1593-4 — The close
relations between dramatic authors tending to produce well-marked types
— Plays based on the chronicles — Typical situations and general character
istics — Influence of Marlowe — " The Spanish Tragedy " — " Richard the
Third " in reference to these types.

It is one of the surprises of Shakespearian criticism that
some of the plays known to have been on the stage for three
hundred years seem to have left so little trace in the annals of
stage history or in contemporary literature. The play of
" Richard the Third " offers slight reward to the student
searching for documentary facts, merely a few references,
sometimes vague, sometimes ambiguous, to what is conceded
to have been one of the most popular of Shakespeare's plays.
What is surely known may be given very briefly.

While no definite evidence exists, authorities generally agree
in fixing the date of " Richard the Third " at I593-4-1 We
learn from the title page of the first Quarto, 1597, that it was
performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men, one of the leading

1 Such as Ward, Fleay, The Irving Shakespeare, The Temple and Cam
bridge editions, etc. The reasons, so far as based upon the publication
of The True Tragedy, are of little weight, as many plays were printed in
!594— 5 owing to the breaking up of the companies. Surer indications are
the workmanship and the traces of Marlowe. Halliwell-Phillipps puts the
date at 1597, because of the phrase "lately acted" on the Quarto as
referring to the Lord Chamberlain's Company. The company would
obviously be designated by its name at the time, no matter what it may
have been called when the play first appeared. The opinions of the leading
authorities on the question of the date may be found on pages 451-6 of the
New Variorum edition of Richard the Third, which has appeared since this
was written.

2 1

companies of the day. That it was popular and fell in with
the taste of the day, we gather from the constant demands for
republication,2 as well from frequent allusions. It is first men
tioned in John Weaver's " Epigram Ad Gulielmum Shakes
peare,"3 1595, where, among other characters of " honie-tong'd
Shakespeare," he names Richard, probably, though not surely,
Richard the Third. In " Epigrams and Elegies " by J. B. and
C. M., supposed to belong to 1596, a part of Richard's speech
is imitated.4 " Richard the Third " is among the tragedies
commended by Meres in " Palladis Tamia," 1598. Richard's
line,

A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse !

found many imitators.5 In " England's Parnassus," 1600,

2 Wise published the Quartos of 1597, 1598 and 1602. The copyright
was then sold to Matthew Law who republished the play in 1605, 1612,
1622, 1629 and 1634. In 1623 it appeared in the Folio. There were a
larger number of editions of Richard the Third before 1640 than of any
other of Shakespeare's plays.

8 Honie-tong'd Shakespeare, when I saw thine issue,
I swore Apollo got them and none other,

Rose-checkt Adonis with his amber tresses,
Faire fire-hot Venus charming him to love her,
Chaste Lucretia virgine-like her dresses,
Prowd lust-stung Tarquine seeking still to prove her;
Romea Richard ; more, whose names I know not,
Their sugred tongues, and power attractive beuty
Say they are Saints, althogh that Sts they show not,
For thousands vowes to them subjective dutie.

4 1 am not fashioned for these amorous times,
To court thy beauty with lascivious rhymes ;
I cannot dally, caper, dance and sing,
Oiling my saint with supple something.

Compare Richard the Third, Act I, Scene i, lines 14-17*
6 Marston : Scourge of Villainie, 1598.

A man, a man, a kingdom for a man !
Chapman: Eastward Hoe, 1605.

A boate, a boate, a boate, a full hundred marks for a boate.
Marston: Parasitaster, or the Fawne, 1606.

A foole, a f oole, a foole, my coxcombe for a foole !
Marston: What you Will, 1607.

A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse !

there are five quotations from " Richard the Third." Sir
William Cornwallis, in 1600, remonstrated against the popular
conception of Richard as gained from the plays. In 1601, in
"The Return from Parnassus," Part I, Act IV, Scene 3,
Burbage and Kempe are represented as teaching students to
act and as using this play for their text.6 Manningham, in his
" Diary " under date of March 13, 1601, tells an anecdote of
Burbage and Shakespeare at a performance of " Richard the
Third." Barnabe Barnes, in " Four Bookes of Office," 1606,
and Nicholas Breton in " Good and Badde," 1616, both refer
to the popularity of " Richard the Third " with vulgar audi
ences. The allusion most frequently quoted occurs somewhat
later in Bishop Corbet's " Iter Boreale " of about 1618, where
Burbage is inseparably identified with the part of Richard the
Third.7 In the same year, in " Funeral Elegy " on Burbage,
it is said,

And Crookback, as befits, shall cease to live.

Brathwaite: Strappado for the Divell, 1615.

A horse, a kingdom for a horse.
Heywood : Iron Age, 1611.
Syn. A horse, a horse.

Pyn. Ten kingdoms for a horse to enter Troy.
Beaumont and Fletcher: Little French Lawyer, c. 1620.

My kingdom for a sword.
Heywood: Edward the Fourth, 1600 pub.
A staff, a staff,

A thousand crowns for a staff!
Peele : The Battle of Alcazar, 1594.
A horse, a horse, villain, a horse.

This last may antedate Richard the Third and therefore be the original
line. Compare with these Shakespeare's own imitation in the Prologue of
Henry the Fifth.

A kingdom for stage.

* Burbage. I like your face, and the proportion of your body for
Richard III ; I pray, Master Philomusus let me see you
act a little of it.
Phil. " Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by the sun of York."
Bur. Very well, I assure you.

7 For when he would have sayed " King Richard dyed,"
And called — " a horse, a horse ! " — he Burbage cryed.

We find later references in Nahum Tate's " Loyal General,"
i68o,8 and in Milton's " Eikonoclastes," 1690,° and reminis
cences of lines from " Richard the Third " appeared in various
poems for fifty years after the play.

These allusions,10 while scanty, show that the figure of
Richard the Third was a familiar one,11 that it appealed to the
imagination in its portrayal of an arch- villain, and that the
greatest actor of the time, Burbage, was identified with it.
With the one record of a performance, given in Sir Henry
Herbert's Office Book under date of 1633," these references
comprise all the direct information we possess prior to the
Restoration, of " Richard the Third " as a stage play. What
further light we may throw upon its presentation must come
from a consideration of the theatrical and dramatic situation
of the time.

Before considering this, however, it is necessary to turn for
a moment to the earlier plays on the subject.13 " Richard the

' In the dedication to Edward Tayler, he speaks of Shakespeare's power
in delineating Richard the Third's " Person, and Cruel Practices " and
gives quotations to illustrate.

* Shakespeare " introduces the Person of Richard the Third, speaking in
as high a strain of Piety, and mortification, as is uttered in any passage of
this Book (Eikon Basilike) ; and sometimes to the same seise and pur
pose with some words in this Place, etc." There is a reference to Richard
the Third in Gayton's Festivous Notes on Don Quixote, 1654, in addition
to these given.

" See for many of these Shakespeare's Centurie of Prayse, edited by
C. M. Ingleby, revised by L. T. Smith, published by The New Shakespeare
Society, Series IV, number 2, 1879.

11 C. B., the author of a poem, The Ghost of Richard III, explains that
he does not enlarge on the story of Richard because it is " made so common
in plays and so notorious among all men."

""On Saterday the i7th of Novemb being the Queene's birthday,
Richarde the Thirde was acted by the K. players at St. James, wher the
king and queene were present."

11 This subject as it has appeared in chronicle, poem and play, has been
fully treated by Mr. G. B. Churchill in Richard the Third up to Shakespeare,
and to that I am greatly indebted. He shows that before, and con
temporary with its appearance on the stage, the subject was popular in
several forms. In ballads there are extant The Song of Lady Bessie,
dating from about 1500, The Tragical Report of King Richard the Third,

Third " on the stage dates from the appearance in 1579, of the
Latin play, " Richardus Tertius," by Dr. Thomas Legge, Vice
Chancellor of Cambridge and Master of Caius College. This
is said to have been elaborately staged, and was very popular
with academic audiences. There are some, though rather
doubtful, evidences that it was repeated in 1582 and in 1592,
on the former date before the Earl of Essex, on the latter
before the Queen,14 and Henry Lacey, in 1586, made a tran
script of it for presentation at Trinity College, Cambridge.
An indication of its popularity lies in the large number of
manuscripts in existence, of which there are no fewer than
ten; three at Cambridge, two in the British Museum, one in
Bodleian, and one in private hands.15 It is to this play that

1586, Deloney's Lamentation of Jane Shore in The Garland of Good-Will
of the same time. In The Mirour for Magistrates, compiled as early as
1554, but first published in 1559, there were nine poems concerned with
the story of Richard the Third in the first four editions. These were the
poems on Henry the Sixth, on the Duke of Clarence and on Edward the
Fourth, in the 1559 edition; in the edition of 1563 were added Sir Anthony
Woodville, Lord Rivers, Lord Hastings, The Complaint of Henrie, Duke
of Buckingham by Thomas Sackville, Collingborne by Baldwin, Richard
Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester by Segar, and Shore's Wife by Thomas
Churchyard. In 1593, contemporary with Richard the Third, two poems
on the subject, Beawtie dishonoured written under the title of Shore's
wife by Anthony Chute, and Licia or Poems of Love, in Honour of the
admirable and singular verities of his Lady, to the imitation of the best
Latin poets and others. Whereunto is added the Rising to the Crowne of
Richard the third, by Giles Fletcher. Michael Drayton's Heroicall Epistles
were published in 1599, but were probably written earlier. Those related
to this subject are, Queene Margaret to William de-la-Poole, Duke of
Suffolk, Edward IV to Shore's Wife, and The Epistle of Shore's Wife to
King Edward the fourth. Less popular versions of the story were to be
found in Sir Thomas More's History of King Richard III, which appeared
in English about 1513 with an earlier Latin version, in Polyjdore Vergil's
Historia Anglia, 1534, in John Rastell's Pastime of People or the Chronicles
of Divers Realms, 1529, and in such accounts as Hall's, 1548, Grafton's,
1562, and Holinshed's, 1578, and in the work of the contemporary popular
chronicler Stowe, whose accounts date 1561 and 1580.

14 Churchill, op. cit., page 267. See also Fuller's Worthies, Norwich,
edition of 1840, Vol. II, page 491.

15 Ditto, page 269.

Sir John Harrington refers in his " Apologia of Poetrie," 1591,
where he says :

" For tragedies, to omit other famous tragedies, that which was played
at St. John's in Cambridge, of Richard the Third, would move, I thinke,
Phalaris the tyrant, and terrific all tyrannous minded men from following
their foolish ambitious humours, seeing how his ambition made him kill
his brother, his nephews, his wife, beside infinit others, and last of all,
after a short and troublesome raigne, to end his miserable life, and to
have his body harried after his death."

This opinion of the " convicting " power of the play is quoted
by Thomas Heywood in his "Apology for Actors," 1612, and
Meres in " Palladis Tamia," 1598, includes Dr. Legge, of Cam
bridge, among " our best for Tragedy," mentioning his " two
famous tragedies " of " Richard the Third " and " The De
struction of Jerusalem."16 The play follows the story as
found in Polydore Vergil and More with slight variations for
the sake of bringing it into the Senecan mould, as the personal
wooing of Anne by Richard and the extension of the scenes
with the counsellors.

Mr. Churchill has pointed out that, while the choice of the
subject of Richard the Third was probably the result of its
adaptability to the Senecan idea of tragedy, this play neverthe
less, in treating English material, was the precursor, if not the
" direct incitement to that dramatizing from the chronicles of
the careers of English monarchs which established a national
historical drama in popular form upon the popular stage."17
Since this was a university play and in Latin, it was known to
a limited, but nevertheless an important audience, for Mar
lowe, Lodge, Peele, and Greene were Cambridge men and must
have been familiar with it. This first chronicle play must,
therefore, have undoubtedly helped to establish a tradition for
later forms.18

18 Allusion to this play is made by Thomas Nash in Have with you to
Saffron Walden, 1596, where he tells of the mistake of an actor, who,
" in the Latine tragedie of King Richard cries Ad urbs, ad urbs, ad urbs
when his whole part was no more than Urbs, urbs, ad arma, ad arma."
Churchill, op. cit., page 265.

"Ditto, page 272.

" A detailed analysis of the play is given by Mr. Churchill, op. cit., pages
280-375.

" Richard the Third " soon became a favorite on the public
stage. On June 19, 1594, Thomas Creede entered on the
Stationers' Register " an enterlude " which was published the
same year under the title of " The True Tragedy of Richard
the Third: Wherein is showne the death of Edward the
Fourth, with the smothering of the twoo yoong Princes in the
Tower: With a lamentable ende of Shore's wife, an example
for all wicked women. And lastly the conjunction and join
ing of the two noble Houses, Lancaster and Yorke. As it was
playd by the Queenes Maiesties Players." This play seems to
have been the outcome of the rivalry between the Queen's
Company at The Theatre and Pembroke's Men at The Cur
tain, in an attempt to supply the popular demand for a con
tinuation of the subject of the Lancastrian and Yorkist con
flict already set forth in the play given by the Queen's Com
pany, and called " The First Part of the Contention betwixt
the two famous Houses of Yorke and Lancaster, with the
death of the good Duke Humphrey: And the banishment and
death of the Duke of Suffolk, and the Tragicall end of the
proud Cardinall of Winchester, with the notable Rebellion of
Jacke Cade: And the Duke of Yorkes first claime unto the
Crowne."19 A continuation of this play, the second part of
" The Contention," also called " The True Tragedy of the
Duke of Yorke," was given a little later by the Earle of Pem
broke's Men, a rival company, which still later probably acted
the third part of " Henry the Sixth," evidently based on this
play. While these are not preeminently dealing with Richard
the Third, his character is prominent and suggests the possi
bilities which were later carried out in making him protagonist
in the play given by the Queen's Men. This was in competi
tion, apparently, with " The Second Contention," and in it we
find the typical situations that have distinguished the plays on
Richard the Third throughout.

It is not to be supposed that The Rose was without a play
upon a subject that, according to Thomas Nash, filled both

"F. G. Fleay, A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama, Vol. II,
page 315. Also Churchill, op. cit., page 485. Fleay dates this play about
1589.

houses as did those on the life of King Henry the Sixth.20
In Henslowe's Diary, in the account of the Earl of Sussex'
Men, we find:

" Rd at buckingam, the 30 of desembr 1593 ....... ,. lix*.

" " " i " Jenewary 1593 ........ Iviii*

" " " " 10 " " " ........ xxii'

" " " " 27 " " "

This play of " Buckingham " may have been a version of the
story of Richard the Third with the emphasis upon this charac
ter, his " rising " and overthrow offering a tragic theme almost
as notable as that of Richard himself. There is a possibility
also22 that the entries for December 31, and January 16, 1593,
in regard to a play of " Richard the confeser " may be on the
same subject, or at least connected with it.

It is seen, therefore, that when the play of " Richard the
Third," which we attribute to Shakespeare,23 appeared, prob
ably at The Theatre,24 and probably in the season of 1593-4,
there were several plays in the possession of companies on the
same subject, and perhaps more than one actually on the
boards at the same time.

The theatrical situation in London in 1593-4 should be
noticed. The old Queen's Company had been broken up, the
children's companies, for one reason or another, had been

20 " How would it have joyed brave Talbot, the terror of the French, to
think that after he had been two hundred years in his tomb he should
triumph again on the stage, and have his bones embalmed with the tears
of ten thousand spectators (at least at several times) who, in the tragedian
that represents his person, behold him fresh bleeding." Pierce Penniless,
1592.

21 Shakespeare Society Publications, 1845, pages 31-3.

32 According to J. P. Collier's edition of Henslowe's Diary, Shakespeare
Society Publications, 1845, page 31.

28 F. G. Fleay (Life of Shakespeare, pages 118 and 276-7) believes that
Marlowe left this play incomplete at his death, and that it was finished by
Shakespeare. Halliwell-Phillips (Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare,
page 94) thinks it is essentially Shakespeare's, but contains remnants of an
older play. J. R. Lowell, on aesthetic grounds, denies that Shakespeare
did more than to remodel an old play. See Latest Literary Essays and
Addresses.

44 Fleay, History of the London Stage, page 154.

inhibited, not to appear in public again until 1596, and from
the large number of players' companies of the earlier time,
three had come to be recognized as the only ones authorized
within the liberties of the city, namely, Lord Strange's, later
the Lord Chamberlain's, the Earl of Pembroke's, and the Lord
Admiral's. By this time also, from the six public playing
places open two years before, only three were now maintained,
The Theatre, The Curtain, and The Rose. To these, however,
must be added the place, theatre or not, at Newington Butts,25
which was used in 1594 by the Chamberlain's and Admiral's
men. The occupation of these theatres by the different com
panies is hard to follow, for a company shifted frequently
from one to another. Thus, according to Mr. Fleay's re
searches, Pembroke's Company was at The Curtain from 1589
to 1597, and at intervals from 1597 to 1600, when they dis
appear, they joined with the Admiral's Men at The Rose. The
Chamberlain's Company, of most interest to us, also had
changing fortunes about this time. Their home was The
Theatre, but in June of 1594 we find them playing in alterna
tion with the Admiral's Men at Newington Butts, and under
the management of Henslowe, of The Rose. In October they
were back at The Theatre, and it is here that " Richard the
Third " was probably produced. Plays as well as companies
were shifted about. Thus, the London theatrical season of
1593 had been abruptly ended in April by the plague, and the
houses remained closed until Christmas. In this time Pem
broke's Men were unsuccessful in their tour in the country,
and soon after sold several of their plays to the Chamber
lain's Men.26 Some of these plays the Chamberlain's Company
acted during the next season.27

From these few facts, it may be seen that the relations of
the various companies to each other were very close. Several

28 See T. F. Ordish, Early London Theatres, Chapters IV and VI.

28 Among these were Edward the Third and The Contention.

27 The foregoing statements based on F. G. Fleay's History of the Eng
lish Stage, serve to illustrate the probable general conditions, although some
of the facts in detail may be open to question. For a discussion of these
matters, see W. W. Greg's edition of Henslowe's Diary, Vol. II, which
has appeared since this was written.

were at times under one management, as the Sussex, Admiral's
and Chamberlain's are shown to have been in Henslowe's
accounts ;28 plays were sold from one company to another ;
actors and writers changed about, and the companies played
in different theatres. In such a state of affairs not only were
successful themes worked up into rival plays by several com
panies, but telling theatrical effects and situations were bor
rowed and imitated. An example of the theatrical policy of
the day is seen in the list of the York and Lancaster plays in
the possession of the companies at this time, more than one
of which were being acted at the same time. Pembroke's Men
were playing " The Contention," Part II, at The Curtain, 1589
to 1591; the Queen's Men Marlowe's (?) early version of
" Henry the Sixth," Part I, at The Theatre in 1588-9, and
" The True Tragedy " in 1591 ; Strange's Men gave " Henry
the Sixth," Part I, with the Talbot scenes, at The Rose seven
teen times from March 3, 1592, to January 31, 1593. Hen
slowe's " Richard the Confessor," a possible Richard the Third
play, ran from December 31, 1583, to January 16, 1594, at
The Rose, and " Buckingham " from December 30 to January
27.28 The Chamberlain's Men at the same time were probably
playing " Richard the Third " at The Theatre.30 A " hit " in
material or staging was eagerly sought in this theatre-going
age, and imitation of a success became inevitable."31

28 Henslowe's Diary. Edited by W. W. Greg.

29 See Fleay, History of the English Stage. See also Revels Accounts.

30 Fleay's conjecture of a performance of Richardus Tertius before the
Queen, September, 1592, is interesting in the light of the vogue of the
subject at this time.

31 The popularity of the subject continued long after the height of the
vogue of the chronicle play. In 1610, Robert Niccol's new edition of
The Mirror for Magistrates appeared, in which there were two poems on
Richard the Third, The Two Princes, and Richard III, the last to replace
Segar's poem, Richard Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, in the 1563 edition.
In 1614 a poem appeared called The Ghost of Richard the Third, Expressing
himself e in these three Parts. I. His Character. 2. His Legend. J. His
Tragedie, containing more of him than hath been heretofore shewed: either
in Chronicles, Playes or Poems. The author signed himself C. B., and is
supposed to be Christopher Brooke. Sir John Beaumont wrote a poem
on Bosworth Field in 1629. In ballad literature Richard the Third figures

Turning now to the drama of the time, we find a similar
state of affairs, i. e., a close relation between authors, which
furthered imitation and tended toward the establishment of

in R. Johnson's Buckingham, in his collection called The Crowne-Gardland
of Goulden Roses, published in 1612, and going through many subsequent
editions. (See Publications of the Percy Society, Vol. 6.) This was to
be sung to the tune of Jane Shore, an air frequently referred to, but which
has never been recovered. (J. P. Collier's Extracts from the Register of
the Stationers Company.) About this time too, must have appeared the
collection called The Golden Garland of Princely Delight, in which there
was a song on The most cruel Murther of Edward V. The thirteenth
edition of this came out in 1690. There were innumerable chap-books
also during this period. Plays on Richard the Third continued to appear.
In Henslowe's accounts for the year 1599, we find this entry:
" Receaved of Mr Ph. Hinchlow, by a note under"

the hand of Mr Rob. Shaw, in full payment,

for the second pt of Henrye Richmond, sold

to him and his Companye, the some of eight

pownds current money, the viiith daye of

november 1599. . . .
This may refer to a play on Richard the Third with the emphasis upon
the character of Henry Richmond. This is further borne out by the dis
covery among the papers of Edward Alleyn at Dulwich College, on the
back of a note from one Robert Shaa to Henslowe, of the following
memorandum :
" i see. Wm. Wor. and Ansill, and to them the plowghmen.

2 see. Richard and Q. Eliza. Catesbie, Lovell, Rice ap. Tho., Blunt,

Banester.

3 see. Ansell. Daugr : Denys, Hen, Oxf. Courtney, Bouchier and Grace.

To them Rice ap. Tho. and his Souldiers.

4 see. Milton, Ban. his wyfe and Children.

5 see. K. Rich. Gates, Lovell, Norf. Northumb. Percye."

Collier refers this to Jonson's Richard Crookback of 1602, but Mr. Fleay
(Chronicle History of the London Stage, Vol. II, page 284), thinks it be
longs to the second part of Richmond, while Mr. Churchill (Richard the
Third up to Shakespeare, page 531), believes it "is a bit from a play used
during this period (i. e., the nineties), and replaced by Jonson's Richard
Crookback in 1602. This play of Jonson's we know only by name, from the
entry in Henslowe's Diary :

" Lent unto bengemy Johnsone at the apoynt- ~|
ment of E. Alleyn and Wm Birde, the 24 of
June 1602, in earneste of a Boocke called >XM

Richard crookbacke, and for new adicijons for
Jeronymo, the some of ... J

types. This is seen in an examination of the plays which were
produced at this period. Leaving out of consideration the
comedies as having little to do with our question, we find nine
extant histories and tragedies appearing in the twenty years
between 1560 and 1580, or roughly, between " Gorboduc " and
" The Famous Victories." I give the list below.32 These
plays, with the exception of " Apius and Virginia," are either
Senecan in general character, as " Gorboduc " " Jocasta,"
" Tancred and Gismunda," and " The Misfortunes of
Arthur,"33 or they illustrate some of the many modifications
of the morality, as in the revenge play of " Horestes," or the
biography of " Cambyses."34 Both classes have contributed
to the history of the drama. The indebtedness to the
classical influence has been noted from the time of Nash's
Preface to Greene's " Menaphon," was discussed by Warton
in his " History of Poetry," and has received attention from
such writers as Collier, Ward, Symonds, Klein, R. Fischer,
J. W. Cunliffe and others.35 The contributions especially to

There are several allied plays in this period. In 1600, Hey wood's
Edward the Fourth, in two parts, was published, after having been acted
by Derby's Men at The Curtain. The second part gives the story of Jane
Shore with scenes in which Richard the Third figures, though not prom
inently. About the same time Day and Chettle wrote a Shores Wife, of
which we know nothing more than the name. We have no information
either of A Tragedy of Richard the Third or the English Prophet, by
Samuel Rowley, licensed in 1623. Fleay says that it was played at The
Fortune by Palsgrave's Men in 1623. (History of the London Stage, page
307.) These are the only plays of which we have any information up to
the closing of the theatres.

32 Cambyses, 1561. Gorboduc, 1562. Jocasta, 1566. Albyon Knight,
1566. Horestes, 1567. Apius and Virginia, 1567-8. King Johan, 1538, and
The Misfortunes of Arthur, 1588, belong here, although they do not come
within these limits. In addition to these, a number of Latin plays on
chronicle subjects were produced. We are directly concerned with
Richardus Tertius, 1579. Descriptions and discussions of these may be
found in Schelling, The English Chronicle Play, and in Fleay, Biographical
Chronicle of the English Drama.

33 For an analysis of the Senecan characteristics of The Misfortunes of
Arthur, see J. W. Cunliffe, The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy,
Appendix II.

84 And in the earlier social-polemical play of King Johan.

38 See J. W. Cunliffe, op. cit., for a brief history of its treatment.

be noted are the " high " style in the treatment of lofty themes,
the better ordering and limitation of act and scene, and the
facility in furthering the narrative gained by the character of
the messenger.36 In the moralities, the methods of presenta
tion are borrowed largely from the older religious drama, and
thus, especially in regard to staging, these plays are highly
interesting. While the figures of Johan, Horestes, and Cam-
byses are little more than abstractions, yet they show the
popular and traditional ideas of stage propriety in dealing
with kingly and national subjects.

Of the plays immediately succeeding these early ones up to
1594, about forty are histories37 and tragedies;38 in which

K An important influence came indirectly from the Senecan play through
Kyd's adaptations of Senecan devices in The Spanish Tragedy, 1585. See
Schelling, op. cit., page 25.

17 These may be tragedies, comedies, or tragi-comedies.

** The following are the extant tragedies and history plays produced be
tween 1580 and 1594.

Play. Date.

Solyman and Perseda 1583

First Part of Jeronimo c. 1584

Arden of Feversham 1585

Locrine 1586

Jack Straw 1587

i and 2 Tamburlaine 1587

Wounds of Civil War
Famous Victories c. 1588

Selimus 1588

Troublesome Raigne
Alphonsus of Arragon c. 1588

Dr. Faustus 1588

Spanish Tragedy c. 1588

David and Bathseba
Leir

George a Green
i Henry VI (Marlowe's)
Battle of Alcazar

i Contention 1589

Jew of Malta

Friar Bacon 1589

Fair Em 1590

Edward I

Place.
Theatre

Theatre
In City

Theatre

In City

1588-9 Theatre

In City
Theatre

Company.
Queen's

Queen's
Adm'l's

Queen's

Adm'l's

Queen's

Adm'l's
Queen's

S. R.

Nov. 20, 1592

1605.

Apr. 3, 1592.
Jul. 20, 1594.
Oct. 23, 1593.
Aug. 14, 1590.
May 24, 1594.
May 14, 1594-

1594-

Cross Keys Strange's

Jan. 7, 1601.
Oct. 6, 1592.

May 14, 1594-
«

Apr. i, IS9S-

IS94.

Mar. 12, 1594.
May 17, :594-
May 14, I594-

1631.
Oct. 8, 1593.

three well-marked types may be distinguished; the chronicle
history, the Marlowean play, and the neo-Senecan tragedy of
Kyd. These three classes may be differentiated according to
the material of the plot, the structure, characterization, and
stage effects, but they are not mutually exclusive. There is
hardly a serious play after the appearance of " Tamburlaine"
in 1586, which is not influenced by Marlowe's heroic ideals,
often, at the same time, showing the influence of Kyd. Many
of these plays deal with subjects from the national chronicles
and show in combination with the traits of the work of Mar
lowe and Kyd, what came to be considered the essential marks
of the chronicle play. In addition, as a result of the great
vogue of this latter type at this time, there are a number of
plays which, while the material is not drawn from the English
chronicles, in structure, spirit, and general character, are
chronicle plays.39

Such being the theatrical and dramatic situation of the time,
it is possible to learn much of the character of " Richard the
Third " as a stage play through a study of this preceding
drama, especially of the plays produced during the ten years
immediately before its appearance. Disregarding for the
nonce the special marks of Marlowe and Kyd in these plays,

Edward III 1590 Curtain Pemb'k's Dec.

2 Contention " "

Edward II 1590-1 "

James IV 1590 Theatre

Nobody and Somebody ?

True Tragedy 1591 Theatre

Woodstock c. "

Romeo and Juliet In City

Dido "

Knack to Know a Knave 1592 Rose Strange's

i Henry VI (Shakespeare's) 1592 " "

Massacre at Paris 1593 "

Titus Andronicus 1594 Sussex,

Richard III " Theatre Chamb.

Sir Thomas More

Queen's
?

Queen's

" (Fleay.
Adm'l's

i, 1595-
1595.

Jul. 6, 1591.
May 14, 1594.
Mar. 12, 1606.
Jun. 19, 1594.
?)

Children of Chapel.

Jan. 7, 1594.
Feb. 25, 1597-8.

Feb.
Oct.

6, I593-4-
29, 1597.

1595-6
(Dyce 1590)

39 For a fuller treatment of this subject, see A. H. Thorndike's
Tragedy, especially Chapter IV. To Professor Thorndike the writer is per
sonally indebted for many suggestions in this chapter.

and considering the body of plays based upon chronicles, either
really or nominally, we find a sufficiently constant recurrence
of situations and characteristics to constitute a well-marked
type. This type may be characterized generally as dealing
with large national questions, the course of events often ex
tending through a long period of years, and concerned with
some national crisis, as the fate of a king, or the opposition
of a foe. The interest centers in the story, which is generally
one of a popular nature, and often well-known to the audience
in ballad and legend. As in other popular forms of the drama,
the number of characters is large, and the scenes are of wide
variety of appeal, and usually rapid in succession. Favorite
situations, which are found constantly recurring, may be
classed as follows:

I. Martial Scenes. — There is an invariable group of situa
tions having to do with the preparation for war or with the
progress of the battle. Such are the embassy, the defiance,
boast, threat, denunciation, parley and quarrel, the battle,
whether on the stage or behind the scenes, the storming of a
city wall, the single encounter, and the flight from the field.
All these occur so frequently that particular examples are
unnecessary. Other scenes of this sort, not so frequent, but
effective when they are introduced, are the refusal to sur
render, the supplication to a conqueror, and the reception of a
deliverer.

II. Scenes of Wonder. — The interest in the story is whetted
by the introduction of scenes dealing with the wonderful.
This element may be introduced by means of prophecies and
their fulfillment,40 or by supernatural events, such as Queen
Elinor's " sinking " in " Edward the First,"41 or the appear
ance of the five moons in " The Troublesome Raigne," or of
the three suns in " The Contention," Part II, and " Henry the
Sixth," Part III.

III. Comic Scenes. — There is invariably a comic element.
This often centers about the life of the common soldier. He

40 Troublesome Raigne, Edward the First, Edward the Third, etc.

41 Or Lady Elinor and the wizard in Henry the Sixth, Part II.

is levied unwillingly,42 or he is thievish and ridiculously boast
ful.48 The comic scenes as a whole are not distinctive, but
deal with the material found commonly successful on the
stage.

IV. Political Wooing Scenes. — In these plays the political
marriage is presented as a motive, as in " The Famous Vic
tories," and " The Troublesome Raigne."44

V. Terminal Scenes. — Stages in the story are marked by
eloquent scenes of self -congratulation after a battle,45 or
reconciliations of opponents.46 The funeral or the preparation
for it is common here as in other Elizabethan tragedy.

VI. Typical Characters. — Consonant with these typical
scenes, the characters fall into well-defined types, as the war
rior, whether king or subject, the popular hero, like Falcon-
bridge in " The Troublesome Raigne," the Black Prince in
" Edward the Third," or Richmond in " The True Tragedy,"
the loyal statesman, like Humphrey and Cromwell, the queen
bewailing misfortune, like Constance, Margaret, and Anne of
Bohemia, and the conquered king, often in great distress, as
in "Locrine," " Selimus," "Wounds of Civil War," and
" Alphonsus of Arragon."

VII. Stage Effects. — The plays are characterized by elab
orate devices for stage effects. In this they were undoubtedly
influenced by the processions and royal progresses of the time,
and probably owe something to the pageants of the medieval
drama.47 We find the predominance of such scenes as crown-

** The Famous Victories. Also in Locrine.

"Jack Straw, The Famous Victories, Locrine.

"Also in Henry the Sixth, Part I, Margaret and Suffolk. In slightly
different form also in Tamburlaine, Locrine, Alphonsus of Arragon. Mr.
Churchill (op. cit., page 349) points out a similar case in Mad Hercules,
Act II, Scene 2, and in Richardus Tertius, Actio III, Scene 4. Theodor
Vatke suggests the same comparison, in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Gesell-
schaft, Vol. IV, page 64.

"Henry the Sixth, Part III, Contention, Part II, Jack Straw. Also in
Tamburlaine, Locrine, Alphonsus of Arragon, and Battle of Alcazar.

48 Henry the Fifth, Troublesome Raigne, James the Fourth, etc.

41 Found frequently in Greek drama. The " shows " in Richardus Tertius
take the form of processions.

ings,48 marriages, betrothals,49 ceremonies connected with arm
ing or " dubbing,"50 the issuing of proclamations,51 pen-
nances,52 " shows," or tableaux.53 In the martial scenes much
is made of the march to battle, or the rush of soldiers across
the stage,54 or the effectiveness is heightened by frequent
" alarums," by the sennet at the entrance and exit of the king,
by the flourish of trumpets accompanying the army, by the
firing of cannon, or " noise without."85 Thunder and light
ning, darkness, or other devices heighten the effect of the
scenes of wonder.

VIII. Structure and Style. — The chronicle play is essentially
epic in form. While there is some selection of material, im
posed by the central interest in the life of the king, or in the
particular national struggle, the tendency is to present every
thing upon the stage. In this the chronicle play has much in
common with the dramatization of the Bible narrative, the aim
in both cases being the same, namely the presentation of a
story. In style, these plays are characterized generally by ora
torical effects, which display themselves in such passages as
the reports of heroic deeds,56 descriptions of England and
references to her past,57 patriotic harangues before an army,58
and high-resolved defiances.

Such being the characteristics of the chronicle as such, we
may now turn to the influence upon it of the epoch-making
plays of Marlowe. But before noticing the important innova
tions effected by them, it is necessary to consider the general
characteristics of his work. The peculiar Marlowean feature

48 Passim.

"Edward the First, James the Fourth.

10 Edward the Third, Contention Part II, Sir Thomas More.

11 Jack Straw, Contention Part I, Edward the First. Also Promos and
Cassandra.

52 Henry the Sixth Part I, The True Tragedy.

13 Contention Part II, Edward the First, James the Fourth, Locrine.

14 Passim.
" Passim.

68 Famous Victories, Edward the Third.

" Henry the Sixth Part II, Contention Part I, Locrine, Edward the First.

K Edward the Third.

to be noted is the entirely new element in his conception of
heroic figures, and in his lofty ideas of the possibilities of
human achievement. The modifications growing out of this
new conception are the intense centering of attention upon the
person of the hero, and the suppression of all scenes not closely
connected with this central figure. This results in a unity
quite at variance with the general epic quality of the early his
tories which we have been considering. In this intenser
focusing, where some overruling passion is made the motive,
we have a new and remarkable development of the villain-
hero, as in " Tamburlaine," " The Jew of Malta," and " Faus-
tus," and the chronicle is transformed into a play of tragic
rather than of epic interest. An illustration of Marlowe's
method of suppressing all extraneous matter is found in his
peculiar modification of the comic element. When the comic
appears in his plays, it grows out of the situation and is never
so distinctly a by-play as in the epic type of chronicle play.50
For this reason it is often grotesque rather than broadly comic.
This seems to have led to the frequent statement that this
element is lacking. In " Tamburlaine,"60 the scenes dealing
with the foolish king Mycetes,61 the war of words between
Zenocrate and Zabina,62 the inert son of Tamburlaine,63 and
the artless captain,64 were undoubtedly grotesquely comic. It
may be also that the Bajazet scenes85 had a similar effect to an
Elizabethan audience. The same elements of the grotesque
are seen in the trick put upon Jacomo,66 in the ironical justice

w The comic scenes in Dr. Faustus, which may seem to be an exception
to this, clearly bear the marks of other hands than Marlowe's. For a
discussion of this, see A. W. Ward's edition of Faustus, Appendix A, by
F. G. Fleay.

80 The first editor of Tamburlaine says that he omitted " many fond and
frivolous gestures " from the play as given on the stage. These were
probably added by the actors and were undoubtedly of a broadly comic
character.

61 Tamburlaine, Part I, Act I, Scene i, and Act II, Scene 3.

42 Ditto, Act III, Scene 3.

83 Tamburlaine, Part II, Act IV, Scene i.

"Ditto, Act V, Scene i.

66 Part I, Act IV, Scenes 2 and 4.

" Jew of Malta, Act IV, Scene 3.

of Barabas being caught in his own trap,67 in the folly of the
scheming Ithomar,68 and in the ridiculous figure of the Jew.69
.When we turn to " Faustus," the character of the comic ele
ment here, more distinctly a by-play than in any of the others,
may be accounted for by the close adherence to the source,
from which the comic passages are copied with great fidelity.
They are, however, with characteristic Marlowean intensity,
kept, like the rest of the play, within the realm of the magical.
In " Edward the Second," while there seems to be no comic
relief to the tragedy, there certainly might have been oppor
tunity in the " business " here and there for comic touches,
after the manner of Marlowe, especially in the characters of
Gaveston and Spenser.

As a result of this intenser centering of interest, Marlowe
developed into greater effectiveness situations that had been
of little more than narrative value in the chronicle plays. This
can be seen by comparing the wooing of Katherine in " The
Famous Victories " with the similar scene of Tamburlaine's
wooing of Zenocrate,70 or by noting the importance and effect
iveness of murder scenes after the model was set in " Edward
the Second."71 The splendor and impressiveness of Zeno-
crate's funeral outdoes all the earlier attempts at making
this favorite scene an effective one. So it is with many of
his other elaborations of novel and striking scenes, as Tam
burlaine's entrance when drawn by the " pampered jades,"72
the panoply of Scythian chieftains, the gorgeousness of ori
ental accoutrements, or the Jew tortured in his cauldron,73
the apparitions of Mephistopheles and his band of devils,74
and the writing of Faustus' fearful compact in his own blood.75

'"Ditto, Act V, Scene 6.

68 Ditto, Act IV, Scenes 4 and 6.

69 Barabas was represented with a large false nose. In Rowley's Search
for Money, 1609, allusion is made to the " artificall Jewe of Maltaes nose."
Mermaid Series edition of Marlowe, page 264.

*° Tamburlaine, Part I, Act I, Scene 2.

71 Act V, Scene 5.

72 Tamburlaine, Part II, Act IV, Scene 4.

73 Jew of Malta, Act V, Scene 6.
14 Faustus, Scenes 5 and 6.

70 Ditto, Scene 5.

The popularity of these plays was enormous and their influ
ence far-reaching.76 " Tamburlaine " was the one most imme
diately influential. Of direct imitations, the earliest are
" Selimus "T7 and Greene's " Alphonsus of Arragon."78 Peele's
" Battle of Alcazar," acted in 1592, with the hero of overween
ing assurance, Stukeley, showed the lasting popularity of the
type. Of these, " Selimus " alone retains the broadly comic
element ; in " Alphonsus of Arragon," such comic touches as
appear are in the manner of Marlowe. " The Battle of
Alcazar," in its unrelieved gloom, as well as in other charac
teristics, illustrates as well the third great dramatic influence
of the time.

Kyd's "Spanish Tragedy" appeared in 1585-7, and was
very popular, as seen from Henslowe's entries and the con
stant references to the play. Professor A. H. Thorndike has
shown78 that it was this play that brought into prominence in
the Elizabethan drama the motive of revenge, with its attend
ant motives of intrigue and bloodshed, and further character
ized by the presence of ghostly monition, and of the reflective
element in the soliloquies. In the plays we have just consid
ered, we find these elements present in addition to the modi
fications imitated from Marlowe.80 " Locrine," " Alphonsus
of Arragon," and " The Battle of Alcazar " are all revenge
plays. " Locrine " and " The Battle of Alcazar " develop this
motive throughout ; " Alphonsus of Arragon " is a revenge

18 Plays of this type were satirized by Hall in his Virgidenarium, Book I,
Satire 3.

"Anonymous. Acted about 1588.

"Acted about 1588.

" The Relation of Hamlet to Contemporary Revenge Plays. Publications
of the Modern Language Association, 1902.

80 Mr. Churchill has pointed out that The True Tragedy, while a chronicle
play in important features, was influenced by Marlowe's Tamburlaine and
the revenge plays, and that owing to these influences, " as a History play
The True Tragedy is undoubtedly the first in which the interest is fixed
upon one central and dominating figure," and adds, " The Richard of the
True 1'ragedy is not only central but dominating, not merely attracts the
chief interest but absorbs practically all of it." Op. cit., pages 398-9. An
analysis of the influences upon it and its relation to Richard the Third
is given on pages 396 to 528.

play in the first two acts, it then changes to a play of the con
quest type of " Tamburlaine." In " Locrine," " The Battle of
Alcazar," and " The True Tragedy," we have the ghost appear
ing and crying " Vindicta ! " ; in " Alphonsus of Arragon," this
ghostly element is furnished in a measure, by the enchantments
of Medea, and by the misleading incitement of Mahomet of the
Brazen Head. The soliloquy is present in " Selimus," " Loc-
»rine," " Alphonsus of Arragon," and " The Battle of Alcazar."
This element is almost lacking in the epical chronicles, where
the solitary speaker is not common, and long speeches are, for
the most part, addresses to followers.

We have now examined the histories and tragedies pre
ceding and contemporary with " Richard the Third," the sub
ject of our investigation. It remains to show in how far
" Richard the Third " is a typical play of the chronicle type
and in how far it has been modified by the influence of Mar
lowe and Kyd. The situations and characteristics that mark
it as a chronicle play are such as the following: (i) The
battle at the end with the inevitable single encounter.81 (2)
The prominence given to the fulfilment of prophecies, as in
the case of Clarence and the letter G,82 of Richmond's foretold
succession,83 of the Irish bard's warning of Richard against
Richmond,84 or of Margaret's maledictions85 and Bucking
ham's ill-kept oaths,86 or Richard's grotesque trickery of Hast
ings87 and Clarence.88 (3) The wooing of an enemy, intro
duced twice, in the brilliant Anne89 and Elizabeth90 scenes.
(4) The typical character of the wailing queen in its highest
perfection in Elizabeth, Anne, and Margaret, of the popular

81 Act V, Scenes 4 and 5.

82 Act I, Scene i. Cf. page 15. note 40.

83 Act IV, Scene 2.
81 Ditto.

85 Act I, Scene 3.

88 Act II, Scene i and Act V, Scene i.

87 Act III, Scene 4.

88 Act I, Scenes i and 4.

89 Act I, Scene 2. Cf. page 16, note 44.

90 Act IV, Scene 4.

hero in Richmond, and of the loyal statesman in Hastings.91
(5) The repetition of favorite "effects," such as the
funeral procession of Henry the Sixth,92 the " large " scenes
in the council,93 with the mayor and citizens in Baynard
Castle,94 or the leaders haranguing their troops,95 the throne
scene with Richard in state, crowned,96 the company of wail
ing women,97 the marching of soldiers across the stage,98 the
excursion, the frantic entrance of Richard calling for a horse,
the encounter and death of Richard, and the crowning of
Richmond on the battle-field.99 (6) The epic qualities of
structure, exemplified in the general aim of presenting the life
and death of the hero, and in the retention of such episodes
from the source as the resolve by the queen to take sanctu
ary,100 Rivers, Grey and Vaughan on the way to death,101 the
scrivener with the indictment of Hastings,102 and Buckingham
led to execution.103

"As has been said, this play shows the dominating influence
of Marlowe. As in the plays of that author, so in " Richard
the Third," the hero is of constant and over-weening impor
tance. The interest is held and the action centers about his
figure as it did not in such plays as " The Famous Victories,"
"The Troublesome Raigne," or "Edward the First." In
variance from the epic type, the whole play tends to become
a series of episodes connected by the shortest possible narra
tive scenes. As in Marlowe again, the scenes of humorous
nature are of the warp and woof of the play, and are of

91 Cf. page 21, VI.

92 Act I, Scene 2. Cf. page 16, VII, and note 47.
MAct III, Scene 4. Cf. page 17, note 53.

** Act III, Scene 7.

86 Act V, Scene 3. Cf. page 15, I.
"Act IV, Scene 2. Cf. page 17, note 48.

87 Act IV, Scenes i and 4. Cf. page 16, VI.

88 Act IV, Scene 4. Cf. page 17, note 54.

"Act V, Scenes 4 and 5. Cf. page 17, notes 48 and 54.

100 Act II, Scene 4.

101 Act III, Scene 3.

102 Act III, Scene 6.

losAct V, Scene i. Cf. pages 15 and 17, VIII.

the same ironical and grotesque character. The quarrel of
Richard and Margaret,104 the wooing of Anne,105 the scene
with Elizabeth,106 and the satirical over-reaching of the Mayor
and Citizens,107 are treated with Marlowean " coarseness of
stroke," and Richard's mis-shapen body probably gave oppor
tunity for comic touches of the same nature. Extravagance
and elaboration of effective situations, as in Marlowe's work,
are also seen in the two wooing scenes, in the murder of
Clarence, with its repetition in Tyrrel's account of the death
of the two princes, and in the last scene on the battle-field.
Again this play represents the culmination of the development
of the villain-hero accomplishing his ends by intrigue and
murder, characteristic of the " Jew of Malta."

This last characteristic is, at the same time, one of the
marks of the influence of Kyd upon the play, exerted directly,
or it may be indirectly, through Marlowe. The particular
influence of Kyd, however, is seen in the emphasis upon the
revenge motive, in this case of a double nature, with Richard
at first the principal agent and later its object,108 and in the
introduction of the ghosts to appal the wrong-doer and to
urge on the avenger. The soliloquy, characteristic of both
Kyd and Marlowe, is frequent ; the play opens with a long one,
and, from time to time, Richard gives account of himself in
passages of varying length.109 These seem to mark the steps
in the progress of the play in much the same manner as the
congratulatory scenes of the epical plays.

" Richard the Third " then, when examined in its situations
and motives, is found to display within itself the marks of the
three most potent influences upon the early Elizabethan drama,
the chronicle, the play of Marlowe, and the Kydian tragedy.
There are discoverable medieval elements also, still to be noted

104 Act I, Scene 3-
05 Act I, Scene z.
"Act IV, Scene 4.

07 Act III, Scene 7.

08 This double revenge is found also in Locrine.

09 Act I, Scene i, Act III, Scene 5, Act IV, Scenes 2 and 3. Act V,
Scene 3.

when the play is considered in greater detail. The most im
portant characteristic in fixing its type is the prominence given
to the protagonist, which results in the transference of the
interest to character, rather than centering in the story, a fact
which may explain its persistence on the stage over all the
other chronicle plays of this period. Its greater interest his
trionically by virtue of this we shall attempt to make plain
in the next chapter.

RICHARD THE THIRD ON THE ELIZABETHAN STAGE

Theories of Elizabethan staging — Documentary evidence — Method here
pursued — Examination of the play from the point of view of its presenta
tion — The prologue — Stage oratory — The funeral procession — The wooing
— Comic touches — The murder scene — The use of the lament — Scene of
the two camps — The ghost on the stage — The battle scene, its history and
importance — Conclusion.

Although " Richard theJThird " was indisputably one of the

most popular of Shakespeare's plays, we have no record of its

performance during the time of Elizabeth or James. TEere is

no entry in Henslowe's diary, or in the Revels Accounts per

taining, so far as we know, to this play, although Fleay con

jectures a performance at Court during the Christmas festivi

ties of I594-1 The only known, definite account of a per-

formance before the_closmg^ of the theaters is found in the

/ ( Office^BooK^of Sir Henry jlejbgrt^jmder date~of November

I i6pi633, and already alluded to in Chapter I. Any further

information must come indirectly from such references as the
entry in Manningham's Diary, which refers to a performance
on March 31, i6oi,2 or from such interpretation as may be
given to the phrase "lately acted," on the successive quartos.

It has been pointed out in Chapter I that this play was_prob-
ably first given at The Theatre by the LorH^CHamberlain's
Company, and it has been iurther~seen7 in the affusions given,
that Burbage was the Elizabethan Richard. But under what
conditions Burbage played Richard the Third"at The Theatre

1 Life of Shakespeare, page 14. Also History of the London Stage,
page 121.

2 See Chapter I, page 3. A hint of a Richard in the mid-seventeenth
century is given by the Prologue to Chapman's Bussy D'Ambois. One of
the actors, supposed to be Tom Bond, is recommended because

As Richard he was liked.

This prologue was prefixed to the edition of 1641.

in the season of 1593-4 must, except in their general charac-
tefj~be"a matter of conjecture, and even the general conditions,
it has been found, are difficult to establish.

The question of Elizabethan staging is a large one, and the
various theories advanced need not be reproduced here. The
writers upon the subject, however, whether following Kilian,3
Brandl,4 and Brodmeier5 in their theory of " alternation," or
upholding the idea of the " plastic," " symbolic," or " incon
gruous " stage as set forth by Mantzius,6 Reynolds,7 or Cor-
bin,8 or insisting upon the bare stage as conceived by Mr.
Greet and his co-workers, agree upon certain leading points.9
It_is_ generally accepted that the stage was a large._open plat-
form, with a ^ing^oom^t_^^^^^^^^^^ony^2bovQ.
The division of the stage into an outer and inner part is a moot
point, as is also the question of the presence oT curtains. Or,
conceding that the stage was curtained, the position of these
hangings is debated. Whether there were two or tHree doors
to the stage, and the position of these, it is from_our present
data impossible to determine.10 It must be remembered,
moreover, that the establishment of the use and position of
these in one theatre would by no means show their existence
in others.

*Jahrbuch der Shakespeare Gesellschaft, Vols. XXVIII and XXXVI.

4 Introduction to the Schlegel-Tieck Shakespeare.

5 Die Shakespeare Biihne nach den alten Buhnenanweisungen. Weimer,
1904.

8 History of Theatric Art, Vol. II, page 338.

' Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging. Modern Philology, April and
June, 1905.

8 Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage. Atlantic Monthly, March, 1906.

•A review of several recent theories of the Elizabethan stage is given
by Mr. William Archer in The Quarterly Review for April, 1908.

10 For a discussion of these points, see W. J. Lawrence, Some Char
acteristics of the Elizabethan Stuart Stage. Englische Studien, Vol. 32
(1902). See also G. P. Baker, The Development of Shakespeare as a
Dramatist, New York, 1907. Chapter II is on The Stage of Shakespeare.
The most recent and a very valuable treatment of the question may be
found in a pamphlet by Mr. V. E. Albright, A Typical Shakesperian Stage:
The Outer-Inner Stage, New York, 1908. Mr. Albright's complete discussion
is about to appear in Columbia University Studies in English.

An idea of some of the properties used may be gathered
from Henslowe's Diary, The Revels -Accounts, and from stage
directions, but it is quite impossible to determine definitely
how " a mose bancke," " a rocke," the " baye tree," or the
" tree of gowlden apelles " was used, or what became of " the
sittie of Rome," or the " tome of'Dido^oF^Hell mought"
after their part in the play was over. Henslowe's inventories
of the^wardrobes_o£.tlifi' companies jinflpf liis~rnana.gement give

only a general notion_aljhejdnd of costume ~use7E Thus we
Tcnow that the Admiral's Men had for Tamburlaine a " cote
with coper lace," " breches of crymson vellvet," and a " bry-
dell," that Henry the Fifth had a " satten dublet, layd with^.
gowld lace," and a " velvet gowne," but little can be gathered
as to their style, whether attempting any^greaf~TiistoricaTof
national distinction." ~Frqni tfaerr descffpSon"and the price
paid for them, they appear to have been elaborate and rich in
effect. We read" of a " read clocke with read coper lace," a
" scarlet clocke with silver buttons," " Dobes cotte of cloth of
silver " and of a " womanes gowne of cloth of gowld." The
[plays of the period supplement this information somewhat by
\chande references to dress here and there. " Hieronimo's old
cloak, ruff, and hat " are mentioned when the actors want a
Spanish suit in " The Alchemist " j11 an elaborate description
of the dress of Richard the Second's courtiers is given in
" Woodstock,"12 emphasizing the contrast to Gloucester's
clothes of frieze; Edward the First appears in a "glass
suit " ;13 Tamburlaine's dress is loaded with the treasure of
the Persians, and Edward the Second's favorite, Gaveston,

u Act IV, Scene 4.

"They sit in counsell to devise strange fashions
And suite themselves in wyld and anticke habitts,
Such as this kingdome never yett beheld :
Frenche hose, Italian cloakes, and Spanish hatts,
Polonian shoes, with pickes a hand full longe,
Tyde to ther knees with chaynes of pearle and gould;
Ther plumed topps fly waveing in the ayre,
A cubit hye above ther wanton heads. Act I, Scene 3.

13 The famous Chronicle of King Edward the first, Dyce edition of Works
of Greene and Peele, page 385.

wears a short Italian hooded cloak,
Larded with pearl, and in his Tuscan cap,
A jewel of more value than the crown.

These references might be multiplied indefinitely. Whether
all of these suggestions in the text were carried out is doubt
ful, but the general conclusion, so far as such data_lead to// /
one, is that there was an attempt to distinguish nationalities '
in dress, but evidently little feeling for anachronism or incon
gruity in the costume any more than in the properties.

The bearing of such items as the foregoing has received
much attention, and attempts have been made to reconstruct an
Elizabethan performance from the data so gathered, supple
mented by the descriptions of social conditions, such as are
found in " The Gull's Handbook," in " Coryat's Crudities,"14
or Hentzer's " Travels."15 The most notable of these attempts
are found in Mantzius' " HistQq^-a£-J]Heatric Art/716 and in
Regel's " Uber Englisches Theaterwesen zu Shakespeare's
Zeit." In the investigation here attempted, however, I shall
try to throw what light I may upon the presentation of^_Rich-
ard the Third " by considering the stage directions, and other%9
internal evidences of staging in this play and in Urmlar plays -
of the period. In other words, relying upon the close relations
of the authors and of the theatres of the time,! shaTTcontinue
the comparative method used in Chapter I. The result of such
an investigation will not, perhaps, be any such rehabilitation as
those mentioned above, but will serve to fix " Richard the
Third " in its place among the plays on the London stage dur
ing the season of its popularity.

In a consideration of this play from the point of view of
presentation, however, it must be reiterated, in trying to con
ceive the impression made by " Richard the Third " on the
Elizabethan stage, that it was not a new subject, but one as
well known to the audience as were the fortunes of the house of
Pelops to the Greeks. As has been pointed out in Chapter I,

14 By Thomas Coryat. 1611. London, 1776. 3 Vols.
18 A Journey into England In the year MDXCVHL Edited by Horace
Walpole, 1757.

18 Vol. Ill, pages 157-166.

there had been several plays dealing with the same personages,
and presenting many of the same situations, such as " The true
Tragedy of Richard the Third," which was on the stage in
1591 and continued on the stage until the time of Charles
the First.17 In view of the close relations of authors, actors,
and theatres at this time, it is impossible to believe that Shakes
peare did not know this play,18 whether " Richard the Third "
was a conscious reworking of the materials there used or not.
Any knowledge of the university play, " Richardus Tertius," is
much more doubtful, but by no means impossible. From this
point of view, therefore, " Richard the Third " was a revision
in somewhat the same sense as was " Lear " and a study of its
presentation must take these older plays into account.

Act I, Scene J.19 — The play opens with a scene which per
forms the function of a prologue, Clarence and Hastings serv
ing to illustrate the situation described by Richard in his
soliloquy, in much the same manner as, in " The Battle of
Alcazar," the Presenter's speech is interrupted by the dumb
shows.20 The opening soliloquy, while thoroughly orthodox
Senecan usage, and an almost inevitable dramatic device, had
not characterized the chronicle plays generally before " Richard
the Third." In plays of the type of " The Contention," " The
Famous Victories," and " Edward the First," the reflective ele
ment is almost wholly lacking. In Marlowe's plays however,
except " Tamburlaine," we find the opening soliloquy, and it
is used frequently throughout the play, a natural result of the
absorbing interest in the machinations of a villain, such as the

" According to Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare,
pages 94-5.

18 See Churchill, Richard III up to Shakespeare, pages 396-8, and 497.
Present opinion considers it uncertain whether Shakespeare knew the play,
but agrees that whether he knew it or not, he was very slightly dependent
upon it. The same is true of Richardus Tertius.

18 The division into acts and scenes follows the Cambridge edition. The
Quartos are not divided and in the Folio the division is incomplete.

20 The opening soliloquy is closely related to the expository matter at
the beginning of the morality plays, and in the folk drama, like the St.
George plays.
See Manly, Specimens of the Pre-Shakesperean Drama, Vol. I, page 289.

Jew, or the fluctuations of a tumultuous mind, as in " Faustus."
It is probably due to this influence, reinforced by the example
of the tragedy of Kyd, that Richard the Third indulges in his
self-reporting and self -analytic soliloquies at every turn.
How these were spoken we can gather only from chance refer
ences in the plays, the locus classicus being the advice to the
players in " Hamlet."21 Shakespeare has there furnished us
with a document which gives us the popular stage oratory, and
the reforms for which he worked. This speech, written about
1602, describes the methods which probably prevailed during
the earlier performances of " Richard the Third." The popu
lar style of oratory Shakespeare had ridiculed in " Midsummer
Night's Dream " in Bottom's histrionic aspirations to reproduce
" Ercles' vein " or " a part to tear a cat in, to make all split."22
This expression, showing the popular ideal of tragic utterance,
is found also in " Histriomastix," where an actor is referred
to as liking to " rend and tear the cat upon a stage."23 In
Greene's " Groatsworth of Wit " (1592), a player says: " The
twelve labors of Hercules. ... I terribly thundered upon the
stage," referring to a stock character much like the old part of
Herod,24 giving full scope for rant and always associated with
it. In addition to these direct references, it may be seen that
the Tamburlaine type of hero encouraged, with his " high
astounding terms," the indulgence in this bombastic style of
speaking. Shakespeare's fling at the " deep tragedian "25 in
" Richard the Third " suggests a lack of sympathy thus early
with their extravagance, and the ideal of a more intelligent and
thoughtful manner which foreshadowed his later explicit defini-

21 Act III, Scene z.

22 Act I, Scene 2. See also, Jonson's Bartholomew Fair, Act V, Scene 5.
"I like 'em (i. e., the puppets) for that; they offer not to fleer, nor jeer,
nor break jests, as the great players do."

23 Act V, line 241.

24 The stage directions in the Pageant of the Shearmen and Taylors reads,
" Here Erode ragis in the pagond and in the strete also."

Erode. I stampe ! I stare ! I loke all abowtt !

Might I them take, I schuld them bren at a glede !
I rent ! I rawe ! and now run I wode !
26 Act III, Scene 5.

tion in " Hamlet." These soliloquies, therefore, we must be
lieve, in the Richard of Burbage, were given, under the super
vision of Shakespeare's own tutelage, with greater temperance
and more " gently." In this more than in any chronicle
play which preceded, the emphasis was placed upon the indi
vidual speeches rather than upon the action or upon such
oratorical displays as were necessitated by the character of
Edward the First, Edward the Third, or Tamburlaine, and
the manner of giving these lines had, for that reason, a real
significance in the development of the play.

Scene 2.— The second scene opens with a funeral procession
which strangely serves as the setting for the wooing. The
funeral scene was a favorite one on the Elizabethan stage, as
were all processional scenes, which gave opportunity for dis
play, of which the audience was fond, and which gratified in
some measure the popular delight in realistic staging. There
are usually few directions for the funeral processions,
probably because they had become highly conventionalized.
In some cases a few suggestions are given in addition
to the " Enter funeral," as in " The First Part of Hieronimo,"
Act III, Scene 3, " Enter two, draging of ensigns ; then
funerall of Andrea," and in " The Massacre at Paris,"
" They march out, with the body of the King lying on four
men's shoulders, with a dead march, dragging weapons on the
ground."26 In " Hamlet " the directions call for a " dead
march " and a " peal of ordinance " ;27 in " Edward the
Second " they bring in the hearse and the " funeral robes."28
The funeral of Zenocrate moves along in the light of a town
burning in her honor, and a pillar, a " streamer," a tablet, and
a picture of her are carried in the procession.29 Yet, with
the possibility of making much of a popular subject, the stage
directions in this scene30 and the later lines suggest that the

'•Act III.

"Act V, Scene 2.

28 Act V, Scene 6.

29 Tamburlaine, Part II, Act III, Scene 2.

30 " Enter the corps of King Henry the Sixth, Gentlemen with halberds
to guard it. Lady Anne being the mourner."

sources were closely followed by Shakespeare, and that the
train here numbered only a few. This is interesting, not so
much because it would seem to illustrate his fidelity to the
source, for he flagrantly disregards this in introducing the woo
ing of Anne, but because we find the figure of Richard made
the dominant interest in a scene usually given over to purely
decorative purposes.

With such a setting, and immediately succeeding a scene of
wailing, the wooing of Anne with its possibility of comic
" business," and in the presence of the murdered Henry whose
wounds, at the approach of Richard,

Open their congealed mouths and bleed afresh,

shows a grotesqueness typical of the Elizabethan drama. How
much " business " was introduced cannot be determined, but on
a stage_jvhere improyisatipn wa§...the-jail£^ it can hardly
be thought that such an opportunity would be overlooked
or lost.31 Besides, Shakespeare intensifies this situation by
representing the wrongs of Anne as coming more directly
and personally to her from her wooer than had been
the case in the similar scenes in " Tamburlaine "32 and " The
Famous Victories," and at the same time in making Richard,
the wooer, almost revolting in his appearance.33 The hideous-
ness of Richard is constantly flung in his teeth in an entirely
brutal manner, and spoken of in his soliloquies in the frank,
self -reporting style of the tragedy villain. In picturing
Richard thus, Shakespeare has only followed the chronicles
from More down, who represent Richard as." croke backed,"
" hard favored," and with " ill-featured limbs,".aridjan arm

11 Comic touches are suggested not only in the situation of a skilful dis
sembler, but also in the " keen encounter of our wits," as Richard himself
describes it. This would delight an audience that enjoyed word-juggling.
In addition, to overreach a woman has ever been considered comic, giving
delight of the same kind as that felt in making game of anything weaker.
82 Part I, Act I, Scene 2.

M Richard as " a jolly thriving wooer " presented a ludicrous anomaly.
He appreciates this when he says sardonically :

I do mistake my person all this while :
Upon my life, she finds, although I cannot,
Myself to be a marvellous proper man.

" werish, withered, and small." In " The True Tragedy " he
is described as

A man ill shaped, crooked backed, lame armed, withall.8*

From the allusions to his deformity, it is seen that Shakespeare
utilized these traditions to the utmost. Thus Richard speaks
of himself as

Deformed, unfinished, . . .
. . scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them.88

Anne calls him a " lump of foul deformity," " hedgehog " and
" toad " while Margaret adds the epithets of " elvish mark'd,"
" bunch-back'd toad," and " bottled spider."36 Suchjwords__as
these suggest an emphasis on physical unsightliness of an ex
treme type. But this, far from being revolting, was, _ we_must
believe, to an audience that delighted in the antics of dwarfs
and idiots and had not outgrown the love for harlequinade,
highly ludicrous.

Scene 3. — The figure of Margaret dominates this scene, in
her curses and exultation combining the ferocity of a Fury and
the malignant forebodings of a witch.37 The impressiveness
of the scene depended less upon the dramatic situation than
upon the current belief in the efficacy of such curses, and in this
respect is wholly of its time. Its effect upon the audience was
undoubtedly expressed in Hasting's words after Margaret's
parting execration,

My hair doth stand on end to hear her curses.

The scene closes with Richard's compact with the murderers in
preparation for the next scene.

Scene 4. — The act closes with Clarence's murder, which
carries on and intensifies the somberness of the preceding

34 Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 3.

35 Act I, Scene i.
38 Act I, Scene 3.

37 Professor A. H. Thorndike in Tragedy, page 119, shows that Shake
speare " personified Nemesis in Margaret, and gave her the various func
tions of a supervising ghost and of a chorus — curses, laments, and exulta
tions."

scenes. The presentation of the murder scene in the drama
shows signs of development as do other situations constantly
used. In the English Senecan plays, following the Greek
usage, the murder is usually behind the scenes, and in the Sene
can imitations, " Tancred and Gismunda," and " Gorboduc,"
this is the case. In the medieval English drama, where tradi
tional decencies had no sway, murders are frequently on ~the
stage, and seem to have elicited considerable care to heighten
their effectiveness. This is seen in the morality plays, and in
such a late development of the morality as " Cambyses?^ In
the vogue of the " Spanish Tragedy " and the drama of blood,
no scene of this sort was too revolting to be represented on the
stage. This reached its height in such a play as " Titus An-
dronicus." In all of these the murderer is ruthless to the last
extreme, the murder takes place quickly, with great bloodiness,
and the situation, with utter indifference to the consideration of
dramatic force, is repeated again and again. On the other
hand, after Marlowe's " Edward the Second,"38 the murder I
scene was made more of and used with great effectiveness. I
The scene in Marlowe's play is one of the greatest in English
drama, and it is small wonder that it found instant imitation
in the succeeding plays of " Henry the Sixth " Part II,38
"Woodstock," and "Richard the Third," all three being
probably written within three years after the appearance of
" Edward the Second." In these scenes the preliminary ar
rangements for the murder, the forebodings and apprehensions
of the one about to die, the discussion between the murderers
and their victim, his attempt to move the hard-visaged men, \
and the repentance of the murderers after the deed, contributed \
elements of suspense, pity, and humanity which made of them
something entirely new. For the presentation of the scenes,
the stage directions are, as a rule, explicit. Thus in " Cam-
byses " we have an interesting indication of how these things
were managed in the early dramas, in the scene where Lord

38 Act V, Scene 5. The death of Guise in The Massacre at Paris, Act
III, Scene 2, is similar.
** The murder of Gloucester, Act III, Scene 2.

Smirdis is killed. Cruelty and Murder enter " with bloody
hands," they seize him, " strike him in divers places," and then
" a little bladder of vinegar " is " prickt." In the later plays
no mention is made of such devices, but in the conferences of
the murderers over the methods to be employed, quite as
realistic effects are suggested. So we have the gruesome pre
paration of the table and the featherbed for Edward the
Second, the towell for Woodstock, and the direction to the
Second Murderer at the death of Clarence to " Take him over
the costard with the hilts of thy sword." The disposition of
the body after the murder is prepared for, probably more for
the purpose of getting it off the stage than from any regard
for historical accuracy.

In " Richard the Third," therefore, we have a scene closely
resembling others on the stage at the time. It is the longest
of these imitations. .of-— Edward the Second," this being due in
large part to the strange introduction of the grotesquely humor
ous conversation of the murderers before the deed, a touch
entirely lacking in any of the similar scenes in other plays. It
is hard for u^^_j^ajize^therrect of this humor, but we find

from their popularity that such violent contrasts were in
complete harmony with the temper of the sixteenth century
audience.

Looking at these scenes js_thgy_jrg grouped in Act Ljve.
find that they exhibit in succession those typical of Elizabethan
taste. Considered from the aspect of stage effect, they pres
ented to the audience a series of situations already familiar in
other plays of the period, but here elaborated beyond anything
they had yet seen. The effect of the whole act is extravagant,
these typical scenes being heightened, and going beyond their
predecessors. In contrast to this extravagance in the concep
tion, the getting of the act seems to have been very simple.
I see no suggestion of any furniture other than a couch for the
sleeping Clarence, and no sure indication of an inner stage,
even in a case which would call it into use if one were available.
Thus in the murder scene, where the conversation which takes
place between Brakenbury and the murderers would presum-

(7ft

ably be in another room,_there is nothing in the text to indicate
that they are not in the room with Qarence.*0

Act II, Scene i. — The effect of the opening lines with King
Edward attempting to reconcile his nobles, is to relieve a little
the tension of the preceding, but with the entrance of Richard,
the irony of it all becomes apparent, and the scene ends in
mourning. In regard to the staging, this would seem to indicate
the lack, at least in The Theatre, of any arrangement for " dis
covered " scenes, for the sick king was probably brought in
" carried in a chair " like Brutus in " Locrine,"41 or Abdilmelec
in " The Battle of Alcazar,"42 and is taken off at the end of the
scene.

Scene 2. — This is a thoroughly typical scene of lamenta
tion, of which the drama offers many examples. The dramatic
effectiveness of the lament had always been recognized, but it
had never received such abundant illustration as in " Richard
the "Third." In this play there are no less than four scenes
in which the lament is the principal motive ; namely, Act III,
Scene 2, the Queen and the Duchess of York mourning for
Edward and Clarence, Act II, Scene 4, the Queen mourning
for Grey and Rivers, Act IV, Scene I, the Queen, the Duchess
of York and Anne before the Tower, and Act IV, Scene 4,
the Duchess of York, Margaret, and the Queen lamenting to
gether. There are also seven scenes in which the lament plays
a fairly important part.43

Such lyric passages have figured largely from the earliest
attempts to represent a story dramatically. In the liturgy of
the medieval Church one of the most impressive interpolations
for special celebrations was the Easter Officium Sepulchri,
which represented the three Marys on their way to the Tomb
and exclaiming in turn :

*° Brackenbury's speech,

Here are the keys, there sits the duke asleep,

does not seem to indicate that Clarence is in another room when this is
taken in connection with the duke's last speech.

41 Act I, Scene i.

41 Act V.

"Anne, I, 2. Margaret, I, 3. King Edward, II, i. Rivers and Grey, III,
3. Hastings, III, 4. Tyrrel, IV, 3. Buckingham, V, i.

Heu ! pius pastor occiditur,
Quern nulla culpa inf ecit :

O mors lugenda f
Heu ! nequam gens ludaica,
Quam dira frendet uesania,

Plebs execranda !
Heu ! uerus doctor obijt,
Qui uitam functis contulit:

O res plangenda!

Again in the religious cycles the mourning women have an
important part, as in the Chester play of the Crucifixion,44 or
the York play of the Resurrection, where the Marys lament
thus:

Alias ! to dede I wolde be dight,
So woo in worlde was never wight;
Mi sorowe is all for that sight

That I gune see,
Howe Criste, my maister, moste of myght,

Is dede fro me.

Later in the morality of " King Johan," one of the characters
is Ynglond, a widow, who bemoans the evils of the day. In
" Cambyses," the Mother mourns thus for her child :

Alas, alas ! I doo heare tell the king hath kild my sonne !

If it be so, wo worth the deed that ever it was doone !

. . . O wel-away, that I should see this houre !

Thy mother yet wil kisse thy lips, silk-soft and pleasant white,

With wringing hands lamenting for to see thee in this plight !

The introduction of such a scene is especially interesting,
because of its entirely ornamental character, playing no part
in the development of the story.

With the imitation of Senecan plays, a new motive charac
terizes such scenes, and the elegiac note is combined with the -7>
reflective or imprecatory lament. Taking one of the earliest
extant Senecan imitations, " Gorboduc," we find this illus
trated in the mourning of the Queen, where she says:

O my beloued sonne, O my swete childe,
My deare Ferrex, my ioye, my lyues delyght !
Is my beloued sonne, is my sweete childe,
My deare Ferrex, my ioye, my lyues delyght,

44 Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 17, pages 61, 204 and 206.

Murdered with cruell death?

Thou, Porrex, thou shalt dearely bye the same !
Traitour to kinne and kinde, to sire and me,
To thine owne fleshe, and traitour to thy-selfe,
The gods on thee in hell shall wreke their wrath,
And here in earth this hand shall take revenge
On thee, Porrex, thou false and caitife wight !

Doest thou not know that Ferrex mother Hues,
That loued him more dearly than her-selfe?
And doth she Hue, and is not venged on thee ? 45

This, compared with the mother's lament in " Cambyses,"
gives all the difference between the medieval and Senecan idea
of such a scene. The violence of such laments as that of
QEdipus46 or of Cassandra47 finds no place in the medieval
plays. " Richardus Tertius " is filled with lamenting scenes,
partly reflective, partly vengeful. The play opens with Eliza
beth's sad reflections on the cares of state. Later, in sanctu
ary, she gives expression to her apprehensions and presenti
ments, and when told of the murder of the princes, she re
proaches herself for giving them up to Richard, and then
breaks out:

Te, te, precor supplex mater genibus minor,
qui vindicans flammas vibras tonans pater,
et hunc vibrentur tela perjurum tua,
spolies Olimpum irate fulminibus tuis,
et impium coeli ruina vindicet.48

Richard, in Actio III, after the death of his son, bewails the
ups and downs of " Fortuna fallax," in terms that, as Mr.
Churchill has pointed out, resemble the lament of Andromache
in " The Troas."49 These vengeful laments are found also in
"The Spanish Tragedy,"50 in " Locrine,"51 in " Selimus,"52

"Act IV, Scene i.
"CEdipus, Act V, Scene 3.

47 Agamemnon, Act III, Scene 2.

48 Actio III, Scene i.
48 Op. cit., page 337.
00 Act I, Scene 3.

51 Act III, Scene 4.

62 Grosart edition, pages 242 and 249.

and frequently elsewhere. In " The True Tragedy," the
lament is almost entirely lacking, except in the scenes con
cerned with Jane Shore, the first of these being in familiar
Senecan form,

O Fortune, wherefore wert thou called Fortune, etc."

The frequency of such scenes in " Richard the Thirds-has
been pointed out. These ju^of bothEe__elegiac and the

vengeful type. In the 'T^entot^n^oTpojor^Ajine " there is
a combination of the two, Elizabeth is purely elegiac in her
mourning7~-M-argaret is the embodiment of the spirit of
vengeance.

The outward signs j)f_w£>£-S£emJr) have consisted conven
tionally in weeping, tearing the hair, and throwing oneself on
the ground. Thus Tamburlaine speaks of Zenocrate's " dis
hevelled hair " and " watery cheeks," when she mourns for
her people.54 Henry the Sixth sits on the mound and mourns
while the battle rages without,55 Constance seats herself on the
ground and says:

Here I and sorrow sit;
Here is my throne, bid kings come bow to it.58

In Peele's " David and Bethsabe," the Queen lies " prostrate "
when she mourns Absalon's death;57 Gismunda, in her grief,
loosens her hair and casts herself on the ground,58 and in the
sanctuary scene in " Richardus Tertius," a curtain is drawn,
and we see " the queen sitting on ye ground wth fardells about
her."59

The lamentations often took an[ antiphonic form, as in
" Locrine," where they mourn for Albanact thus :

Locrine. Not aged Priam, king of stately Troy,
Grand emperor of barbarous Asia,
When he beheld his noble-minded sons
Slain traitorously by all the Myrmidons,
Lamented more than I for Albanact.

M Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page g,

84 Part I, Act V. Scene i.

M Henry the Sixth, Part III, Act II, Scene 5, lines 14 and 124.

06 King John, Act III, Scene i.

" Act III, Scene 2, line 203.

68 Tancred and Gismunda, Act V, Scene 2.

MActio I, Actus III.

Guendolen. Not Hecuba the queen of Ilion,

When she beheld the town of Pergamus,
Her palace, burnt with all-devouring flames,
Her fifty sons and daughters, fresh of hue,
Murder'd by wicked Pyrrhus' bloody sword,
Shed such sad tears as I for Albanact.

Camber. The grief of Niobe, fair Amphion's queen,
For her seven sons magnanimous in field,
For here seven daughters, fairer than the fairest,
Is not to be compar'd with my laments.60

Similar passages are found in " Henry the Sixth," Part I,61
in the funeral scene that opens the play, in " David and Beth-
sabe,"62 and in " Selimus."63 In " Richard the Third," this
chanting quality comes out in such passages as the following.

Queen Elizabeth. Oh for my husband, for my dear lord Edward !

Children. Oh for our father, for our dear lord Clarence !

Duchess. Alas for both, both mine, Edward and Clarence !

Q. Eliz. What stay had I but Edward? and he's gone.

Chil. What stay had we but Clarence? and he's gone.

Duch. What stay had I but they? and they are gone.

Q. Eliz. Was never widow had so dear a loss.

Chil. Were never orphans had so dear a loss.

Duch. Was never mother had so dear a loss."

And again,

Q. Margaret. I had an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him ;

I had a Harry, till a Richard kill'd him ;

Thou hadst an Edward, till a Richard kill'd him ;

Thou hadst a Richard, till a Richard kill'd him.
Duch. I had a Richard too, and thou didst kill him ;

I had a Rutland too, thou holp'st to kill him.
Q. Marg. Thou hadst a Clarence too, and Richard kill'd him.™

In " RichanLlhe_TJiirjd/l therefore, we find frequent lament
ing scenes, representing a familiar device in the drama. They
also exhibit the conventional modes of expression, as where

60 Act III, Scene 2.

61 Act I, Scene i.
"Act III, Scene i.

88 Scene in which Bajazet and Aga bewail fortune. The play is not
divided into acts in the reprint.
84 Act II, Scene 2.
"Act IV, Scene 4.

Queen Elizabeth enters " with her hair about her ears,"66 and
where the women sit on the ground, and weep and curse and
wail in turn.67

Scenes 3 and 4. — These are examples of the(fia~rratiyej^nes
common in the histories, and illustrate the close adherence to
sources Imd the~epic "stfuctureof the chronicle play. There
are similar scenes throughout this play, as Act III, Scenes 2,
3, and 6, Act IV, Scene 5, and Act V, Scenes i and 2. In
this act, Scene 3, theTstagejiirectibnsjrf the Folio, "Enter one
citizen at one doore, and another at the other," shows the usual
method of managing such^ajneetmg~m the street
'Act 111, Scene J — TPhisact opens" with" the processional
scene of the young king's entrance into London, attended by
his nobles. rAjTin the tunefaTTcene,^soTiere, the oppojrtunity
for display seems again to have yielded to close adherence to
the source. In Act IT, Scene 3, Buckingham suggests " some
little train " for the king on his way to London, part of this
train is arrested on the road, and the royal entry is, therefore,
curtailed of much of its ostentation. Another opportunity, as
we see later, for an elaborate procession-scene is neglected in
the omission of the coronation scene in Act IV, and the intro
duction merely of Richard's entrance " in pomp, crowned " to
a srriair number of his followers. That the play offered oppor
tunities for large and showy scenes is shown in the processions
in " Richardus Tertius " at the end of each actio. In " Rich
ard the Third," and in a smaller degree in " The True Trag
edy," the authority of the chronicles, and the concentration of
the attention upon the figure of Richard resulted in such dis
tractions being introduced but rarely.

Scene 2. — The testing of Hastings I have included with the
narrative scenes under Act II, Scene 3.

Scene 3. — In " The True Tragedy," the scene of the im
prisonment of Rivers, Grey, and Vaughan is given, while in
this play it is merely reported by the messenger in Act II,
Scene 4. Shakespeare chooses the less dramatic culmination
of the situation, as he does also in the case of Buckingham's

86 Act II, Scene 2.
"Act IV, Scene 4.

arrest and death. This may have been done with the idea of
displaying the popular theme of the fulfilment of prophecy
which is brought out in these scenes, or it may be, with the
idea of differing from the scenes used in other plays on the
same subject.

Scene 4. — The dramatic irony of this council scene is devel
oped in the rapid manner that reminds one of Marlowe's work.
Here would have been another opportunity for the use of a
curtained inner stage had one been available. In a similar
scene in " Sir Thomas More," the stage direction reads, " An
arras is drawne, and behinde it (as in sessions) sit the Lord
Mayor, Justice Suresbie, etc."68 In " Richard the Third "
there is no suggestion of such an arrangement, for Bucking
ham, Hastings and others enter and take their places at a
table.

Scenes 5, 6 and 7. — Scenes 5 and 7, with the gullible mayor
and citizens, are distinctly comic,69 giving constant suggestion
of " business," and offering a relief to the somber scenes before
and after. Both take place in the balcony, representing first
the Tower walls, and later the upper gallery of Baynard
"TTistle. The dress of RichanTand Buckingham is given in
some detail, as " rotten armour, marvellous ill-fayoured."
. The scene of the Scrivener, a close following of the source,
suggests the lapse of time before the meeting at the Guildhall
is over.

Act III is constructed on the plan of three " large " scenes,
with short narrative or preparatory scenes intervening. It is
less somber than the acts preceding or following, and seems
to offer, midway in the play, a series of " relief " scenes. In
its staging several properties are mentioned, such as the "jdusty.
armour," a " head," a table, chairs, halberds for those accom
panying the prisoners, but no elaborate setting is indicated.
The use of the balcony is typical. First, the elevated platform
with the wall, arras or curtain beneath, is a part of the Tower
fortifications, later the same setting suggests, evidently without

88 Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 23, page 6.

89 They were so regarded in the days of Kean. See Genest, op. cit., Vol.
VIII, page 692.

any inconvenience, a balcony overlooking the castle court.
Such a. change ^Tjssociatioirwithout change of scene is emi
nently Elizabethan.

Act IV, Scene I. — The lamenting scene of the women has
been already treated in connection with Act II, Scene 2.

Scene 2.-— The stage_direction^ read, " Sennet. _JEnter Rich
ard, In _pomp, crowned ; Buckingham, Catesby, a Page, and
others." The effect of this may be gathered from the fact
that here, where, after this entrance, a " large," eloquent scene,
common in the chronicle plays, is expected, there is none such,
but all is keyed to the note of intrigue and apprehension.
Richard makes no address to his nobles to suit the stately
setting, but they are told to stand apart while he deals indi
vidually with those upon whom his machinations depend.
The repeated importunities of Buckingham70 are not in the
Folio, but whether put into the acting version or not by the
players, are characteristic, and introduce another of those
prophetic sayings which were so popular a theme in the chron
icle plays. Since Richard is so preeminently the leading figure
here, the " pomp " of the scene probably consisted in the / > -*\
gorgeousness of his dress71 and the appointments of the throne,
rather than in any splendor in the setting or in the grouping
of the __pther_ characters.

Scene 5. — The Senecan device of reporting the murder of ,
the princes is used at this point to keep the interest bent upon '
Richard. This, rather than any effort to avoid repetition,
would explain its employment, for, as has been seen, situations
are constantly repeated. In " Richardus Tertius " the murder
goes on within, while Brakenbury muses upon the horror of
it ;72 in " The True Tragedy," the lines are not quite clear, but
suggest that it might have taken place in the balcony, before
the audience.73 This scene may therefore show another studied

70 Lines 103 to 120.

71 That Richard dressed gorgeously is shown by the chronicles, and by
the Wardrobe Accounts which have been preserved. Henslowe's entries
suggest richness of dress as common on the stage.

72Actio III.

73 Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 44.

variation from the play that had preceded " Richard the
Third " on the stage.

Scene 4. — The remarkable company of wailing women in
this scene has been discussed. We have here a repetition of
the wooing in Act I, but, if possible, under even more pre
posterous circumstances. It is hard to conceive how this
stichomythic reasoning could have been other than tedious
except to an audience that delighted in all sorts of playing
with words.74 This part of the scene, which is very long in
the Folio, was shorter by nearly two hundred lines in the
Quarto. The scene passes into the preparations for the con
flict with Richmond, in which Richard in frenzied haste gives
and repeals his commands.

Scene 5. — The function of this scene before Lord Derby's
house is to give Elizabeth's decision concerning her daughter,
and to show the feeling of Richard's army. It illustrates at
the same time the very loose, epic structure of the play.

Act V , Scenes i and 2. — As has been already shown, these
two scenes are epic in nature, and detract from the dramatic
situation in their close adherence to the source.

Scene j. — On the one side Richard enters withjiis troops
and orders his tent up; on the other side of the stage, immedi
ately after, Richmond and his men come in, his tent is pitched,
and they withdraw into it. A similar scene of stage carpentry
is found in " The Warning for Fair Women," where the direc
tion is, " Enter some to prepare the judgement seat to the
Lord Mayor, etc. . . . who being set command Browne to be
brought forth."75 Again, in " Sir Thomas More," one scene
is partly taken up with the preparations for a mask, the plac
ing of seats, etc.,76 and in " The Spanish Tragedy," Hieronimo

74 K. Rich. Say that the king, which may command, entreats.

Q. Eliz. That at her hands which the king's King forbids.

K. Rich. Say, she shall be a high and mighty queen.

Q. Eliz. To wail the title, as her mother doth.

K. Rich. Say, I will love her everlastingly.

Q. Eliz. But how long shall that title " ever " last ?

K. Rich. Sweetly in force unto her fair life's end.

Q. Eliz. But how long fairly shall her sweet life last? etc.
76 Act II.
n Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 23, page 53.

" Knocks up the curtaine," and hangs up the " title," in getting
ready for the play.77

The incidents that follow take place successively in the two
tents, care being taken to keep those on one 'sige^off the stage
X 6F~shut within, the_ tent, while the others are the center of
interest. An exact counterpart of this arrangement is found
in the fifth act of " Histriomastix," where the action even
takes place on both sides at the same time. " Enter Lyon-
Rash to Fourchier sitting in his study at one end of the stage;
at the other end enter Vourcher to Velure in his shop " ; after
a short conversation between the first two, " Lyon-Rash and
Fourchier sit and whisper whilst the other two speak." The
scene_oXthe camps on Bosworth Field js, from the standpoint
of stagingkJthe most interesting in the play^jfor it is a direct
survival of the medierai~"'5tatioris " or "jnansions. and of
the method by which places remote from each other were,
without any inconvenience to the audience, represented simul
taneously.78 The pyjrlpnirpg^njr^^ " syrn-s
bolic," or " plasf^c^'stage^as it is_variousjy_caned, in Eliza-
bethan pTa^yrtgtv^lSe^irTully discussed by Mr. Reynolds and
Mr. Corbin,70 and need not be treated here. It is interesting
to note, however, that of all of Shakespeare's plays, this scene
, x offers the^ most— striking_gjirvival of such archaic arrange- '^f\
ment.80 That it was conscious medievalism we are led to
believe from the Prologue of " Henry the Fifth."

This scene also furnishes an instance of how Shakespeare
used his sources in this play, in his representation of the
ghosts.81 The ghost in Elizabethan plays is one of the inherit-

" Act IV, Scene 3.

T8 For a fuller discussion, see Brander Matthews, The Development of
the Drama, Chapter IV.

79 Cited above.

so « Whatever share he (Shakespeare) may have had, moreover, in the
actual phrasing of Titus Andronicus and Richard III, there can be little
doubt that the primary structure of the scenes, so reminiscent of the
archaic stage, was the work of an earlier hand." Corbin, Shakespeare
and the Plastic Stage, page 377.

81 See on this general subject, The Pre-Shakespearian Ghost and Shake
speare's Ghosts, by F. W. Moorman. Modern Language Review, 1906.

ances from the Senecan drama, princ^ipajly_thrgugh_the_work
of Kyd. In "The Spanish Tragedy" the ghost acts as the
impulse to revenge, and also as a Chorus, first to introduce
the action, later, at the end of each act, to sum up what had
been accomplished and to plan further incitement to revenge.
Although the vogue of plays in which the ghost figures promi
nently did not culminate until somewhat later, such are found
from the beginning of the Senecan influence on the English
drama. One of the earliest of these plays is " The Misfor
tunes of Arthur" (1589), where Gorlois' ghost speaks the
Prologue. In " Alphonsus of Arragon " (1589), the figure
of Calchas is called up,82 and in " The Wounds of Civil War "
(1590), a Genius appears to Scilla,83 both of which serve this
same purpose in stage effect. In " The True Tragedy " the
ghost appears at the opening of the play, a Prologue ghost
as in strict Senecan use. In " Locrine " the function of the
ghost is extended so that it participates in the action.84 A
further development is found in " Woodstock " and in " Rich
ard the Third," where several ghosts appear, but, more con
vincingly, in a dream. The scene in "Richard the Third"
bears such a close resemblance to the one in " Woodstock,"
and differs so much in this from any other extant play of this
date, that it might suggest indebtedness to the earlier drama.85

r There is, however, ample suggestion in the source for such a
scene without recourse to any model. In More's " History of
King Richard III," it is said, " He took ill rest a nightes, lay
long wakyng and musing, sore weried with care and watch,
rather slumbered than slept, troubled wyth feareful dreams,"86

' and all of the other chronicles tell of these visions. The evil
dreams are thus described in " Richardus Tertius,"

Horrenda noctis visa terrent proximae.
Postquam sepulta nox quietem suaserat,
altusque teneris somnus obrepsit genis :

88 Act III, Scene 2.
88 Act IV, Scene 2.
"Act IV, Scene 2.

85 Fleay conjectures 1591 for the date of Woodstock.

86 Quoted by Churchill, in Richard Third up to Shakespeare, page 458.

subito premebant dira furiarum cohors,
saervoque laceravit impetu corpus tremens,
et foeda rabidis praeda sum daemonibus :
somnosque tandem magnus excussit tremor,
et pulsa artus horridus nostros metus.
Heu ! quid truces minantur umbrae Tartari ?87

In " The True Tragedy " a more explicit description is given,

Sleep I, wake I, or whatsoever I do,
Me thinkes their ghoasts come gaping for revenge,
Whom I have slain in reaching for a crown,
Clarence complaines, and crieth for reuenge,
My nepheues bloods, Reuenge, reuenge doth crie.
And euery one cries, let the tyrant die.88

This scene in Richard the Third," therefore, was merely a
dramatization, in line with a popular device of the day, of a
part of the legend whlcfinhad been treated in narrative in the
preceding plays.

The representation of ghosts may be gathered in some detail
from the stage directions and references in the text of the
dozen or so plays of this period in which the ghost appears.
Their entrance upon the stage was sometimes accompanied by -i
thunder and lightning,89 at times by smoke, as described in
" The Warning for Fair Women/'90 but oftener they seem to
have appeared suddenly and quietly. There is some indica
tion that they arose from a trap door, especially where the
visitant is to perform no action, as in " The Spanish Tragedy,"
" The Wounds of Civil War," " The True Tragedy," " The
Misfortunes of Arthur," and " Alphonsus of Arragon." In
one case, at least, there are stage directions indicating an exit
by the trap door, in " The Old Wives' Tale," where Jack, the
ghost, "leaps down in the ground "91 after his beneficent labors
are at an end. The spirit was sometimes represented as speak
ing Latin, as in " The True Tragedy," " Locrine," and " The
Wounds of Civil War," probably because of the mysterious-

87Actio III, Actus V.

88 Shakespeare Society Publications, Vol. 21, page 61.

89 Locrine, Act V, Scene 4. Woodstock, Act V, Scene i.

90 Induction, lines 51-2.

91 Bullen edition, page 346.

ness added by the use of another tongue. The ghost came to
be caricatured as shrieking " Vindicta ! ", as we see in " The
Warning for Fair Women,"*2 in Jonson's " Poetaster "93 and
Heywood's " Captives."94 The_ghosts in "Richard the
Third " do none of these thingsTlHev ejiter aTone door evi-
dently, and go out at the opposite side; they speak English;
the light " burns blue " it seems, but their coming and going
is quiet, with a certain solemnity that must have been particu
larly impressive to an audience wherenSelief^jTsucITvisitations
was unquestioned.

From " The Warning for Fair Women " we know that it
had been customary for the ghosts to appear wrapped in a
sheet, or in a leather pilch,95 and Henslowe's entries of
" j gostes sewte, and j gostes bodeyes," and " j gostes crowne,"
suggest some kind of distinctive dress. In " Alphonsus of
Arragon " the ghost appeared in a Cardinal's robes ;96 in " Old
Wives' Tale," Jack must have been in his usual dress, as his
ghostly character is unknown until he divulges it at the end.
The most interesting feature of their presentation is the at
tempt to represent their invisibility. Henslowe's entry of
" a robe for to goo invisibell " awakens one's imagination, but
the nature of it is unascertainable. In " Old Wives' Tale "
we find " Enter (the ghost of) Jack invisible and take Sacro-
pant's wreath from his head, etc."97 As for their ^jn§ke_up,"
O ! rjjit is evident that the face was whitened and that the hands,
and perhaps the face, were sometimes smeared with blood.
Thus in " Locrine " Humber says,

But why comes Albanact's bloody ghost?98

In Lodge's " Wit's Miserie " one of the devils is said to be

92 Induction, line 50.
"Act III, Scene i.
"Act IV.
90 Induction, lines 47-8.

A filthy whining ghost,

Lapt in some foul sheet, or in a leather pilch, etc.

99 Act III, Scene z. " Rise Calchas up, in a white surplice and a Card
inal's Myter."

97 Bullen edition, page 342.
"Act III, Scene 5.

" a foule lubber, and looks as pale as the visard of the
ghost."99 Horatio addresses Andrea's ghost in " The First
Part of Hieronimo " as "my pale friend."100 In trying to
realize the effect of these scenes, it must be remembered that
the Elizabethan stage did not have the advantages, especially
necessary for such iu^j^ct5por~artificial lighting. The stage
in this j^rgne migTiFTiayenbeen darkenejl_jrL_some way, with

only the light which " burned blue " when the ghosts ap
proached, an effect not so easily obtained on a stage open to
the sky_except where it was shaded by the " heavens," and
where any illusory effects to be attained by strong lighting
from a particular quarter were out of the 'question. What
^conditions prevailed 4n-4hi&-play_ is ijmjc^rtajrijjnjiow fa£_they
were conventionaL and in hgw_lar_thex_show the more sig
nificant presentation of the ghost found in " Hamlet " and
" Macbeth."

Scenes 4 and 5. — The play closes with jEwoj short but exciting
scenes on the battle fi&ld. IrTthese chronicle plays lEeTblittles \\Atf
seem to have mactelRe greatest impression on the audience, and
they became the specml nrarkjaiLgjays of this kincL as is seen
in " The Warning for Tair Women," where Hystorie enters
with drum and ensign.101 Richard's line,

A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse !

from the battle scene in this play seems to have been the one
that most impressed the audience, so far as can be judged from
its recurrence, while the stir and bustle, the noise and occasion
for hand to hand contests supplied a realistic element very at
tractive to the " groundlings."

The frequent occurrence of such scenes makes it possible to
follow the changing nature of their presentation from the
earliest plays to " Richard the Third." The two earliest ex
amples exhibit typically Senecan and medieval handling respec
tively. In " Gorboduc " (1562), the battle is relegated to the
dumb show, and is described thus,

89 Wit's Miserie or the World's Madness, 1569.

100 Act III, Scene 3.

101 Induction.

" First the drommes and fluites began to sound, during which there came
forth upon the stage a company of hargabusiers and of armed men all
in order of battaile. These, after their peeces discharged, and that the
armed men had three times marched about the stage, departed, and then the
drommes and Suits did cease." 102

In "Horestes" (1567), on the other hand, the army and the
battle play an important part in the action. It may not be
uninteresting to give in detail the martial scenes in this, as they
show the method of presentation at this early date. When the
army first comes on the stage the directions are, " Let ye drum
play and enter Horestes with his band; and march about the
stage." After a few words, they " march about and go out."
When it comes to the battle after the parley, and the storming
of the city, it reads, " Let Egistus enter and set hys men in
a rayl, and let the drom playe tyll Horestes speaketh." Hores
tes and Egistus defy each other, and then, " stryke up your
drum and fyght a good whil, and then let sum of Egistus men
flye, and then take hym and let Horestes drav him vyolently,
and let ye drums sease." In " Richardus Tertius " (1579),
although a Senecan play, a popular element is introduced in
bringing the battle on the stage. It is described in some detail
thus,

" Lett gunns goe of, and trumpetts sound, with all stir of Soldiers with
out ye hall, untill such time as ye lord Stanley be on ye stage ready to
speake."

Stanley addresses the soldiers, urges them to fight bravely, and
then the battle is heard behind the scenes as before.

" After the like noise againe, let souldiers run from ye feild, over the
stage one after another, flinginge of their harnesse, and att length let some
come haltinge and wounded. After this let Henerye, Earle of Richmond
come tryumphing, haveinge ye body of K. Richard dead on a horse, Catesby,
and Ratliffe and others bound." 30S

We find that the later development followed closely the meth
od marked out in these two plays. In the York and Lancaster
plays, where we have a succession of battles, great importance
is given to the marshalling of troops, the marching in of the

i<« u -phe Order and Signification of the Domme Show " before the Fifth
Act.

103Actio III.

forces, the passing of the companies across the stage ; and the
conflict is represented by a succession of single encounters be
tween the leading figures, accompanied by the running in and
out of the soldiers. In Marlowe's plays, the noise of battle
rather than the actual fighting is used for scenic effect, as in
" Tamburlaine," Part I, Act III, Scene 3, where the battle rages
without while Zenocrate and Zabina carry on a woman's war of
words ; or in Part II, Act IV, Scenes i and 2, where the dullard
son of Tamburlaine plays cards while the noise of the battle
is heard in the distance; or in the last scene where the dying
Tamburlaine is borne out to the conflict.104 In the imitators of
Marlowe, we find the general method of the chronicle plays.
In " The Battle of Alcazar," for instance, these scenes are
represented at great length and in great detail,105 and so in the
other plays of the time.

There seems to be a typical development of the steps in
these situations, thus; (i) the news of the coming of the
enemy; (2) the preparations immediately before the battle,
as the entrance of the troops,106 the defiance, etc.; (3) the
fight, in which the alarm, the continuous sound of fighting
without, the excursions, the single encounters, the death of
one or more wounded leaders, and the sounding of the
retreat are found in nearly every scene of this sort; and
(4) the triumphant entry of the victor, bringing the trophies
with him. The hero is rewarded or crowned and preparations
are made for the burial of the slain.107 All these stages
appear in " Richard the Third," the announcement of
Richmond's coming, the march of both armies to Bosworth,
the preparation the night before the battle, with the feeling
of foreboding increased by the appearance of the ghosts,
the warning message to Richard, the orations to the armies,
with the call to arms. Two scenes are ~gTven~tb" the battle,

104 There is only one encounter on the stage, in Tamburlaine, Part I, Act
III, Scene 3.
108 Act V.

106 The most elaborate scenes of this sort are found in The Contentions.

107 Examples of these are found in Henry the Sixth, The Contentions,
Locrine, The Wounds of Civil War, Alphonsus of Arragon, etc.

the last showing the field after Richard has fallen,109 when
Richmond enters in triumph, congratulations are exchanged,
Richmond is crowned, and the play ends with orders for the
burial of those who have fallen, and the announcement of
the marriage of Richmond and Elizabeth.109

The opportunity for effective scenes is apparent. The
leader with his followers, the oration, the encounter," all place
the principal actor in heroic situations, and the triumph and
crowning give further occasion for brilliant effects. What
the setting actually was may be gathered in some detail. It
.« is probable that the equipment for ^ martiaj^c^n^s_was_jriore
elaborate than for any other. The parts of the armor are re
ferred to very frequently, and the description of the " solem
nity "of arming the prince in " Edward the Third "110 shows
with what care for detail such scenes were reproduced. In
" Richard the Third " the King gives directions to Catesby,

Look that my staves be sound, and not too heavy,111

showing that he carried a lance. Later, reference is made
to his sword,112 and archers are spoken of as the "main part
of the army.113 That a distinguishing dress was used for
/"soldiers of different nationalities would seem apparent from

108 " According to the old stage direction Richard dies on the stage, and
it is remarkable that Shakespeare has given him no dying words, and
doubtless the omission is designed as it is characteristic. It is left to the
actor to give the last expression to the state of mind which is the true
retribution of Richard, in the spirit and character of his combat and fall.
Burbage, the first and celebrated representative of Richard, had no doubt
the poet's own instructions for this great conclusion, and certain glim
merings and true stage tradition may easily have reached and we may
hope did not die out with Kean. The reader of the play, who has but the
general stage-directions in compensation, may pause to bring back in
thought the impression of the interval before the closing speeches." W. W.
Lloyd, Critical Essays. Richard III.

109 The barbarous treatment of Richard's body, found in the chronicles
and in The True Tragedy, is omitted in Shakespeare's play.

110 Act III, Scene 3. " Enter four Heralds, bringing a coat-armour, a
helmet, a lance, and a shield." Then follows the arming.

m Act V, Scene 3, line 65.

112 Ditto, line 163.

113 Ditto, lines 285 and 339.

a stage direction in " Edward the Third," " Enter Bohemia,
and Forces; and Aid of Danes, Poles and Muscovites."114
Distinction of weapons is suggested in " Locrine," as Corineus
carries a club, and Locrine a curtle-axe and sword, while the
Scythian Humber has a helm, targe and dart. The Scythians
are armed in " azure blew " and their banners are " crost with
argeant streams."115 Distinctions were made in the martial
airs also. In " Henry the Sixth," Part I, Act III, Scene 3,
the stage directions read, " Here sound an English march.
Enter and pass over at a distance, Talbot and his forces."
After a few lines it says, " French march. Enter the Duke
of Burgundy and forces." The drums, trumpets and colors
of different forces are constantly referred to. The King
seems to have worn his crown in battle. This is mentioned in
" Henry the Sixth," Part III, Act IV, Scene 4, in " Tambur-
laine," Part I, Act II, Scene 4, in "The True Tragedy"
and " Richardus Tertius." In " Richard the Third " Derby
enters bearing the crown and says:

Lo, here, this long usurped royalty

From the dead temples of this bloody wretch

Have I pluck'd off, to grace thy brow withal.118

~~ The presentation of the battle, therefore, is seen to have

I—- ~^_ _- _j_^. — - — ~ K ^

furnished the most serious attempts at realistic staging that

we find in these early plays. That these attempts were not
without their detractors is seen in the Prologue to Jonson's
" Every Man in His Humour," where he tells how in the
theatres they,

with three rusty swords,

And help of some few foot and half-foot words,
Fight over York and Lancaster's long jars.

The realization of the inadequacy of these representations .'

mAct III, Scene :.

118 Act II, Scene 3.

118 Women figure prominently in battle scenes and are sometimes repre
sented as taking part in the fighting, as in Alphonsus of Arragon and The
Contention. In Sir Thomas More Doll enters " in a shirt of maile, a
headpiece, sword and buckler."

led Shakespeare to prefix. _to_ "jienry the Fifth" his often
quoted apologyT"

Such are the scenes in their sequence. It is apparent that
their arrangement is governed very slightly by an effort to
obtain contrast, or to reach any dramatic climax.118 The
structure, so far as scene arrangement is concerned, is en
tirely epic. Dramatic structure, so far as it is present, comes
from the exposition of Richard's character. The scenes and
situations which_jKOuLl make the play something new to an
audience familiar with " The True Tragedy " and the York
and Lancaster plays,119 were characterized by going beyond
and making better the suggestions of earlier writers, rather
than by actually introducing novel effects. Thus, the wooing
of Anne is a development of similar scenes fo~und~irrT»ther
plays, and the murder of Clarence is a direct imitation of
" Edward the Second." There seems to be a constant effort
. to carry the audience off its feet, to go farther in the elabora-
7\ ' V; tion of these situations than any one before. This may ac
count in some degree for the constant repetition. Thus the
wooing of Anne finds a counterpart in the solicitation of
Elizabeth, the preparation for the murder of Clarence is re-

111 Can this cockpit hold

The vasty fields of France ? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?

Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts ;

Into a thousand parts divide one man,

And make imaginary puissance :

Think when we talk of horses, that you see them

Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth ;

For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings.

118 Pofessor R. G. Moulton in Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, finds
in Richard the Third other than epic unity by tracing in it the network and
the " unvarying reiteration of Nemesis " which " has the effect of giving
rhythm to fate," — a point of view which has given occasion for an inter
esting exposition of the plot, but which seems to be pushed to the verge
of absurdity.

119 Richardus Tertius would not affect the popular conception, as its
performance was restricted to the university.

peated in part in the conference with Tyrrel, the weeping
women are the center of no less than four scenes, and
ghosts appear to the number of eleven. Sheer effect is
sought, rather than the economical and orderly development
of the story.

Yet from this examination of the scenes in " Richard the
Third " and of their relation "tol^milajrTscenes in other plays
of the time, it is seen that, whatever may have been its effect
upon the audience, this effect was little furthered by elaborate
staging. There is no requirement for such devices as were
common at the time, as in the banquet scene in " The Jew of
Malta " where Barabas is dropped into the cauldron,12* or in
" Alphonsus of Arragon " where Venus is let down from
the top of the stage and at the end of the play is drawn up
again, or in " Tancred and Gismunda " where Cupid " cometh
out of the heavens in a cradle of flowers " ;121 nor are there
as in other plays, any appearances of blazing stars,122 or suns123
or moons.124 It has been shown that there is a marked^ absence
apparently, of brilliant Scenes, such as processions, large court
scenes, etc". Hardly any contemporary play requires less in
'scenery and properties.
Richard enters

In the TnosFelaborate scenes,
n pomp

with the setting of the throne-
room,125 and where the_two jehts are on the stage,128 the

furnishings were in no way extraordinary and made no un
usual demands. Even the ghost scene was a simple matter
for an audience which probably demanded no greater illusory

effects here than in the rest of the play. The greatest elabora-

— 1~~_^— ; __ — — •* - a — • — • - • ---- W_J^
tion evidently showed itself in the gorgeousness of Richard's

dress, which centered attention on the notable feature of the
play.

This play, so far as I can see, contributej_no_certan^eyjdenc(

120 Act V, Scene 4.

mAct I, Scene i.

^Battle of Alcazar.

123 The Contention, Part II.

m The Troublesome Raigne.

126 Act IV, Scene 2.

138 Act V, Scene 3.

A- of the use of an inner stage. Indeed, as has been pointed out,
in more than one instance where the use of it would suggest
itself as the most natural arrangement, the text seems to show
that it was not used. The directions call for a balcony and two

^ — — • — — ~~

doors, but give no other indications of the divisions _of the

(to

Plac<? is indicated in the text, or, in two instances,_by__the^
setting of the throne and of the council table. There was
here, then, no necessity to resort to the device of placards,
although there is no proof that k-wasjiot_dpne! Tfie_change
of scene is not frequent and about half of the scenes are un-
located.

That intermissions between .the. -acts— were common seems
to be shown, in many plays of the time, by the presence of the
dumb shows,127 by the part of the Presenter, or of a Chorus
at the end of each stage of the action, as in " Soliman and
Perseda," and by references to musical interludes.128 .There
are however, no indications in " Richard the Third " of any
i such breaks in the performance.

On the question of the text used, the position of the Cam-
bridge editors seems to be the most tenable, namely, that the
Quarto represents the original manuscript of the author with
some few changes.129 This therefore, would^rep.resent the
acting version, as nearly as it is obtainable.130 The main
differences between this acting version and the text of the
Folio, is that it is shorter by about two hundred linesT, an
obvious advantage in a play numbering 3620 lines?81 How

m Locrine, The Battle of Alcazar, Alphonsus of Arragon, James the
Fourth, The Misfortunes of Arthur, Tancred and Gismunda.

128 See W. T. Lawrence, Music in the Elizabethan Theatre. Shakespeare
Jahrbuch, Vol. 44.

129 See Cambridge Shakespeare, preface to Richard the Third. A de
tailed discussion of the relation of the Folio to the first Quarto, with
conclusions opposed to those of the Cambridge editors, by J. Spedding
and E. H. Pickersgill, may be found in The New Shakespeare Society's
Transactions, 1875.

180 The Bankside Shakespeare, edited by Appleton Morgan, Shakespeare
Society of New York, 1891, gives on opposite pages the text of the 1597
Quarto and the first Folio.

m Richard the Third is the longest of Shakespeare's plays, except Hamlet.

this number could bejgiven in a two hours performance,132
when to-day two thousand lines are considered the limit, may
be accounted for, in part at least, by the greater rapidity pos- 'VA
. sible where no time was lost in the shifting of scenery, and
i Ylj by the fact tfiatjn^ " RicEard the Third" very few properties
had to be movedabou^ during the jTay. The absence-ef^is- :
tinctly comic scenes would also further this rapidity of per
formance, for it is in the comic scenes that most time for
" business " must be allowed.

The prominence of the hero is one of the noteworthy char
acteristics of this play. As a practical result of this Richard
is upon the stage more constantly than the hero in the typical
chronicle. In " Edward the First " about as much is spoken
when the king is off the stage as when he is on, i. e., he is on
the stage just half the time. In " Henry the Fifth " and
" The Troublesome Raigne," the hero is on rather more than
half the time. Richard is on the stage about two-thirds of
the time. This however, is not so good a test as the impor
tance of the scenes in which the hero does not figure. In
" Edward the First," the Lluellen scenes run parallel with the
main plot and claim a large part of the interest as well as of the
time. In " Henry the Fifth," the scenes in which Henry does
not appear are either comic or more important by the figure of
Henry the Fourth. In " The Troublesome Raigne," John is no
more interesting than Arthur or Falconbridge. Richard figures
in fifteen out of the twenty-five scenes ; five of the ten scenes in
which he does not appear are very short, as where Buckingham
is led to execution, or two citizens are discussing Richard's
protectorate, or a scrivener appears with the indictment of
Hastings. Richard is absent from only two scenes where there
is any action, the murder of Clarence and the testing of Hast-

182 The two hours' traffic of out stage.

Romeo and Juliet, Prologue.
May see away their shilling
Richly in two short hours.

Henry the Eighth, Prologue.

But in the Induction to Bartholomew Fair, the length of the performance
is given as " two and a half hours and somewhat more."

ings.ia3 In other words, there J^hereopportunity forjhe jde.-
velopment of the^j2ai^' Besides, in no playjugjojhatjime
had such opportunity been given forjhe display of a variety
of emotions and capabilities in the actor.
the Third is an especially jnany sided one: he is -the
villain, the injured patriot, the king par excellence, the lover,
a consummate actor. He is seen in playful banter with the
little princes, in the heroic encounter, as leader of an army, and
in the last moments of a tragic death. This would explain
the popularity of " Richard the Third " with actors as well as
audiences from the days of Burbage to the present time.

It is easy to imaginejihe atfrart'vcnp-ss nf this play to audi
ences of Shakespeare's time. The great figure~of Richard,
grotesque, imminent in every action, varying at every turn,
is surrounded by a multitude of characters helplessly involved
in the net-work of his machinations — the demonic Margaret,
half Fury, half prophetess, her awful presence giving the note
of fatefulness to these scenes in the fortunes of the houses of
York and Lancaster, the weeping women, suggestive of the
ancient Chorus, the enthusiastic, wrong-headed Buckingham,
the obtusely loyal Hastings, the precocious princes, and the
simple, wondering children of Clarence. These in their suc
cession and combination give scenes of constantly shifting
" values." How much Shakespeare has done in the creation
of this world of interacting natures surrounding this central
figure could be readily appreciated by an audience which had
seen the old play of " The True Tragedy," where Richard's
schemes are planned with a certain commonness and vulgarity
far removed from the sardonic, yet always kingly character of
Shakespeare's protagonist; Margaret's awful curses are in no
measure suggested by the mournful complainings of Anne and
Elizabeth; and the children, so effectively introduced in this
play, are mere little puppets with large speeches. For Shake
speare's transformations in these respects, I believe, are
what would most impress the audience who went to see " Rich
ard the Third" at The Theatre in 1594 and 1595.

133 Richard speaks 1161 lines, a greater number than any other character
in Shakespeare's plays, except Hamlet.

Above all, the play is typically Elizabethan. Asjias been
seen, it shows m ^^construction and presentation a mingling
of the classical and medieval together with a regard for the
current theatrical fashions, which mark it as typical of the
plays on the stage during the last years of the sixteenth
century. At the same time, in its emphasis upon the devel
opment of character rather than upon action, it looks forward
to the great tragedies of the next decade.

Ill

RICHARD THE THIRD AND THE DRAMA OF THE RESTORATION

The chronicle play during the Restoration — Characteristics of the heroic
play — " The English Princess " — The character of Richard the Third in this
play — Betterton as Richard — Popularity of " The English Princess " —
Changes in stage conditions during this period — Women on the stage —
Scenery — Music — Costume — Importance of the period.

Although with the opening of the theatres after the Res
toration numerous plays of Shakespeare were revived,1 either
in their original or in an altered form, no record has been
discovered of a performance of Shakespeare's " Richard the
Third " until the beginning of the next century,2 and then in
a revised form, and no performance of the Shakespearian
form occurs for more than one hundred and fifty years.3
During this period, however, between 1660 and 1700, the
character of Richard the Third figured on the stage in other
plays, namely, " Henry the Sixth, The Second Part, or The
Misery of Civil War," by John Crowne (1681), and "The
English Princess, or The Death of Richard the Third," by
John Caryl4 (1667), the latter of which presents a treatment
of the subject which influenced the later history of the Shake
spearian play. Before examining these plays, some brief
account should be given of the chronicle play after 1594 in
order to exhibit the influences which resulted in the form which
we meet at this time.

1 For a list of these alterations and revisions for the fifty years following
the Restoration, see Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist, page
302 note.

2 " I do not find that this play which was so popular in Shakespeare's
time, was performed from the time of the Restoration to the end of the
last century." Malone; Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of
the English Stage (1790). London, 1803, pages 347-8.

8 In 1821, Macready's attempt to revive the original form.

* Written variously as Caryll and Carroll.

During the early years of the seventeenth century the popu
larity of the chronicle play persisted, but after the succession
of Charles the First, plays founded on the English chronicles
became more and more rare, and the history of this dramatic
form may be said to close with Ford's " Perkin Warbeck,"
acted at The Phoenix in 1633. This play is of some special
interest here as dealing remotely with the subject of Richard
the Third, and as being of a quality to rank it among the few
great plays of the class of Shakespeare's epic histories.8 This,
with Samuel Rowley's " Richard the Third or the English
Prophet" (i623),e of which we know nothing, exhibits the
subject of Richard the Third among the very last represen
tatives in this period of the English chronicle play.

The period succeeding the restoration of the Stuarts upon
the throne was not a time in which this form of the drama
would be likely to attain popularity. Aside from the unac-
ceptableness of plays dealing with the fall of English monarchs,
the absence of national enthusiasm, the total separation of the
ideals and practices of the Court from those of the great mass
of the people, the lack of connection or sympathy between the
stage and the general public, would account for the failure of
interest in national themes. It has been pointed out that " the
literature of the stage was not only out of sympathy with the
opinions and sentiments of the people at large, but was in part
both intended and received as an insult to them." The drama
of the time appealed to and was fostered entirely by a small
and non-representative class, the Court, and, in addition, its
models, form and themes were highly " Frenchified."7

Plays based really or nominally on the English chronicles
number about a dozen during the years between the Restora
tion and the beginning of the next century. To these must
be added, however, the revivals and alterations of history plays
from the older drama, that now began to appear.8 The first

8 F. E. Schelling: The English Chronicle Play, page 265.
' Fleay, History of the London Stage, page 30, says it was played at The
Fortune by the Palsgrave Men.
T See Chase, The English Heroic Play, page 193.
8 Macbeth, according to Downes' Roscius Anglicanus, was given " as

original history plays of the period seem to have been the Earl
of Orrery's " Henry the Fifth " in 1664, " The Black Prince "
by the same author in 1667, and Caryl's " The English
Princess " in the same year. Two plays based on the popular
story of King Edgar, one by Edward Ravenscroft in 1677,
and the other by Thomas Rymer in 1678,® and a group of
plays by John Banks dealing with the events of the reign of
Elizabeth,10 complete the list until the appearance, late in the
nineties, of Charles Hopkins' " Boadicea " and Mrs. Pix'
" Queen Catherine, or The Ruins of Love," unless Dryden's
opera, "Arthur," may be included here. All of the histories
of this period, except those by Banks,11 are of the prevalent
type of serious drama, i. e., heroic plays. It remains, there
fore, to show the general character of this type as related to
the histories of the former age.

The heroic play12 has certain affiliations with the " virtu "
play so called, such as Marlowe's " Tamburlaine," or " Faus-

Shakespeare wrote it " in 1 663 at the Duke's Theatre, and according to the
same authority Lear was played at Lincoln's Inn Fields between 1662 and
1665. In 1667, Henry the Fourth was revived. Macbeth appeared as an
opera, altered by D'Avenant, in 1692, and Nahum Tate produced his re
visions of Richard the Second and Lear in 1681. In this same year also,
Henry the Sixth, very much altered by Crowne, appeared, and in 1682
D'Urfey's revision of Cymbeline as The Fatal Wager.

9 King Edgar and Alfrida and Edgar or the English Monarch.

10 Virtue Betrayed, or Anna Bullen, 1682, at Dorset Garden, The Un
happy Favorite, or The Earl of Essex, 1682, at the Theatre Royal, and in
1684, The Island Queens, or The Death of Mary Queen of Scotland, not
acted until 1704, at Drury Lane, with the title Albion Queens, and
The Innocent Usurper, or The Death of Lady Jane Grey, which was not acted.

11 Banks' plays have looser structure and use blank verse, but in the
characters and sentiments differ little from the heroic plays. The altera
tions of Shakespeare's plays kept something like the outward form and
the blank verse of the originals.

12 For the relation of the heroic play to the preceding drama, see espe
cially, J. W. Tupper, The Relation of the Heroic Play to the Romances of
Beaumont and Fletcher; Publications of Modern Language Association^
Sep., 1905 ; W. J. Courthope, History of English Poetry, Vol. IV, page
404 ; A. H. Thorndike, The influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shake
speare, Introduction to the edition of The Maid's Tragedy and Philaster
in the Belle Lettre Series, and Tragedy, Chapter VIII.

tus," or Shakespeare's "Richard the Third." In both we
have the desire to attain great things, scorn for the impossible,
utter self-confidence, and the " high astounding " eloquence of
the self-assertive hero. Furthermore, through the influence of
the French romances and of the romantic plays of the preced
ing age, especially those of Beaumont and Fletcher, whose
plays were popular on the Restoration stage, the " virtu "
play became modified from martial and political themes, and
from a play in which love played only a subordinate part, to
one in which the sentiment of love was the predominating
motive and interest. The hero, as in the chronicle play, was
a person of royal or noble birth, but as Rymer says of the
hero of his " Edgar,"

Unking'd, in Love, we represent him here.13

The heroic play, sui generis, is professedly a history play, but
even in the time of its greatest vogue we find few themes taken
from English history. The scenes, as in the romances, are
remote in place, as well as in time. In contradistinction to the
loose epic structure, with the large number of characters, and
the introduction of comic matter, which characterized the
chronicles generally, and in accordance with the stricter dra
matic structure of the romantic plays, the heroic play developed
a tolerably consistent observance of the unities, a suppression
of all comic elements and a reduction of the number of char
acters. Yet, instead of presenting in this smaller compass the
interaction and complexities of character, introspection and
passion find no place here, but the " tendency is for each char
acter to become the exponent and champion of a single phase,
a single idea."14 This impression is strengthened by the
further rigidity brought about by the change from the more
varied cadences of blank verse to the fixed rhythm of the
couplet.
- ^ far as the history of the chronicle play is concerned,

the most significant characteristic of these heroic plays is their
treatment of historical sources. The writer used the names

18 Prologue.

14 Chase, op. cit., pages 54 and 103.

of historical personages and kept to historical events in the
merest outline, but that is all. Love is the whole concern and
history is " twisted " to make it so, patriotism plays no part
in motive and little in expression, war is kept in the back
ground as a point of reference for the lover, who engages in it
chiefly to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of his
obtaining the object of his desire. If in the course of this a
number of persons are killed, the play is called a tragedy,
irrespective of a happy ending.15 It is seen, therefore, that the
history play became in this period quite another thing in spirit
and form, far removed from the plays contemporary with
Shakespeare's " Richard the Third."

In the small number of these heroic histories between the
years of 1660 and 1700, Richard the Third is the hero of one
of the most successful, " The English Princess, or The Death
of Richard the Third." The theme is developed from Rich
ard's solicitation of the Queen for her daughter Elizabeth, the
English Princess. Richmond is the rival suitor, secondarily
the liberator of England. To illustrate the form which the
subject took at this time, a short resume of the play is given.

Act L — The play opens just before the battle of Bos worth.
Richard is on his way to meet Richmond. But the first con
cern of Richard, for political and personal reasons, is to win
Elizabeth, the daughter of Edward the Fourth, for his wife.
Elizabeth vows herself plighted, both by love and honor, to
Richmond.

Act II. — Lord Stanley's treachery to Richard and his adher
ence to Richmond become apparent. Chariot, the page of
Richmond, furthers the communication between the lovers.

Act II L — The King's further attempts to win Elizabeth are
unsuccessful, and she is condemned to die unless she yields.
The scene changes to the camp of Richmond. The Prior of
Litchfield fortells his success.

Act IV. — On the night before the battle Richmond visits
Elizabeth with Stanley and begs to die in her place, but she
utterly refuses the sacrifice. Richard appears walking in his
sleep, surrounded by the ghosts of those whom he has slain.

M Chase, op cit., pages 20-1.

Act V. — The day of the battle. Elizabeth escapes to a
cloister in the dress of the page, Chariot. Sir William Stan
ley, disguised as Richmond, meets Richard and is about to
fight with him, when Richmond appears. They fight and
Richard falls.16 The play closes with the revelation of the
identity of Chariot as the daughter of a French count, the ap
pearance of Elizabeth and the crowning of Richmond.

The author gives his sources in the prologue as " plain
Holinshead and down-right Stowe," but it is seen that great
liberties have been taken with these sources to meet the re
quirements of the heroic plot. This offers all the conventional
obstacles of the typical heroic play, the rivals both to hero and
to heroine, and the strong opposing force of the tyrant king.
The prime interest is heroic love, the characters present the
well-known types, the lover of noble birth, splendid in valor,
extravagant in love; the heroine strictly regardful of the con
ventionalities, prating always of love and honor; the generous
rival in Sir William Stanley; the love-lorn maiden in Chariot.
Richard, quite at variance with the complexity of Shakespeare's
conception, is here a character of one idea, the typically ambi
tious king-villain. Some violence is done to the character of
Queen Elizabeth to make her fill the part of the evil-minded
woman lost to all sense of honor, bent only on ambition. The
sentiments present the familiar themes of love and honor, the
former expressed in the familiar terms of " poison in the
blood," and " raging fire." The villain's theme is ambition.
It is this preference of ambition to love that makes Richard
the villain in distinction to Richmond, who prefers love to
ambition; otherwise their characters are not sharply differ
entiated. Loyalty to the monarchical idea finds expression
from time to time, the patriotic note is slight, although the
Prologue and Epilogue point to a patriotic motive in the under
taking.17 The tragic note is hardly perceptible. The villain

16 Compare Rymer's canon in Tragedies of the Last Age, " If I mistake
not, in Poetry no woman is to kill a man, . . . nor is a Servant to
kill the Master, nor a Private Man, much less a Subject to kill a king,
nor on the contrary."

17 Greece, the first Mistress of the Tragic Muse,
To grace her Stage did her own Heroes chuse ;
6

is punished, but his fate awakens no pity, nor does his over
throw seem of more significance than denoting his lack of suc
cess in love. The national concern is almost unfelt.

Richard's ugliness is touched upon, but only vaguely. He
is called " this monster,"18 and his " ill-shape "19 is spoken of,
but neither of these in terms that suggest any great physical
deformity. He rather stands abstractly for the ugliness of
the tyrant, but probably in his character as a king, in accord
with orthodox heroic canons,20 some measure of dignity above
a common villain was given him. All elements of the comic
in connection with his character, either in the suggestion of
the grotesque or in the situation, are severely suppressed.

Their pens adorn'd their Native Swords; and thus

What was not Grecian past for Barbarous.

On us our Country the same duty lays,

And English Wit should English Valour raise.

Why should our Land to any Land submit

In choice of heroes or in height of wit?

This made him write, who never writ till now,

Only to show what better pens should do.

And for his pains he hopes he shall be thought

(Though a bad Poet) a good Patriot. Prologue.

Richard is dead ; and now begins your Reign :

Let not the Tyrant live in you again,

For though one Tyrant be a Nation's Curse,

Yet Commonwealths of Tyrants are much worse,

Their name is Legion : And a Rump (you know)

In Cruelty all Richards does outgo. Epilogue.

Also compare the title motto in the Quarto of 1674.

Nee minnimum meruere decus vestigia Graeca
Aussi deserere, et laudare domestica facta.

Horat. de Art. Poet.
"Act I, Scene 4.
19 Act II, Scene 3.

20 " Though it is not necessary that all heroes should be Kings, yet un
doubtedly all crown'd heads, by Poetical right are Heroes. This Character
is a flower, a prerogative, so certain, so indispensably annexed to the
Crown, as by no Poet, or Parliament of poets, ever to be invaded."
Rymer, Tragedies of the Last Age, page 61. Quoted by Chase, op.- cit.,
page 29.

Richard is sceptical, as the typical heroic villain. Thus he
says:

'Tis fear makes Gods above, and Kings below.21

To reassure himself, he scoffs :

There are no ghosts, nor ever were
But in the tales of Priests, or Womens Fear.22

He dies exclaiming:

Since I must lose my Throne, I only crave,
That nothing may be found beyond the Grave.23

Genest says that in this play " nothing is taken from Shake
speare."2* The end of the play seems generally modelled on
the older one, especially the ghost scene, though here greatly
simplified by representing the ghosts as appearing to Richard
alone. Such imitation, however, is only barely possible, as
the suggestion stands in the chronicles, and the representation
of ghosts on the stage at this time was as common as in the
time of Elizabeth. The battle or any portion of it seemed
out of favor in the heroic play, so the battle of Bosworth
Field is represented only by the duel between Richard and
Richmond.

The actor of the heroic Richard was Betterton, the greatest
actor of his age, a worthy successor of the first Richard,
Burbage, and like him inclining to the quieter delivery, in a
time when bombast and bombastic plays were in vogue.
Colley Gibber, in his " Apology " gives as the main charac
teristic of Betterton's acting the power " to keep the attention
more pleasingly awake by a temper'd Spirit than by meer
Vehemence of Voice."25 Again he says, " Betterton had a
Voice of that kind which gave more Spirit to Terror than to

21 Act III, Scene i.

22 Act IV, Scene 9.

23 Act V, Scene 6.

24 John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage from 1660 to 1830,
Vol. I, page 73.

25 An Apology for the Life of Colley Gibber by Himself. Edited by Robert
W. Lowe. London, 1889. Vol. I, pages 101-2.

softer Passions; of more strength than Melody."26 In figure
he was " not exceeding middle stature, inclining to the corpu
lent; of a serious and penetrating Aspect; his Limbs nearer
the Athletick than the delicate Proportion ;" yet he had " a
commanding Mien of Majesty."27

"The English Princess " seems to have been a successful
play, although opinions differed as to its excellence. Downes,
the prompter, writes of it:

" Richard the Third, or the English Princess, wrote by Mr. Carrol was
excellently well acted in every Part ; chiefly King Richard, by Mr. Better-
ton ; Duke of Richmond, by Mr. Harris ; Sir William Stanly, by Mr. Smith,
gained them Additional Estimation, and the Applause from the Town, as
well as profit to the whole Company."28

Pepys saw the play when it was given on March 7, 1667,
and characterizes it as " a most sad, melancholy play, and
pretty good ; but nothing eminent in it, as some tragedys are."28
Genest records but one performance, but it seems to have been
on the stage later, according to the title-page of the second
Quarto of 1674, which reads: "As it is now acted at His
Highness the Duke of York's Theatre." It seems even to
have enjoyed some popularity, for I find references in the
plays of the season which seem to apply to this " Richard the
Third." In the Epilogue to " The Tempest," which Pepys
saw on November 7, i667,30 that year is represented as being
unfortunate :31

Gallants, by all good signs it does appear
That sixty-seven's a very damning year,
For knaves abroad, and for ill poets here.

28 Ditto, page 116. Anthony Aston, in his Lives of the late famous
Actors and Actresses, says of Betterton's voice, " His voice was low and
grumbling ; yet he could tune it by an artful climax, which enforced uni
versal attention even from the Fops and Orange-girls."

21 Ditto, page 117.

28 Roscius Anglicanus. Facsimile Reprint of the Rare Original of 1708,
by Joseph Knight. London, 1886. Page 27.

""The Diary. Edited by H. B. Wheatley. London, 1895. Vol. VI,
pages 200 and 201.

80 Ditto, Vol. VII, page 176.

31 Referring, no doubt, to the two edicts of suspension of performances
issued that year.

" The English Princess " had been given at the Theatre in
Lincoln's Inn Fields in March of the same year, and it is prob
able that the reference is to the play that had just scored a
success. Again in Banks' " Unhappy Favorite," played at the
Theatre Royal in 1682, Burleigh is called:

Fourth Richard rather,
Heir to the Third in Magnanimity,
In Person, Courage, Wit, and Bravery all,
But to his vices none, nor to his End
I hope.32

But " The English Princess " is not the only play in which
the figure of Richard was kept upon the stage, for among the
alterations of Shakespeare's plays, which, we have noted,
began to appear in considerable numbers at this time, John
Crowne's " Henry the Sixth the Second Part, or the Misery
of Civil War" (1681), presents the character of Richard the
Third, and quite prominently. Although the writer says of
himself in the Prologue :

For by his feeble Skill 'tis built alone,

The Divine Shakespeare did not lay one stone,

this play is a combination of the Jack Cade scenes of the sec
ond part of Shakespeare's " Henry the Sixth," with the lead
ing scenes of the third part, together with certain interpola
tions, such as the scenes dealing with Lady Elinor Butler, an
early sweetheart of Edward the Fourth, Warwick's wooing
of Lady Elizabeth Grey before her meeting with the King
and his subsequent jealousy, and the marriages of Edward,
George and Prince Edward. The great Earl Warwick is the
hero of the play,33 but is here converted into a sighing lover,

The ghosts of poets walk within this place,
And haunt us actors whereso'er we pass,
In visions bloodier than King Richard's was.

32 This might refer to Crowne's Henry the Sixth. Or, since later in the
play, we have the line,

Was not brave Buckingham for less Condemned?

it may be that Banks was reading Shakespeare, as Buckingham does not
figure in either of these plays.

33 Acted by Betterton, as was also the part of the Duke of Gloucester.
Genest, op. cit., Vol. II, page 459.

* 70

hardly to be torn from his lady's side when the battle opens.
The conception of Richard in this play is coarser, less brood
ing, more blatant, and he is even more a villain confessed than
in Shakespeare. The soliloquies giving his intentions to clear
the way to the throne by murder, seem clearly reminiscences
of " Richard the Third ;" and here, differing from " The Eng
lish Princess," he is reproached with his ugliness within and
without, with the greatest frequency and detail. Edward the
Fourth's speech,

My Horse, my Horse, I must ride for a Kingdom ! **

suggests imitation of Richard's noted line. The appearance
of the ghost of Richard the Second to Henry as he sleeps, fore
telling his death, and of the spirit who sings to him,35 is
typical of the plays of the time. The scenes of carnage,36
depicted with sickening detail, exhibit the increased possibili
ties of stage setting.

Aside from furnishing these interesting items to the litera
ture of the subject, the staging of these plays, especially of
" The English Princess," gives some, though slight, evidences
of the changes in conditions at this time. These changes must
be considered briefly. In this connection, the work of Sir
William D'Avenant is of importance. In 1656 appeared
" The Siege of Rhodes, Made a Representation by the art of
Prospective in Scenes and the Story sung in recitative music."
This musical play or opera, marked the reopening of the theatres
and introduced several novelties on the stage. The two most
important were the employment of movable scenery and the
appearance of women as performers. From this time, scenery
became an important feature in distinction to properties. This
is felt strongly if one reads a play of the Elizabethan age
where the properties are elaborate, such as " A Looking Glass
for London," and compares it with a play of this time, such
as " The Indian Queen." The employment of scenery was
most extravagant in the operas which were now in vogue, and

34 Act III.

85 Act V, Scene 5.
3<iAct III, Scene 2.

which were marked from the very beginning by elaborate
" machines " and " other Diverting Contrivances." The regu
lar drama felt the influence of this in great measure, and
Dryden's plays, to take a notable example, seem to have been
elaborately staged. " The Indian Queen " evoked the admira
tion of both Pepys37 and Evelyn38 by the scenery and decora
tions,39 and the latter also speaks of " The Conquest of Gran
ada " as having " very glorious scenes and perspectives."40

The introduction of women on the stage of the public
theatres was not an entirely new thing, for French and Italian
women had played in English theatres,41 but the first English
women appeared at this time, and were officially recognized
as members of the theatrical companies. It is stated in
D'Avenant's patent thus : " Whereas the women's parts in
plays have hitherto been acted by men, at which some have
taken offence, we do give leave that for the time to come all
women's parts be acted by women." This license from the
King was the result of the French influence exerted during
his residence abroad, where women were commonly employed
on the stage. Pepys and Evelyn both speak of the novelty
of seeing these actresses. Pepys, on January 3, 1661, saw
" The Beggar's Bush," and notes that it was " here the first
time that I ever saw women come upon the stage," and many
references occur later to the actresses he saw. From one of
these we learn that Mary Davis, one of the leading actresses
of the time, took part in " The English Princess," and at the
same time we get an interesting glimpse of a stage practice:
" To the Duke's playhouse, . . . and saw ' The English
Princesse or Richard the Third ; a most sad, melancholy play,
and pretty good; . . . little Mis. Davis did dance a jig after

"Diary, January 27, 1664, and February 10, 1664.
88 Diary, February 5, 1664.

39 The Epilogue refers to these in the line,

The poet's scenes, nay, more, the painter's too.

40 Quoted in Doran, Annals of the English Stage, page 177.

41 See Prynne, Histriomastix ; Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Joseph
Knight, Preface ; Fleay, History of the London Stage, page 22 ; Gibber,
Apology, pages 90 and no note.

the end of the play, and there telling the next day's play; so
that it come by force only to please the company to see her
dance in boy's clothes."42 From this it is seen that she prob
ably played the part of Chariot. Who the other women in
the play were does not appear in any of the notices of it, but
it may be conjectured that Mrs. Betterton, then in the height
of her powers and acting similar parts in other plays, probably
took the part of Elizabeth to her husband's Richard.

In general stage arrangement this period was a time of
transition from the older non-scenic " platform " stage to the
present " picture " stage with scenery. Front curtains were
first introduced into the public theatres at this time. The stage
projecting into the auditorium was retained until the end of
the century; and much of the action took place on the pro
scenium stage because of the necessity, with the poor facilities
for lightning, of keeping in the " focus." But with the intro
duction of scenery, entrances were made by doors opening on
the forward part of the proscenium,43 or by the " wings," while
the balcony disappeared, except the portions over the opposite
proscenium doors.44 With a stage that projected into the pit
and had a curtain in front of the scenery, some of the scenes
in " The English Princess " would naturally become changed
in their treatment when compared with similar ones in the
Elizabethan play. This comes out especially in the last act.
Here the scenes in the two camps are given in succession rather
than in coincidence, as now the front curtain could be dropped
and a change of scene take place quickly. As a natural out
come of this, the ghosts appear only to Richard.

In " The English Princess " we have few indications of the
elaborate staging which characterized the serious dramatic
efforts of the day. There is here a simplicity which suggests
the pseudo-classical French plays of the period. Many of the

42 Diary, ed. Wheatley, Vol. VI, page 200-1.

43 English Princess, Act IV, Scene 8, Catesby and Ratcliffe enter at one
of the doors before the curtain, Lovell at the other door.

44 On the history of the proscenium doors and the balconies, see W. J.
Lawrence, A Forgotten Stage Conventionality. Anglia, Vol. 28 (1903).
Also on the relation of the Restoration stage to the earlier form, see V. E.
Albright, A Typical Shaksperian Stage: The Outer-Inner Stage.

scenes take place in an open space with a background of build
ings to represent the royal " lodgings," such a scene as appears
in many of the illustrations of the French stage.45 Most of
the other scenes are placed before the tent of either Richard or
Richmond. The change of scene from one to the other is
frequent.

It was at this time that music took a permanent and impor
tant place in the theatrical performance. The opera was a
new and popular entertainment, and the song was an inevitable
element even in serious plays. In " Historia Histrionica "
(1699), it is said, "All this while play-house music improved
yearly, and is arrived at greater perfection than ever I knew.
it."46 Pepys speaks enthusiastically of the " wind music "
which he heard at a, performance of " The Virgin Martyr."47
George Hogarth, in "Memoirs of the Opera" (1851), says:

" A regular band of musicians was placed in the orchestra, who between
the acts, performed pieces of music composed for that purpose and called
act-tunes ; and also accompanied the vocal music sung on the stage, and
played the music of the dances. . . . The most favorite music was that
which was heard in the dramatic pieces of the day ; and to sing and play
the songs, dances, and act-tunes of the theatres became a general amuse
ment in fashionable society." **

We find the " act-tune " introduced in " The English
Princess " — here it seems most inappropriately — to meet the
popular taste. From the stage directions of D'Avenant's
alteration of " The Tempest,"49 we learn that the orchestra is
placed between the pit and the stage, instead of in a " box "
as in the Elizabethan theatre. Pepys mentions this when he
first visited Killigrew's theatre in Drury Lane, and found
that " the musique being below, and most of it sounding under
the very stage, there is no hearing of the basses at all, nor
very well of the trebles."50

45 See Mantzius, History of Theatric Art.

48 By James Wright. Quoted in Chase, The English Heroic Play, page
12, note i.

"Diary, ed. Wheatley, Vol. VII, page 324. Also Vol. VIII, page 320.

48 Quoted by Chase, op. cit., page n.

"Act I, Scene i.

50 Diary, May 8, 1663. See also article cited above, Music in the Eliza
bethan Theatre, by W. J. Lawrence.

The Richard of this play probably appeared in the dress of
the day, with periwig, and, as was the fashion for heroic
characters, with a long plume on his head,51 but anachronism
of dress caused no greater offence than in the preceding age.
It had become the fashion at this time, a consequence of the
interest of the Court in the theatre, for the King and nobles
to allow their coronation suits to be used for kingly parts.
Downes gives several instances of this. Thus, in speaking of
Orrery's " Henry the Fifth," he says, " This play was splen
didly Cloath'd: The King in the Duke of York's Coronation
Suit: Owen Tudor in King Charle's: Duke of Burgundy, in
the Lord of Oxfords, and the rest all new."52 Again, in re
gard to D'Avenant's " Love and Honor," " This play was
Richly Cloath'd; The King giving Mr. Betterton his Corona
tion Suit, in which he acted the Part of Prince Alvaro; The
Duke of York giving Mr. Harris his, who did Prince Pros-
pero; And my Lord of Oxford gave Mr. Joseph his, who did
Lionel the Duke of Parma's Son."53 In regard to other plays,
he speaks of the great expense of " cloathing " them,54 and of
the fine performances of revived plays with new costumes and
scenes, as in the case of " Henry the Eighth."55 The tradi
tion of Richard's fondness for rich costumes was, therefore,
at this time, consciously or unconsciously, preserved.

The changes, then, that had been effected in the handling
of the subject of Richard the Third were hardly greater than
those that had been developing in the presentation of it upon
the stage. With a front curtain, movable scenery, music be
tween the acts and accompanying the songs, the parts of Eliza
beth and the Queen played by women, the play of " Richard
the Third " was quite changed in its character from the Eliza
bethan performance. The predominating importance of

81 Fitzgerald, A New History of the English Stage, Vol. I, page 1 70.

52 Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Knight, pages 27-8.

53 Ditto, page 21. In The Unhappy Favorite, acted 1685, Mrs. Barry is
said to have played Queen Elizabeth in the coronation robes of the queen
of James the Second. She had before been presented with the Queen's
wedding suit. See Genest, op. cit,, Vol. I, page 448.

M Ditto, pages 22, 26, and 45.
K Ditto, page 24.

Richard in the scenes has shifted to the heroine, and the im-
pressiveness of his figure has given place to the artificiality,
though with a certain clear-cut simplicity of motive, of the
protagonist of the heroic play.

This period is important in the stage history of " Richard
the Third " because of its advance in stage-craft, because of
the new form here given to the material, which modified the
later conception and representation of " Richard the Third,"
and because at this time we have the beginning of the vogue
for Shakespearian alterations, which prepared the way for the
best known of all of the revisions of Shakespeare's plays,
Colley Gibber's " Richard the Third."

IV
THE GIBBER VERSION OF RICHARD THE THIRD

Popularity of alterations of Shakespeare's plays during the period —
Colley Gibber — Available material — Detailed examination of the Gibber
version — General character of changes — Additions — Minor changes, the
result of the effort to modernize — Gibber's conception of the character of
Richard — Prevalent method of acting — Theatrical dress — Changes in gen
eral stage effects — History of the version for the first forty years — Gibber
as Richard — Ryan — Quin — Popularity of the play after 1714.

When " Richard the Third," after its half century of eclipse,
reappeared upon the stage, it had taken on a form as different
from the original play as the eighteenth century theatre was
from that of the Elizabethan age. By 1700, tampering with
the plays of Shakespeare was no new thing, and had proved
a facile and ready way to theatrical success. It is not strange
therefore, that this play, which had always been popular and
which offered exceptional opportunities to the actor, should
have been subjected to the process. The motives which gov
erned these alterations have been fully discussed by Professor
Lounsbury in " Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist,"1 and need
not be taken up here, except to note that in the case of this
play, contrary to the general practice, the tragic ending is
kept, love is not made a leading motive, the " unities " are no
more strictly regarded than in the original, and while the
general " affects " of the play are heightened, no new spec
tacle is introduced. The success of this revision upon the
stage may be a direct result of the fact that this- play suffered
less essential change from the original than any other revisions
of the time. And this is the more remarkable, because this
adaptation came at the height of the disregard for Shakes
pearian tradition, and at a time when alterations of his plays

1 Chapter VIII.

were constantly appearing,2 and when the heroic play with
its iron-bound canons had just passed the height of its popu
larity and might be expected to leave more patent evidences
of its influence.

The reviser of this play, Colley Gibber, was an actor ex
cellent in comedy parts, entirely unfitted for tragedy, and one
of the best-known and most efficient of the managers of
Drury Lane. His ideas of stage management were practical,
philistine. As we are to consider him mainly as an adaptor,
it is fortunate for us that he has left a full account of his
attitude and methods in his entertaining and much admired
" Apology."3 He says there : " Whenever I took upon me to
make some dormant Play of an old Author to the best of
my Judgment fitter for the Stage,4 it was honestly not to be
idle that set me to work; as a good Housewife will mend old
Linnen when she has not better Employment,"5 and again
in speaking of his compilation of " the Double Gallant " from
several plays, he says : " A Cobbler may be allow'd to be
useful though he is not famous: And I hope a Man is not
blameable for doing a little Good, tho' he cannot do as much
as another."6 His attitude, while perhaps ostentatiously

2 Many of these appeared just at this time, as Lacey's Sawney the Scott
(The Taming of the Shrew), 1698, Gildon's Beauty the Best Advocate
(Measure for Measure), 1700, Lord Lansdowne's The Jew of Malta
(Merchant of Venice), 1701, and The Comical Gallant, an adaptation of
Merry Wives of Windsor, 1702. Ravenscroft's alteration of Titus
Andronicus, which was first acted in 1686, became popular in 1702. In
1700, Betterton revived with great success the first and second parts of
Henry IV. The second part was somewhat altered, scenes from Henry V
being incorporated with it. It is in this play that Colley Gibber made one
of the successes of the day in the character of Shallow. Henry VIII was
revived by Betterton without alteration during this same season.

8 An apology for the Life of Colley Gibber by Himself. Edited by Robert
W. Lowe. London, 1889. Two volumes. Printed from the second
edition, London, 1750.

* The same attitude is seen in the Preface to Tate's Lear and Dryden's
Troilus and Cressida. See also, for others, Lounsbury, Shakespeare as a
Dramatic Artist, page 301.

5 Apology, Vol. I, page 265.

8 Ditto, Vol. 33, page 4.

" honest," is quite free from any academic pose or enthusiasm
for reform, and nearer to that of a conscientious mechanic.

The material available at the time that Gibber made " Rich
ard the Third" "fitter for the stage" was abundant. The
last Shakespeare Folio had appeared in 1685. Dr. Richard
Dohse however, in his article on Gibber's " Richard the
Third "7 has shown by comparing Gibber's text with the
Quartos and Folios, that he used chiefly the 1664 Folio, with
the addition of some passages found only in the first Quarto.
In 1681, the first and second parts of Shakespeare's " Henry
the Sixth " were revised by John Crowne, and appeared at
Dorset Garden,8 the second part dealing, as we have seen, with
the death of Henry the Sixth and the early career of Richard.
" The English Princess," as we saw, appeared in 1667 and was
played at Lincoln's Inn Fields with great success, Richard the
Third being one of Betterton's best parts. This play seems to
have disappeared from the boards by 1700, after the vogue for
the rhyming tragedy was over, but it is not impossible that
Gibber might have been familiar with it. About 1695-6 Gibber
was at Lincoln's Inn Fields for a short time and there might
have seen the play in the library of the theatre, or he may have
been led through his interest in the subject and in Betterton, to
have read either the Quarto of 1667 or of 1674. The pre-
Restoration plays on Richard the Third were probably not
easily accessible at this time. Heywood's " Edward the
Fourth " had not appeared since 1626, and of Rowley's " Rich
ard the Third " no trace is found except the Prologue written
for it by Heywood in 1632. " The True Tragedy " was first
reprinted from the Quarto of 1594 by the Shakespeare Society
in 1844.

It is quite conceivable that Gibber, when preparing a revision
of this play, should have consulted the chronicles. We find
that Caryl went to these sources for his unhistorical treatment
of Richard the Third, giving his authorities, as " plain Hollins-
head and downright Stow."9 The last edition of Holinshed's

T Colley Gibber's Biihnenbearbeitung von Shakespear's Richard III.
Banner Beitrage zur Anglistik, Vol. II, Bohn, 1899.
8 Op. cit., Vol. I.
' Prologue to The English Princess.

Chronicle had appeared in 1586, of Hall's in 1550, of Stowe's
" Annales " in 1631. Graf ton's " Chronicle at large and meere
Historye of Affayres of Englande," a compilation of the work
of Hall and other chroniclers, had appeared in its last edition
in 1569, followed by an abridgment edited as late as 1572.
Much later, Speed's " History of Great Britaine " had reached
a fourth edition in 1650, with an epitome in 1676.

As important as a possible source must be accounted " The
Mirror for Magistrates." Issued originally by William Bald
win in 1559 with Sackville's famous " Induction," it had re
ceived frequent additions from time to time by other authors.
In 1610, Richard Nicolls issued an edition in which, among
other additions, he substituted a poem on Richard the Third
by himself in place of Segar's in the edition of 1587. This
was reissued, or revamped, in 1619 and again in 1628. 10

In 1646, Sir George Buck's " Life and Reign of Richard
III " vigorously defended him against his detractors.11 Be
sides, such productions as " The Golden Garland of Princely
Delight," containing a song on " The Most Cruel Murder of
Edward V," which reached its thirteenth edition in 1690, and
innumerable chap-books were constantly throwing into poetic
form this familiar story.

Turning now to the play, let us examine this alteration in
regard to situations and stage effects.12

Act I. Scene i. — The first act is taken from " Henry the

10 See W. F. Trench, A Mirror for Magistrates, Its origin and influence.
Also Haslewood, The Mirror for Magistrates. In Five Parts. London,
1815.

"A course followed by Horace Walpole a century later in his Historic
Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III, 1768, and by various
later writers. The latest defense of Richard is by Sir Clements R.
Markham, in his recently published volume on Richard the Third.

12 The references apply to the Works of Colley Gibber in five volumes,
London, 1777. Other editions appeared in 1700, 1710, 1721, 1760, etc.
A note is added to the title in the 1779 edition which says: "This Tragedy
being admirably altered from the original, by that excellent judge and
ornament of the stage, Colley Gibber, we shall have the fewer observations
to make upon it." To which Genest adds : " This note shows the editor
a bigger fool than Gibber himself." Quoted by Lounsbury, op. cit., page
424.

Sixth, Part III," in its general plot. In the first scene, the
events of the battle of Tewkesbury are narrated by Tressel,
thus giving the audience at once the setting, and introducing
Richard as on his way from the battle-field to London. Rich
ard appears, and in a soliloquy tells of his intention to murder
Henry.

Scene 2. — The murder of Henry is given practically as it
is in Shakespeare.

In this act King Henry's monologue is from " Richard the
Second," Act V, Scene i, lines 38 to 45. Richard's Soliloquy
is from " Richard the Third," Act I, Scene I, with three lines
from " Henry the Sixth," Act III, Scene 2, lines 169 to 171,
and the last two lines and concluding couplet by Gibber. In
the murder scene two lines from the scene of the murder of
Clarence (i, 4) are used. The monologue of Richard at
the end is composed of lines from " Henry the Sixth," Part
III, Act V, Scene 6, from " Richard the Third," Act I, Scene
i, together with additions by Gibber.13 For this act Gibber
seems to have used Shakespeare exclusively, unless the idea
of showing Henry sleeping was suggested by Crowne's similar
scene in " Henry the Sixth, the second Part, or The Misery
of Civil War." Whether as the result of direct influence or
not,14 Gibber, in beginning the story of Richard the Third
with the battle of Tewkesbury and the death of Henry the
Sixth follows Nicolls' method in " The Mirror for Magis
trates,"15 and the last act throughout is surprisingly close to
Nicoll's story. Thus, after Henry recites the story of Ed
ward's death on the field at Tewkesbury and his own death

18 For details such as these I am indebted largely to the article by Dr.
Dohse, already cited. A table of the lines added by Gibber from other
plays of Shakespeare may be found on page 604 of the New Variorum
edition of Richard the Third.

14 Dr. Dohse, op. cit., explains the introduction of this act in the play
by Gibber's desire to make Richard the Third independent of the plays
dealing with Henry the Sixth.

15 Th' induction to my storie shall begin
Where the sixth Henrie's Edward timeless fell.

Stanza 9.

in the Tower, Richard, in Nicoll's poem, dilates upon the
peaceful times to follow:

He dead, the battles fought in field before,

Were turned to meetings of sweet amitie.

The war-god's thundring cannons dreadful rore,

And rattling drum-sounds warlike harmonic,

To sweet tim'd noise of pleasing minstralsie,

The haile-like shot, to tennis-balls were turn'd,

And sweet perfumes in stead of smoakes were burn'd.1*

This is using Shakespeare much as Gibber did.

Act II. — In the second act, Gibber draws nearer to the orig
inal. It is occupied with the wooing of Anne and the mourn
ing for Edward the Fourth. The wooing is preceded by a
scene by Gibber giving the conversation between Tressel and
Stanley, in which they discuss the approaching death of Ed
ward and the attempts of Richard to win the Lady Anne.
Richard appears and bewails the misfortune of an ugly body
as hindering his suit. The scene draws and discovers Anne,
Stanley, Tressel, guards and bearers with the body of King
Henry. What follows is practically Shakespeare's but cut
down considerably. Gibber's only additions are the " asides "
of Stanley and Tressel upon Anne's weakening opposition.17
The only borrowing is in Anne's monologue, where the lines
from " Henry the Sixth," Part I, Act I, Scene I, referring
to Henry the Fifth are here applied to the dead king. From
this the scene goes directly to Act II, Scene 2 of Shakespeare,
leaving out the murder of Clarence and the scene of recon
ciliation about the dying Edward. The scene closes with a
soliloquy by Gibber.

The changes in the details in this act are noteworthy. The
addition of the scene before the wooing of Anne in which
the hostility of Buckingham and Stanley is marked so much
earlier than in the original, seems a reflection of " The Eng-

16 Stanza 1 7.

17 Genest thinks that Gibber shows the influence of The English Princess
in the line,

But first I'll turn St. Harry to his grave,

where he substitutes St. Harry for Shakespeare's " yon fellow." Op. cit.,
Vol. II, page 200.
7

lish Princess," in which Stanley, as a champion of the faction
against Richard, is prominent from the first. The romantic
nature of Richard's first soliloquy may also be attributed to the
same source. In Shakespeare, from the very beginning, Rich
ard's attempts to win Anne are the result of his ambition;
in Gibber's play, Richard, like the typical heroic villain,
seems for a time to vacillate between love and ambition. The
omission by Gibber of Shakespeare's lines,

not all so much for love,
As for another secret close intent,
By marrying her which I must reach unto,

has been attributed to blundering and misconception, but the
effort to give a romantic vein to Richard's " reaching to the
crown," at least in its earlier stages, was the natural course
for a playwright of Gibber's time. In accordance with the
taste of the day, Anne is made less a hoyden than in the scene
in Shakespeare, but weaker, and so easily won over, that
Tressel and Stanley exclaim satirically:

Stanley. What think you now, Sir?
Tressel. I'm struck ! I scarce can credit what I see.
Stanley. Why, you see — a woman.
Tressel. When future chronicles shall speak of this,
They will be thought romance, not history."

The " asides " throughout the scene are effective, and give
time for the " business " that made this scene one of the
crucial tests for the actor. In the mourning scene Gibber has
made his changes with a heavy hand, in order to leave no
doubt as to Richard's duplicity. He enters with an " aside,"
Gibber's addition:

Why, ay ! these tears look well — Sorrow's the mode,
And every one at Court must wear it now :
With all my heart ; I'll not be out of fashion.

18 " Gibber, who altered King Richard III, for the stage, was so thor
oughly convinced of the ridiculousness and improbability of this scene,
that he thought himself obliged to make Tressel say :

When future chronicles, etc."

Note by Steevens, in the Reed edition of Shakespeare, 1802. Vol. 14,
page 295.

He stands in the center of the group, weeping and voluble.
The difference of effect between this act and the opening acts
of Shakespeare's play is readily explained when we note that
instead of the numerous epic scenes behind which the chronicle
is distinctly felt, Gibber has used only the most effective scenes
in the action, and has introduced them by the shortest explana
tion. A further essential change in the tone results from
the omission of the figure of Margaret with her magnificent
curses and lamentations, which were so strongly reminiscent
of the medieval drama.

Act III. — With this act the two plays come together, in the
reception of the young king and his brother in London, but
all the following scenes are omitted to the end, where the
Mayor and citizens visit Richard and offer him the crown.
In place of these, a scene between Richard and Anne is
introduced. In the scenes taken from Shakespeare, the text
is kept practically as in the original. The additions by Gibber
are interesting. In the first scene, the episode of the pre
cocious Duke of York taunting Richard with his deformity,
is taken from a similar episode in Shakespeare's play, Act
I, Scene 4, where the child is talking to his grandmother.
This brutal touch was quite in keeping with the taste of the
time, which we see not only delighted in violent scenes as much
as did an Elizabethan audience, but enjoyed as well the added
elements of cynicism and mockery.19 More interesting as con
cerning the question of sources however, is Gibber's most
striking addition to the play, the scene between Richard and
Anne. This suggests that the reviser may have used the
chronicles. The only hint of such a situation in Shakespeare
is in Act IV, Scene I, where Anne recounts the miseries of her
life with Richard. Gibber has elaborated these allusions, and
along the lines given in the chronicles. While Holinshed
gives no more than Shakespeare has used, Hall adds in regard
to Richard's dissatisfaction with Anne, that the King thought
" he would enucleate and open to her all these thinges, trus-

19 A similar addition is seen in Tate's revision of Lear, where, after the
extrusion of Gloster's eyes, Goneril taunts him with his blindness.

tynge the sequell hereof to take this effecte, that she herynge
this grudge of her husband, and takyng therefore an inward
thought, would not long lyve in this world."20 Grafton, who
incorporated much of Hall's text into his Chronicle, after
telling that Thomas Rotheram, Archbishop of York, was dele
gated to tell the Queen of the King's displeasure, recounts the
scene between Richard and Anne thus:

" When the Queene heard tell that so horrible a rumour of her death
was sprong amongst the commoniltie, she sore suspected and judged the
worlde to be almost at an end with her, and in that sorrowfull agony, shee
with lamentable countenance and sorrowfull chere, repayred to the presence
of the King her husbande, demanding of hym, what it should meane that
he had judged her worthy to die."21

In the Chronicle and in the Latin play, " Richardus Ter-
tius,"22 the King with " smiling and flattering leasings com
forted her," but Cibber, to make Richard's villainy perfectly
unmistakable to his audience, portrays him as entirely frank
in regard to his motives.23 This scene is preceded by Gibber's
most notable addition to the lines of the play, the soliloquy
on conscience, which appears to be original and has been great
ly admired.24 The act closes with another soliloquy, also
Gibber's.

Act IV, Scene I. — This scene of the parting of the Queen
from her children is a characteristic elaboration of the original,
Act IV, Scene I. Were not this frank enjoyment of rather
coarse-grained pathos so truly a mark of the eighteenth century

20 Edition of 1809, page 407.

21 Edition of 1809, Vol. II, page 144.

MActio III, Actus III. The subject of Anne's death is treated in three
scenes ; first, the suggestion from Lovell as to the means ; second, Anne's
complaint to her husband ; and third, the detailed announcement of her
death by the messenger.

25 In regard to Gibber's use of historical sources, Genest says : " Cibber did
not look into History, for fear of damping his ' Muse of fire ' by too great
attention to dull matter of fact." Op. cit,, Vol. II, page 209.

" In den aus Shakespeare entlehnten abschnitten halt sich Cibber eben-
falls an Hall und Holinshed, wahrend die zuge, die neu hinzukommen, freie
erfindung des bearbeiters sind." Dohse, op. cit., page 13.

24 Genest says rather grudgingly, " This may be considered as the acme
of Gibber's poetry/'

audience, one might think that Gibber had taken his suggestion
from the similar scene in Heywood's " Edward the Fourth,"25
where, however, the overwhelming pathos of the scene is for
our taste increased by the restraint lacking in Gibber's.26

Scene 2. — This corresponds to a similar scene in Shakes
peare, though here shortened. Buckingham's soliloquy at the
end, however, is lengthened.

Scene 5. — The murder of the Princes, in Shakespeare mere
ly reported by Tyrrel, is by Gibber made as apparent as possi
ble. The murderers, Digton and Forrest, appear and make
their preparations. While they are performing the murder,
Richard is present with a long soliloquy, while the audience
evidently hears the screams from the adjoining room, a scene
of sheer sensationalism.27 The scene of the mourning women
which follows, is much cut down, as is the scene between Rich
ard and Elizabeth, which is otherwise practically the same as
in Shakespeare. Gibber in this makes Elizabeth's attitude clear
immediately,28 as Shakespeare does not, by means of an
"aside":

What shall I say? Still to affront his love,
I fear will but incense him to revenge :
And to consent, I shou'd abhor myself:
Yet I may seemingly comply, and thus

28 Part II, Act III, Scene 5.

28 A passage in The Mirror for Magistrates suggests this scene. In The
Lamentable Lives and Deaths of two yong Princes, Edward the Fifth,
and his Brother Richard Duke of Yorke, stanza 39, the parting of Elizabeth
from her son Richard is thus described :

" Farewell my little sonne, God be thy aid "
With that she turned about, and wept for woe :
Then being about to part, she turn'd and said,
" Kisse me my sonne, Kisse me before thou go,
When we shall kisse againe, our God doth know : "
We kist, she sigh'd, I wept and did refuse
* So to depart from her ; but could not chuse.

27 How are we to reconcile Forrest's

Smothering will make no noise, Sir,
with

Hark ! the murder's doing,
of Richard?

28 Noted also by Dohse, op. cit.

By sending Richmond word of his intent,

Shall gain some time to let my child escape him.

It shall be so.

The act closes with a monologue for Richard by Gibber.20

Act V , Scene I. — The act opens with the arrival of Rich
mond, corresponding to Shakespeare's Act V, Scene 2..

Scene 2. — The events leading up to the battle are much as in
Shakespeare, except that the meeting of Richmond and Stanley
occurs earlier, to obviate a second appearance of Richmond,
and consequent change of scene, which on the Elizabethan
stage was not considered.

Scene 5. — The ghost scene is preceded by a long soliloquy
by Richard, which is for the greater part from the Prologue
to Act IV, in Shakespeare's " Henry the Fifth," lines 4 to
22. As Richard lies down, " a groan is heard," adding a pre
monitory horror to the scene. The ghosts here, as in " The
English Princess," appear to Richard alone, and they number
but four, Henry the Sixth, Anne, and the Princes, against
eleven in Shakespeare.30 Their speeches are longer and much
changed. They seem to have risen together from below, re
mained on the stage until all had spoken, and to have sunken
together after Henry the Sixth's lines, reminiscent of the
ghost in " Hamlet :"

The morning's dawn has summoned me away.

a In this last scene occurs Gibber's most-quoted line :

Off with his head — so much for Buckingham.

The excellence of this line led Genest to -say, "This line is not Shake
speare's, tho' quite worthy of him — is it possible that Gibber in some
happy moment could produce it out of his own head? — if not, from whence
did he get it? — perhaps from some obscure play with a slight alteration."
Op. cit., Volume II, page 208.

80 The appearance of ghosts in the heroic play is frequent. Often much
is made of these scenes by the introduction of impressive summons, such
as the " great flashes of fire " in Orrery's Herod the Great, or by the
working of elaborate " charms," as in Crowne's Charles the Eighth. Mr.
Chase, in The English Heroic Play, pages 180-1, notes the sceptical atti
tude toward these visitants, giving as a typical expression of this, the
scenes in The English Princess and the following lines from Herod the
Great,

The Dead ne'er to the Living durst appear,
Ghosts are but shadows painted by our fear.

Richard's speech upon awaking, again as in " The English
Princess," is much shortened, but includes a few lines by
Gibber. The scene changes to Richmond's camp, and from
this point keeps close to the original, though the orations to
the armies, considered effective upon the older stage, are
now omitted, their substance in a few lines being spoken in
each case to a few friends. In the excursions that follow, Cib-
ber introduces a scene from " Henry the Sixth," Part II, the
war of words between Richard and Richmond before their
encounter. Richard falls, and in Shakespeare dies silently;
in Gibber, he speaks a long monologue,31 of which the first
four lines are Gibber's and the following six are from " Henry
the Fourth," Part II, Act I, Scene I, lines 155 to i6o.32 Rich
mond's speech over the dead body of the king:

Farewel Richard, and from thy dreadful end

May future kings from tyranny be warn'd :

Had thy aspiring soul but stirr'd in virtue,

With half the spirit it has dar'd in evil,

How might thy fame have grac'd our English Annals !

But as thou art, how fair a page thou'st blotted !

might have been suggested by the similar speech in " The
English Princess," where he says:

How great thy Fame had bin, hadst thou been good !

The play closes as in Shakespeare,33 with the addition of the
lines by Blunt telling Richmond that

the queen and fair Elizabeth
Her beauteous daughter, some few miles off,
Are on their way to 'gratulate your victory,

31 Likewise D'Avenant has given Macbeth a dying speech, and Garrick
did the same, because he " excelled in this, and therefore could not give
up the opportunity to show his skill." Davies : Dramatic Miscellanies,
Vol. II, page 119.

82 Genest says that Gibber has adapted this " with infinitely more judg
ment than any thing else that he has borrowed." Op. cit., Vol. II, page 216.
33 Genest points out the likness of the lines from Caryl's play,
In this day's booty they the crown have found,
Behold the noblest spoil of Bosworth Field !
and Gibber's

Among the glorious spoils of Bosworth field
We've found the Crown.

Op. cit., page 214.

and Richmond's reply,

Ay, there indeed, my toil's rewarded.

This introduction of a love motive at the end, which is entirely
lacking in Shakespeare, and without historical basis, was in
accord with the demands of the day, and seems a reminiscence
of the absurd scene in " The English Princess," where Rich
mond and Elizabeth vie with each other in their protestations
of obligation and esteem.34

In the examination of this play it is seen that the reviser
has made no essential change in plot nor in the conception of
character, but, following the instinct of the practical actor and
stage-manager, has shortened the play, made it easier to fol
low, and added and heightened situations in accordance with
the theatrical taste of the day. The play has been cut down
from 3,603 to 2,380 lines, a change justifiable upon the modern
stage, where time must be allowed for the shifting of scenery.
It can hardly be denied that his changes have made for dra
matic unity and coherence, as well as for theatrical adapta
bility. This can easily be seen from a list of the omissions,35

34 Genest thinks the idea of Elizabeth's beauty is from the same source.
" Caryl's play differs so widely from Shakespeare's that Gibber could make
but very little use of it, from thence however he has borrowed that beauty
which he repeatedly bestows on Elizabeth, and of which, history and
Shakespeare know but little." Op. cit., Vol. 33, page 213.

88 A list of the omitted scenes includes the following :

Act I, Scene i. Richard's conversations with Clarence and Hastings.

Act I, Scene 3. Richard and the Queen's relatives, etc.

Act I, Scene 4. The murder of Clarence.

Act II, Scene i. Reconciliation of the nobles.

Act II, Scene 3. Scene with two citizens.

Act II, Scene 4. Elizabeth and the Duke of York.

Act III, Scene 2. Attempt to win Hastings to Richard's side.

Act III, Scene 3. Rivers, Gray and Vaughan on their way to death.

Act III, Scene 4. Hastings accused and condemned.

Act III, Scene 5. Scene on the Tower walls.

Act III, Scene 6. Scrivener with the indictment of Hastings.

Act IV, Scene 4. The wailing queens.

Act IV, Scene 5. Scene before Lord Derby's house.

Act V, Scene i. Buckingham led to execution.

See also Dohse, op. cit., page 37-9.

which have been largely the epic scenes,36 or those whose sub
stance could be given in short narratives. The result, while
gained at the expense of some touches of great significance,
especially in the character of Richard, is decidedly a concen
tration upon the important aspects of the theme, and a more
direct exposition of the central figure. About half of Shake
speare's characters are omitted, and thus many parts of scenes.
The sparing use of epic scenes and the smaller number of
characters as compared with the Elizabethan plays, we have
already found obtaining in the heroic play, and mark the trag
edies of this period.

The second consideration seems to have been to make the
play clearer and more easily followed by the audience. To do
this, we have seen that " asides " are introduced, as in the
wooing, or in the scene between Richard and Elizabeth. The
scene before the wooing, where Tressel and Stanley give the
situation, is also of this nature, and prepares the audience for
what follows. In other places we have found that the atti
tude of Richard is made more patent, less equivocal, as in the
scene with Anne in Act III, and in the scene of mourning in
Act II.

Very significant are the additions. Perhaps the most puz
zling in this bustling play are the soliloquies, which occur at
every turn. These are frequent in the original form, but
Gibber, in excess of Shakespeare, ends every act with them,
besides introducing many within scenes. They tend to call
attention to Richard, and to fix his character, for every stage
of the action is closed with the hero on the stage revealing his
motives and hopes. Other additions have been noted. It is
seen that these are usually of a sensational nature, calculated
to appeal to an audience that wanted, quite as distinctly as the
Elizabethans, plenty of action, unambiguous situations, defi
nite emotional values.37 There is in these a lack of self-

38 Such as Act III, scenes 3 and 6, and Act V, Scene i.
37 That Gibber appreciated this taste in the public comes out in his
Epilogue to Eugenia, where he says :

English stomachs love substantial food.
Give us the lightning's blaze, the thunder's roll !

restraint which brings them close to the melodramatic, but it
is to be questioned whether to an eighteenth century audience
they were any more excessive in their effect than were the
wailing scenes, or the murder of Clarence, with its painful
details and grotesque humor, to the theatre-goers of two cen
turies earlier.

In addition, minor changes occur as the result of the
new methods of staging already noted in Chapter III. The
omission of half of the ghost scene was no more the
result of a desire to shorten the play, than of the effort to
adapt it to a modern stage, by eliminating the archaic element
of representing two distant places on the stage at the same
time.38 The management of this whole act which we have
cited as in Shakespeare typical of the Elizabethan stage, and
which in Gibber's text is only slightly changed, brings out the
advantages of a curtain to an audience which has largely lost
the sense of " dramatic place."39 It was probably arranged
somewhat like this. The act opens with a short scene with
Richmond and his forces, on the proscenium stage. The
curtain is then drawn, showing Bosworth Field, and Richard's
tent is pitched here. The curtain drops, and Richmond and
Stanley meet on the proscenium stage. With the ghost scene
we have Richard's tent again, to which we return for the final

The pointed dagger, and the poisoning bowl !
Let drums' and trumpets' clangor swell the scene,
Till the gor'd battle bleed in every vein.

Quoted by Lounsbury, op cit., page 197.

88 A further justification of Gibber is advanced by Mr. Corbin, in his
article, Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage (Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 97, page
376, note), where he shows that Gibber's rearrangement of the scenes is
necessitated by the non-adaptability of the original to the pictorial stage.
At the same time he takes the opportunity to say a word of appreciation
for the dramatic quality of the Gibber version, made by " the reputed
master of clap-trap."

38 By 1700, Drury Lane had been so altered by Christopher Rich, the
manager, to increase the seating capacity of the building, that the " apron "
had become much shortened, and the stage started on its way toward the
" flat " stage of to-day. For a discussion of the development of the later
form during this period, see A Forgotten Stage Conventionality, by W. J.
Lawrence, in Anglia, Vol. 26 (1903).

preparations for battle, after a short outer scene with Rich
mond. The act closes with the entire stage exposed and the
tent of Richard removed.40 We have noted that the scene in
Baynard Castle was adapted to a stage without a center bal
cony, and the funeral procession, with the presence of a front
curtain, was changed into a tableau.41 Again, there was
economy of scene-change in Act V, in the scenes between
Richmond and Stanley, such as would not have been considered
on the Elizabethan stage.

The presence of Richard on the stage is here considerably
more constant than in Shakespeare's play. There we found
ten scenes in which Richard did not figure; in Gibber's form
only three are without the protagonist. This difference is due
in large measure, of course, to the omission of the epic scenes,
but from the point of view of the general impression gained,
this is an important difference.

From Gibber's " Apology " we may gain a pretty clear idea
of his conception of Richard the Third, as he attempted to
represent the part in his acting, for he played the title part in
his revision for many years.42 In his sketch of the life and
work of the actor, Samuel Sandford, called by Charles the
Second " the best villain in the world," he says :

" Had Sandford lived in Shakespear's Time, I am confident his judg
ment must have chose him above all other Actors to have play'd his
Richard the Third : I leave his Person out of the Question, which tho'
naturally made for it, yet that would have been the least Part of his
Recommendation ; Sandford had stronger Claims to it ; he had sometimes
an uncouth Stateliness in his Motion, a harsh and sullen Pride of Speech,
a meditating Brow, a stern Aspect, occasionally changing into an almost
ludicrous Triumph over all Goodness and Virtue : From thence falling
into the most asswasive Gentleness and soothing Candour of a designing
Heart. * These, I say, must have preferr'd him to it."4*

40 It seems likely that at this time the tendency was toward a more
frequent change of scene than in the later staging of this play.

41 " Scene draws, and discovers Lady Anne in Mourning, Lord Stanley,
Tressel, Guards and Bearers, with King Henry's Body." It must be
remembered, however, that the illuminated stage was not possible until
nearly a half century later.

"Until 1733, with occasional appearances thereafter.

43 Volume I, page 138.

Anthony Aston rather maliciously describes the person of
this ideal Richard as " Round-shoulder'd, Meagre-fac'd,
Spindle-shank'd, Splay-footed, with a sour Countenance, and
long, lean Arms."44 According to this, the conception of
Richard's extreme ugliness, which had been glossed over in the
heroic play of " The English Princess," here seems to be
revived.

The method of acting at this time and for the following
forty years was influenced by the example of the French stage,
and exemplified at its best in Betterton and the great actors
of his time, while the less original performers easily fell into
the vices which followed the adoption of this method. The
elocution is referred to as a " demi-chant," and the action is
described as stiff, ponderous, stilted, a result of the " heroic "
manner. Thus, Aaron Hill, in the dedication of his " Fatal
Vision," complains of the " affected, vicious, and unnatural
tone of voice " common on the stage and exempts Booth alone
among tragedians from a " horrible theatric way of speak
ing."45 Gibber carried on this Betterton tradition, with more
or less success, especially in the matter of elocution, and taught
it to the younger actors about him.46

In dress, the old ideas of costume still prevailed. The men
dressed as their contemporaries; the women, whose presence
on the stage we have noted in connection with " The English
Princess," appeared in all the furbelows of the latest London
fashions, wore towering head-dresses, and had pages to carry
about their enormous trains.47 With the increased promi-

44 A Brief Supplement to Colley Cibber Esq. his lives of the late famous
actors and actresses. Reprinted in R. W. Lowe's edition of Gibber's
Apology, Vol. II, page 306.

48 Joseph Knight, Life of Garrick, page 26.

48 Gibber's most noted pupil, Mrs. Theophilus Cibber, a really gifted
actress, is spoken of as moving her audience, in spite of the high-pitched,
chant-like delivery of her lines.

47 " The Gibbers, and Bellamys, and Barrys, revelled in and extorted from
reluctant managers, those rich, gorgeous, and elaborate robes, in which
they looked like true ' tragedy queens.' They were ' inhabitants,' as
Steele would say, of the most sumptuous structures, stiff, spreading, en
crusted with trimmings and furbelows as stiff. Their heads towered with

nence of the "star" at this time, another incongruity made
its appearance, in that the leading character dressed extrava
gantly, while the supporting actors were sometimes in rags, a
common cause of complaint during the greater part of the
century.

We noticed that " The English Princess " was given with a
"jig" to close the performance. There is no record of such
being used with " Richard the Third " in the early perform
ances, but in other plays nearly contemporary, farces or scenes
from other plays are mentioned in the play-bills, showing that
some sort of after-piece was still the fashion, but that its form
was changing.48 The first notice of such a piece with " Rich
ard the Third " is on October 14, 1732, at Drury Lane, when
it was followed by " Devil to Pay." This same bill mentions
" a new Prologue to the memory of Wilkes," suggesting that
the play was furnished with this essential, though none of
these has been discovered.40

strange and nodding edifices, built and entwined with rows of pearls and
other jewels. . . . With such accessories and recollections of the
majestic demi-chanting which even now obtains on the French stage, we
might almost accept this rococo school as a type of something grand and
elevating. These stage royal ladies were usually attended by pages, even
in their most intimate and domestic scenes, who never let down the
sumptuous trains of their mistresses. There could be none, therefore, of
that ' crossing ' and recrossing which make up the bustle and movement
of modern drama. Nor was this style of decoration made subservient to
the interests of the play. Mrs. Gibber played her Juliet in white satin,
hoops and furbelows. . . . Clive or Woffington, when doing the ' pert '
part of a waiting-maid, or the more gauche one of a farmer's rustic
daughter, presented themselves in white satin shoes, and with their hair
dressed according to the gorgeous cannons of London fashions." Fitz
gerald, Life of Garrick, Vol. II, pages 24-5.

48 On June 30, 1703, Humour of the Age was given with an Interlude of
City Customs by " several Aldermen's Ladies " ; the next spring The School
Boy was performed with the last act of Le Medecin Malgre Lui; Taming
of the Shrew was given in July with scenes from the same play ; on June
30, 1705, The Royal Merchant was followed by Purcell's Frost Scene in
King Arthur. Genest, op. cit., Vol. II.

49 Heywood's prologue for a " a young witty Lad playing the part of
Richard the Third " at the Red Bull, is the only possible one discovered,
and this was probably not for Shakespeare's play but for Rowley's. The

It is in general effect, however, that the greatest difference
lies between this revision and the original Shakespearian form.
" Richard the Third " is no longer a largely conceived epic
play with throngs of characters, with archaic elements that
take one back to the medieval drama, with the crude staging
that recalls the earliest days of dramatic representation, but it
has become essentially modern. It has been subjected to the
demands of reason obtaining in the eighteenth century, and
to the changes of a scenic stage. We no longer feel the chron
icle story back of it, but the effects are purely dramatic, with
theatrical sensationalism freely introduced. More than ever
the interest centers about Richard, adding greatly to its appeal
to the actors, because of the opportunity given for declamation
and striking situation. It is significant that Gibber's revision
appeared at the beginning of a century in which the distin
guishing characteristic, so far as the stage is concerned, is the
prominence given to the actor. It has been called " the cen
tury of the actor." It may not have been entirely without
some foresight of this that Gibber was led to choose this one
of Shakespeare's plays for revision, for by 1700, with Better-
ton, Barton Booth and Quin, the age of great actors had
already begun.

The history of this revision for the first thirty or forty
years of its existence is rather meager. We know that Gibber
played the principal part until 1733, though with no great
success. Mr. Lowe, in his edition of the " Apology,"50 gives
the following cast for the play in 1700:

" King Henry the Sixth, designed for Mr. Wilks.

Edward, Prince of Wales Mrs. Allison.

evidence against this being a Shakespearian Richard the Third is dis
cussed by F. G. Fleay in his History of the London Stage, page 354. The
play, according to Sir Henry Herbert's entry in the Office Book, be
longed to the Palsgrave Company. This, in 1637, had the name of
Prince Charles' Men and was playing at the Red Bull. J. P. Collier, in
Annals of the Stage, page 18, notes that in 1627, Sir Henry Herbert,
Master of Revels, was paid £ 5 by the King's Players, then at Blackfriars,
to prevent the players at the Red Bull from performing Shakespeare's
plays.

80 Vol. II, page 288.

Richard Duke of York Miss Chock.

Richard Duke of Gloucester Mr. Gibber.

Buckingham Mr. Powel.

Stanley Mr. Mills

Norfolk Mr. Simpson.

Ratcliff Mr. Kent.

Catesby Mr. Thomas.

Henry, Earl of Richmond Mr. Evans.

Oxford Mr. Fairbank.

Queen Elizabeth Mrs. Knight.

Lady Anne Mrs. Rogers.

Cicely51 Mrs. Powell."

Gibber, in his " Apology," says that he copied Sand ford, his
ideal for Richard, then playing at Lincoln's Inn Fields and
therefore not available for Gibber's Company, in his interpre
tation of the part, and did it so well that Sir John Vanbrugh
complimented him upon the imitation. Contemporary criti
cism, however, is not so enthusiastic. " The Laureate," a
furious attack upon Cibber, says that " he screamed thro' four
Acts without Dignity or Decency," and in the fifth, " degener
ated all at once into Sir Novelty" (Gibber's favorite comedy
character), and " when he was kill'd by Richmond, one might
plainly perceive that the good People were not better pleas'd
that so execrable Tyrant was destroy'd, than that so execrable
an Actor was silent."52 Davies says : " Cibber had two pas
sions, which constantly exposed him to severe censure, and
sometimes the highest ridicule: his writing tragedy and acting
tragic characters. In both he persisted to the last; for, after
he had left the stage for many years, he acted Richard III, and
very late in life produced his Papal Tyranny. . . . The truth
is, Cibber was endured in this and other tragic parts, on ac
count of his general merit in comedy."53 Later he says,
" Cibber persisted so obstinately in acting parts in tragedy,
that at last the public grew out of patience, and fairly hissed
him off the stage."54

61 I, e., the Duchess of York whose name was Cicely Neville.

62 The Laureate : or the right side of Colley Cibber, Esq., etc. London,
1740. Quoted by R. W. Lowe, in his edition of the Apology, Vol. I, page
140, note.

M Davies, Dramatic Miscellanies, Vol. Ill, page 471.

M Ditto, page 469.

Added to the disabilities of the chief actor of the part dur
ing the first decades of its history, an unlooked-for misfortune
befel it. In 1698, Jeremy Taylor had lashed the immorality
of the contemporary stage so effectively that not only were the
playwrights put to shame, but the Licenser of Plays, Charles
Killigrew, was stirred to unwonted zeal, which found a fitting
object in this very play. Gibber gives this account of his ill-
usage :

" When Richard the Third (as I alter'd it from Shakespear) came from
his hands for the Stage, he expugn'd the whole first Act without sparing
a line of it. This extraordinary Stroke of Sic volo occasioned my applying
to him for the small Indulgence of a Speech or two, that the other four
Acts might limp on with a little less absurdity ! no ! he had not leisure to
consider what might be separately inoffensive. He had an objection to
the whole Act, and the Reason he gave for it was, that the distresses of
King Henry the Sixth, who is killed by Richard in the first Act, would put
weak People too much in mind of King James, then living in France ; . . .
In a Word, we were forc'd, for some few Years, to let the Play take its
Fate with only four Acts divided into five ; by the Loss of so considerable
Limb, may we not modestly suppose it was robbed of at least a fifth Part
of that Favour it afterwards met with? For tho' this first Act was at
last recovered, and made the Play whole again, yet Relief came too late
to repay me for Pains I had taken with it." M

In this lopped condition the play evidently appeared, until
George I, in the patent granted to Sir Richard Steele and his
assignees, of which Gibber was one, made the managers the
sole judges of what plays should be put on their stage. This
was in 1715. These circumstances may account for the slow
ness with which the play apparently won its way to popular
favor, for not until about this time does it seem to have ap
peared with any frequency on the boards.56

How many times " Richard the Third " was played in 1700,
I have been unable to ascertain.57 The next performance

86 Apology, Vol. I, pages 275-6.

M In his address to the reader in Ximena, 1719, Gibber says, "Every
Auditor, whose Memory will give him Leave, cannot but know, that
Richard the third, which I alter'd from Shakespear, did not raise me Five
Pounds on the Third Day, though for several years since, it has seldom,
or never failed of a crowded Audience."

57 Its first appearance was in Lent, 1700. Genest quotes an advertise-

recorded by Genest is in 1704, when it was played at Drury
Lane on April 4th, for Gibber's benefit, after a lapse of three
years. It next appeared at the Haymarket Theatre for a
benefit for Mrs. Porter, on March 27, 1710, acted by the
Drury Lane Company.58 There was another lapse of three
years before it was given again, at Drury Lane, on February
14, 1713, but from this time it appeared with greater fre
quency,59 which, together with other evidence, suggests that
the strictures of the Licenser were perhaps disregarded before
they were formally removed, and that the first act was prob
ably restored.60

For the first twenty years, the play seems to have been acted
exclusively by the Drury Lane Company, with Cibber as the
only Richard, and Wilks as Henry the Sixth.61 In March,

ment at the end of Manning's Generous Chaise, which came out in Lent of
that year, in which it is said, " This day is published the last new Tragedy
called Richard the 3rd, written by Mr. Cibber." Op. cit., Vol. II, page 219.

M Malone says that Richard the Third " was once performed at Drury
Lane in 1703, and lay dormant from that time to the 28th of Jan. 1710,
when it was revived at the Opera House in Haymarket." History of the
Stage, page 347. The discrepancy of dates is due to Malone's use of the
old style in dating.

69 Malone observes that after Rowe's edition of Shakespeare's Works
in 1709, the exhibition of his plays became more frequent than before.
Op. cit., page 348.

80 As early as 1710, Genest gives Henry the Sixth in the cast. This may
mean that at that date the restriction was practically removed or disre
garded. An early attempt had been made to use Act I, as seen from
Genest's record: "In the Daily Courant for Oct. i2th [1702] Pinketham
proposed to present the town on his night with a Medley which was to con
sist — ist of the death of King Henry 6th — 2dly of scenes from Aesop — and
3dly of the School Boy — Richard the 3d, the Beau, and Major Rakish by
Pinketham." This Medley was not given, but " by particular desire " the
play was altered to Love makes a Man. Op. cit., Vol. II, pages 254-5. The
" particular desire " may have emanated from the Licenser's office.

81 In 1721 the principal parts were taken as follows.

King Henry the Sixth Mr. Wilks.

Edward, Prince of Wales Mr. Norris, Jun.

Richard, Duke of York Mr. Lindar.

Richard, Duke of Gloucester Mr. Cibber.

Duke of Buckingham Mr. Mills.

Henry, Earl of Richmond Mr. Ryan.

1721, however, it was given at the theatre in Lincoln's Inn
Fields, with Ryan as Richard, Boheme as Henry the Sixth,
Quin as Buckingham, the other characters being unimportant.62
This was the beginning of that series of rival performances of
" Richard the Third " which continued throughout the century,
and in which the most noted actors of the time took part. For
some reason " Richard the Third " does not appear in the play
bills of Drury Lane between 1720 and 1726, but the play was
frequently given at Lincoln's Inn Fields. There Ryan played
the part of Richard until about 1740, when he shared it with
Quin, both of these men having performed in it at Drury Lane
years before, Ryan as Richmond, and Quin as Lieutenant of
the Tower, the part in which he first attracted attention by his
painstaking representation of an unimportant character.
Ryan's Richard was a rugged conception, of more individuality
than those preceding him, and one which Garrick confessed he
took in its general features as the model for his own.®3 The
company from Lincoln's Inn Fields moved to their new theatre
in Covent Garden in December, 1732, where Ryan, with the
help of Quin for several years, still held the part, until the
middle of the century and the advent of a new generation of
actors.

In the fall of 1726, Drury Lane took up the play again, with
the former cast for the principal parts, Gibber continuing to
play Richard until his retirement in I733-6* By this time,

Lieutenant of the Tower Mr. Quin.

Elizabeth Mrs. Porter.

Lady Anne Mrs. Horton.

Duchess of York Mrs. Baker.

82 Lady Mary Montague in a letter from Paris, written in 1718, speaks
thus of the English actors of the time : " I have seen the tragedy of Bajazet
so well represented, I think our best actors can be only said to speak,
but these to feel ; and 'tis certainly infinitely more moving to see a man
appear unhappy, than to hear him say that he is so, with a jolly face, and
a stupid smirk in his countenance."

63 Doran, Their Majesties' Servants, Vol. II, page 41. Garrick went to
see Ryan for the purpose of laughing at his uncouth figure, and rasping
pronunciation, but was surprised to find great excellence, and much to
introduce into his own representation.

"Gibber appeared once more in the part in 1739. Mr. Lowe remarks-

Quin had joined the Drury Lane Company, and Gibber's part
fell to him. Quin carried on the Betterton tradition of the
" heroic " manner in his solemn, ponderous, chant-like, monot
onous pronunciation, which gave an effect of oppressive dig
nity.65 Cumberland says of Quin's acting : " Unable to ex
press emotions, whether violent or tender, he was forced or
languid in action, and ponderous and sluggish in movement.
In great characters of tragedy he was lost, and the most trust
worthy of contemporary critics declares that people will re
member with pleasure his Brutus and his Cato, and wish to
forget his Richard and his Lear."66

Such was the situation up to the epoch-making performances
of Garrick. From the time of the appearance of the play with
the first act restored, about 1714, there had been hardly a sea
son when it was not played; for most of this time it was
appearing at both houses,67 and had been undertaken by every

that during the dull period in the theater between 1730 and Garrick, when
Quin was the great man, Gibber's reappearances after retirement must have
had an importance and interest which they lacked after Garrick's advent.
65 His eyes, in gloomy socket taught to roll,
Proclaim'd the sullen ' habit of his soul ' :
Heavy and phlegmatic he trod the stage,
Too proud for tenderness, too dull for rage.

Churchill : The Rosciad, lines 963-7.
66 Quoted by Knight, op. cit., pages 62-3.

87 In addition to the performances at the London theatres, the play seems
to have been given at the great fairs during the period of their greatest
fame, 1714-1750. All the leading actors, with the exception of Garrick,
acted in these booths the plays popular in London. We have a record of
the appearance of Richard the Third at Bartholomew Fair in 1738. The
notice read as follows : " At Turbutt's and Yates' (from Goodman's Fields)
Great Theatrical Booth, formerly Hallam's, . . . will be presented a
dramatic piece, call'd the True and Ancient History of the Loves of King
Edward the 4th, and his famous Concubine, Jane Shore in Shoreditch, the
acquisition of the crown by King Richard the 3d (commonly call'd crook-
back'd Richard) and many other true historical passages — interspersed
with the comical humours of Sir Anthony Lackbrains, his man Wezel, and
Captain Blunderbuss." King Edward was played by Dighton, King Richard
by Taswell, and Jane Shore by Mrs. Lamball. Genest, op. cit., Vol. X,
page 164. Genest also gives an advertisement of King in the Country,
taken from the first part of Heywood's Edward the Fourth.

100

great actor, with the exception of Barton Booth, since
Betterton.68

88 During these years, an important play dealing with Richard the Third
had appeared, Nicholas Rowe's Jane Shore, in 1713. This play, which was
constantly upon the stage until far into the nineteenth century, presents
but a subordinate side of Richard's character, and develops the Hastings
scenes from Shakespeare's Richard the Third, which Gibber had omitted.
It throws light upon Quin's idea of the character of Richard that he
called Gloster in this play " one of his strut and whisker parts." Davies,
op. cit., page 213.

Some interest may be attached to a play noticed by Genest as acted but
once at Drury Lane in 1723: An Historical Tragedy of the Civil Wars
between the Houses of York and Lancaster, etc., by Theophilus Gibber, son
of the adaptor of Richard the Third. The principal additions were the
love scenes between Price Edward and Lady Anne, and a few speeches by
Gibber. The author played the Prince and the poet Savage the Duke of
York.

V
FROM GARRICK TO IRVING — 1741-1897

Garrick as Richard the Third — Popularity — Revolution in staging at
Drury Lane — Work of De Loutherbourg — John Philip Kemble — New Drury
Lane — Capon — Elaborate revivals of old play — Archeological reforms at
Covent Garden — Kemble's version of " Richard the Third " — Edmund Kean
— Charles William Macready — His attempt to " restore " " Richard the
Third " — Work of Samuel Phelps at Sadler's Wells — Revivals of Charles
Kean at the Princess — Henry Irving — His restoration of the Shakespearian
text — General summary.

For the first forty years of its history, Gibber's version
had been the subject of no great or original interpretation,
nor had it made any considerable stir in the theatrical world,
but with Garrick, a new era in its history began. In Goodman's
Fields a theater had been fitted up in 1729, that without a
license, and under the guise of giving concerts and adding
gratuitously an after-play, had been running with some success.
It was here that Garrick appeared as Richard the Third on
October I9th, 1741. The play-bill read as follows:

October igth, 1741.
Goodman's Fields.

At the late Theatre, in Goodman's Fields, this day, will be performed a
Concert of Vocal and Instrumental Music, divided into Two Parts.

Tickets at three, two and one shilling.
Places for the Boxes to be taken at the Fleece

Tavern, next the Theatre.

N. B. Between the two parts of the Concert, will be presented,

an Historical Play called,

The Life and Death of

King Richard the Third.

Containing the distress of K. Henry VI.

The artful acquisition of the Crown

by King Richard.

The murder of young King Edward V.
and his brother in the Tower.

101

102

The landing of the Earl of Richmond ; and the death of King Richard in

the memorable battle of Bosworth-field, being the last that was

fought between the houses of York and Lancaster.

With many other true Historical passages.
The part of King Richard by a Gentleman (who never

appeared on any stage),

King Henry by Mr. Giffard ; Richmond, Mr. Marshall ; Prince Edward by
Miss Hippisley ; Duke of York, Miss Naylor ; Duke of Buckingham, Mr.
Patterson; Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Blakes ; Lord Stanley, Mr. Pagett; Ox
ford, Mr. Vaughan ; Tressel, Mr. W. Giffard ; Catesby, Mr. Marr ; Ratcliff ,
Mr. Crofts ; Blunt, Mr. Naylor ; Tyrrel, Mr. Puttenham ; Lord Mayor, Mr.
Dunstall ; The Queen, Mrs. Steel ; Duchess of York, Mrs. Yates ;
And the part of Lady Anne

By Mrs. Giffard.

With Entertainments of Dancing,

By Mons. Froment, Madam Duvall,

and the two Masters and

Miss Granier.

To which will be added

A Ballad Opera of One Act, called,

The Virgin Unmask'd,

The part of Lucy by Miss Hippisley.

Both which will be performed gratis, by persons

for their diversion.
The Concert will begin exactly at six o'clock.1

This and the following performances created an unprece
dented sensation. The " Daily Post " spoke of its reception
as " the most extraordinary and great that was ever known on
such an occasion,"2 Garrick's acting came to the public as a
revelation, and as something so entirely different from what
they were used to in Quin, Delane and others on the stage
at the time, that it appeared to them that he had invented an
art. Davies, a contemporary biographer, says:

" Mr. Garrick's easy and familiar, yet forcible style in speaking and act
ing, at first threw the critics into some hesitation concerning the novelty
as well as propriety of his manner. They had been long accustomed to an
elevation of the voice, with a sudden mechanical depression of its tones,
calculated to excite admiration, and to entrap applause. To the just
modulation of the words, and concurring expression of the features from
the genuine workings of nature, they had been strangers, at least for some

1 Given by Knight, in David Garrick, London, 1894, page 22-3.

2 Quoted by Knight, op. cit., page 28.

103

time. But after he had gone through a variety of scenes, in which he gave
evident proof of consummate art, and perfect knowledge of character,
their doubts were turned into surprise and astonishment, from which they
relieved themselves by loud and reiterated applause. . . . When news was
brought to Richard, that the duke of Buckingham was taken, Garrick's look
and action, when he pronounced the words

Off with his head !
So much for Buckingham !

were so significant and important, from his visible enjoyment of the inci
dent, that several loud shouts of approbation proclaimed the triumph of
the actor and satisfaction of the audience. The death of Richard was
accompanied with the loudest gratulations of applause."8

Another contemporary, Arthur Murphy, gives a more de
tailed but no less enthusiastic description of Garrick's Richard :

" The moment he entered the scene, the character he assumed was
visible in his countenance ; the power of his imagination was such, that he
transformed himself into the very man ; the passions rose in rapid suc
cession, and, before he uttered a word, were legible in every feature of
that various face. His look, his voice, his attitude, changed with every
sentiment. . . . The rage and rapidity with which he spoke,

The North ! what do they in the North,

When they should serve their Sovereign in the West?

made a most astonishing impression on the audience. His soliloquy in the
tent scene discovered the inner man. . . . When he started from his dream,
he was a spectacle of horror : He called out in a manly tone.

Give me another horse ;

He paused, and with a countenance of dismay, advanced, crying out in a
tone of distress,

Bind up my wounds ;

and then, falling on his knees, said in the most piteous accent,

Have mercy Heaven ;

In all this the audience saw an exact imitation of nature. . . . When in
Bosworth field, he roared out,

A horse ! a horse ! my kingdom for a horse !

All was rage, fury, and almost reality. ... It is no wonder that an actor
thus accomplished made, on the very first night, a deep impression on the
audience. His fame ran through the metropolis. The public went in

3 Memoirs of the Life of David Garrick, Esq., Interspersed with Char
acters and Anecdotes of His Theatrical Contemporaries, The Whole forming
a history of the Stage, whch includes a period of Thirty-six Years. By
Thomas Davies. 2 Vols. London, 1780.

104

crowds to see a young performer, who came forth at once a complete
master of his art."*

The Dramatic Censor shows Garrick's physical fitness for
the part:

" The Public have set up Mr. Garrick as a standard of perfection in this
laborious, difficult part ; and if we consider the essentials, his claim to such
distinction will immediately appear indisputable ; a very deformed person
never rises above, and seldom up to the middle stature ; it is generally
attended with an acuteness of features and sprightliness of eyes ; in these
three natural points or Roscius stands unexceptionable. . . . MR. GAR-
RICK also preserves a happy medium, and dwindles neither into the
buffoon or brute ; one or both of which this character is made by most
performers."

It seems then, that the innovations of Garrick that called
forth Quin's exclamation, "If this young fellow be right, then
we have been all wrong," consisted in his identifying himself
with the part as the actors of the heroic, traditional school
never did, his abandonment of the " demi-chant," and his
spontaneity and freedom of deportment. Among the scenes
which took the popular favor were the one in Baynard Castle
when, with an expressive gesture, he threw the prayer-book
from him after the Lord Mayor had retired,5 the tent scene,
much talked of, and painted by Hogarth, and the death
scene, Garrick being noted for acting such situations effec
tively. In these scenes he freed the interpretation of Richard
from the conventional delineation of the " wicked tyrant " who
was savage and furious, and nothing else. But in these char
acteristics he was not unheralded. We have seen that Ryan's
sincere and vigorous acting had suggested much to Garrick,
and as early as 1725, Macklin, a young Irish actor, had tried
to introduce a more natural style at Lincoln's Inn Fields but
had been discharged in consequence for trespassing upon the
hard and fast traditions of the theatre.6 But Macklin only

4 The Dramatic Censor; or Critical Companion. 2 Vols. London, 1770.
Essay on Richard the Third, As Altered from Shakespeare by Cibber,
page ii.

8 It is noted by Fitzgerald as a favorite action at this time with the
ladies and gentlemen of the stage, when interrupted in reading, to throw
their books into a brook or side scene.

* It was Macklin who rescued Shylock from low comedy, and who, at the
very end of his career, had the courage to appear in Macbeth in Highland

105

suggested what Garrick made of practical effect, and it is,
therefore, from him that we date the revival and maintenance
of natural methods.

Garrick played Richard seventeen times during the season
at Goodman's Fields, and then after a summer in Dublin, en
gaged for the next year at Drury Lane, where he continued
for almost the whole of his career. During the next season,
at Drury Lane, Richard was performed fourteen times, six
of these being by Garrick.7 In 1744-5, Garrick played Rich
ard four times; in 1745-6 no bills with Garrick as Richard
appear, but the part was taken by new actors. In the follow
ing seasons he appeared three or four times in the character,
until in 1761-2 there seems to have been a revival of interest
in the play, when Garrick and Mossop shared the part. This
continued for several seasons, but with the appearance of new
names such as Sheridan, Smith, and Holland, Garrick's ap
pearances in Richard became rarer, until his last on June 5,
I776.8

During these twenty-five years the play had had a brilliant
history. It was constantly used, was a favorite for benefits,
was chosen for the Theatrical Fund performances, and
was early found in the provincial theatres. While Gar
rick was by all means the leading Richard, the part was
constantly presented at the other theatres by Quin, Ryan, and
Sheridan. An interesting contest took place in 1746 at Covent
Garden, when an agreement was made by which Garrick and

dress, instead of in the scarlet coat, silver-laced waistcoat, and wig and
knee-breeches, in favor with Garrick, and in which he appears in Zoffany's
portrait. Barry, a contemparary of Garrick, played Othello " in a full suit
of gold-laced scarlet, a small cocked hat, knee-breeches, and silk stockings."
His wife was " clad in the fascinating costume of Italy." Thos. Goodwin,
Sketches and Impressions, Musical, Theatrical and Social, 1799-1885. New
York, 1887. This is given on the authority of one Fred. Reynods, who
had seen Garrick.

7 This season is memorable for Peg Woffington's first appearance as Anne.

8 In regard to his retirement, Genest says : " He was for some time in
clined to end his course with the part he at first set out with ; but upon
consideration he judged, that, after the fatigue of so laborious a character
as Richard, it would be out of his power to utter a farewell word to the
audience ... he therefore chose Don Felix (Murphy) ... as
being less fatiguing." Op. cit., Vol. V, pages 497-8.

106

Quin appeared on alternate nights in " Richard the Third."
It was a definite pitting of the old against the new, the tra
ditional against the natural and spontaneous, and while the
Richard of Garrick drew a crowded house, that of Quin gained
little attention.9 Quin before this had carried on a stirring
rivalry at Covent Garden, and later, on October 29, 1774,
" Richard the Third " was played at both houses on the same
evening. At the time of Garrick's retirement from the stage
in 1776, the Richards of the day were E. T. Smith and Hen
derson at Drury Lane, and Thomas Sheridan at Covent Gar
den. Smith was " most mediocre," rosy- faced, drowsy, level-
toned, a Richard beyond comprehension. Henderson sup
ported to the best of his considerable second-rate abilities the
Garrick tradition from 1779 to 1785, when he was the leading
attraction at Covent Garden, and was considered Garrick's
successor. Other actors of Garrick's time who gained some
reputation in the character of Richard the Third were Spran-
ger Barry,10 renowned for his wonderfully musical voice, and
Mossop, who played frequently during Garrick's connection
with Drury Lane, but for the most part in the years after
Garrick's first achievements in this part.11 There were also a
number of incidental actors as Goodfellow, Reddish, Murphy,
and Macklin, who at the advanced age of eighty-five undertook
the part of Richard and played it four times, a remarkable
achievement, even though the performance was called " hard
and harsh."

At Garrick's first performance, the part of Queen Elizabeth
was taken by Mrs. Steel and Lady Anne by Mrs. Giffard, but
at Drury Lane Mrs. Pritchard usually took the part of the

9 Davies, quoted by Genest, op. cit., Vol. IV, page 209.

10 In the wooing of Anne, Barry was considered superior to Garrick, the
tone of his voice being described as " happily insinuating," and his manner
as " perfectly engaging."

11 The Dramatic Censor says of some of these competitors : " Mr. Mossop
displays great powers, Mr. Sheridan much judgment, and Mr. Smith con
siderable spirit ; but had the first more delicacy, with less labour ; the
second more harmony, and less stiffness ; the third more variation, with
less levity, their merit would rise several degrees beyond what it is." Pages
12-13-

107

Queen, and Peg Woffington appears frequently as Lady Anne
from 1743 until about 1750, when she went to Covent Garden,
and the part was taken by Mrs. Davies. In 1776, Mrs. Siddons
played Lady Anne twice to Garrick's Richard.12 At Covent
Garden, with Quin and Ryan, Mrs. Horton appears usually
as Queen Elizabeth, though Mrs. Pritchard was there for a
time, and Mrs. Gibber played both this part and Lady Anne
occasionally.

The after-play was used throughout this period,13 one of
the most interesting being that given at Covent Garden on
February 13, 1738, " The Winter's Tale " under the title of
" The Sheep-shearing." In 1761, first at Covent Garden, the
introduction of the Coronation spectacle became popular with
all plays that would admit of it, and this was used frequently
with " Richard the Third " in 1762-3, 1766 and 1769." The
play was supplied with an epilogue, at least once, on June 2,
1772, when it was performed for the Theatrical Fund.15

Between the age of Betterton and that of Garrick, threatrical
conditions had made no great advance, and not until the later
years of Garrick's management do we find the beginning of the
revolution in staging which foreshadowed the work of Charles
Kean and Irving. In Garrick's day the house was still com
paratively dark even after his innovation of illuminating the
stage by lights behind the proscenium, invisible to the audience,
for he was hampered by the absence of a light like gas. The
scene-shifting was noisy and clumsy, and the scenery had little

12 The story is often repeated which gives Mrs. Siddons' opinion of
Garrick's Richard. Sheridan remarked that it was not terrible enough,
when Mrs. Siddons replied : " What could be more terrible ? In one scene
I was so much overcome by the fearful expression on his face that I forgot
my instructions. I was recalled to myself by a look of reproof, which I
never remember without a tremor."

13 It is to be noted as a tribute to Garrick's unrivaled drawing power in
Richard, that the after-farce seems not to have been used when he played,
as it was frequently when Mossop, Smith, or others took the part.

14 Genest speaking of Covent Garden, says : " The Coronation at this
theatre was tacked only to appropriate plays, not to plays with which it
had no connection, as at Drury Lane." Op. cit., Vol. IV, page 654.

15 Genest, op. cit., Vol. V, page 327.

108

effect in the dim background of the stage. It was used too,
with little intelligence, the setting being often a hodge-podge
of odds and ends,16 without regard to their fitness for the
setting desired. In 1772, however, Garrick engaged the young
Alsatian artist, De Loutherbourg, as scene painter, and thus
prepared the way for the improvements of the latter part of the
century. Although De Loutherbourg's work for Drury Lane
began at the very end of Garrick's management, in these last
years " Richard the Third " was frequently given and in the
Irving collection of designs made by this artist, there are three
for scenes on Bosworth Field. These, with the introduction
of " raking " scenes, practicable bridges, gauze curtains for at
mospheric effects, and ingenious devices for simulating sounds,
show how great must have been the change in the character
of the last scenes.17

Throughout the period great regard for costume, so far as
richness of effect was concerned, persisted, but little was done
for its propriety, as the portraits of the time show. In Ho
garth's portrait of Garrick as Richard the Third the dress is
Elizabethan,18 with trunks and hose, ruffs at neck and wrists,
and the short sleeveless fur-edged coat, showing the puffed
sleeves of the tunic. This costume is probably the traditional
one from the Shakespearian stage, and leads one to believe that
Richard, even in Gibber's personation, never appeared in con
temporary dress, whatever the minor characters may have
done. Davies remarks that " Richard the Third " and " Henry
the Eighth " were distinguished by the two principal characters
being dressed with propriety,19 though different from all the

ie a -pjje memory of no very aged persons may present, if closely urged,
some not very brilliant impression of the miserable pairs of flats that
used to clap together on even the stage trodden by Mr. Garrick ; archi
tecture without selection or propriety ; a hall, a castle, or a chamber ; or a
cut wood of which all the verdure seemed to have been washed away."
James Boaden, Memoirs of the Life of John Philip Kemble, page xiv.

17 On the work of De Loutherbourg, see The Pioneers of Modern Eng
lish Stage-Mounting: Phillipe Jacques de Loutherbourg, R. A., by W. J.
Lawrence. Magazine of Art, Vol. 18 (1895).

18 See Racinet, Le Costume Historique, for proof of this.
38 Quoted by R. W. Lowe in Life of Betterton, page 55.

109

rest; and this seems to have been true throughout Garrick's
management.20 Whether Davies by " propriety " meant that
he thought that Richard was in the dress of the fifteenth
century is not clear, but his archeological knowledge as to the
proper costume of that time, was probably not in advance of
that of his contemporaries.21 The Dramatic Censor comments
upon the subject:

" However historical relation admits doubts of that monarch's personal
deformity, it was certainly well judged to make his external appearance on
the stage, emblematic of his mind ; and for the sake of singularity dressing
him only in the habit of the times may be defensible ; but what excuse
can be made for shewing him, at his first entrance, in as elegant a dress as
when king, I am at a loss to suggest ; does he not, after his scene with
Lady Anne, profess a design of ornamenting his person more advan
tageously? Macbeth, when king, is always distinguished by a second dress,
why not Richard? a still greater breach of propriety appears in putting
mourning upon none of the persons of the court but the ladies and children ;
though Richard pays all other external respect to the circumstances of his
brother's death."22

After Garrick, the next great actor to essay this character
was John Philip Kemble in 1783, and with him an entirely
different conception of the part was inaugurated. Kemble's
biographer, in speaking of Henderson who conscientiously
carried on the tradition of Garrick, and comparing him with
Kemble, says:

" The high-erected deportment, the expressive action, the solemn cadence,
the stately pauses of that original tragedian, Kemble, with the magic of
countenance and form to bear up his style, have by degrees won us from
the school of ease and freedom and variety and warmth, and all the ming
ling proprieties of humour and pathos, as Shakspeare founded it, and as
it was taught by the professor whom I have just named. The styles
were certainly incompatible with each other. . . . The declamation
of Mr. Kemble seemed to be fetched from the schools of philosophy — it
was always pure and correct."

20 See Boaden, op. cit., page 184.

21 In Fitzgerald's History of the Stage the same mistake is made in regard
to Richard's dress at this time : " King Richard's troops appear in the uni
forms of the soldiers in St. James's Park with short jackets and cocked-up
hats. King Richard, indeed, wears the dress of his time, but not so
Richmond ; while the Bishop is stiffened into reformers' lawn sleeves, with
trencher-cap and tassel " (Page 234-5).

22 Dramatic Censor, page 10.

110

To show the principle on which the " most scientific " actor
worked, he quotes from Sir Joshua Reynolds :

" I must observe that even the expression of violent passion is not
always the most excellent in proportion as it is the most natural ; so great
terror and such disagreeable sensations may be communicated to the audi
ence that the balance may be destroyed by which pleasure is preserved,
and holds its predominancy in the mind ; violent distortion of action, harsh
screamings of the voice, however great the occasion, or however natural on
such occasion, are, therefore, not admissible in the theatric art. Many
of these allowed deviations from nature arise from the necessity which
there is that everything should be raised and enlarged beyond its natural
state ; that the full effect may come home to the spectator, which other
wise would be lost in the comparatively extensive space of the theatre.
Hence the deliberate and stately step, the studied grace of action, which
seems to enlarge the dimensions of the actor, and alone to fill the stage."23

This is, therefore, the great classical period in the history
of the play of " Richard the Third," when the canons of
Reynolds in art, and the conceptions of the classicists in litera
ture found histrionic expression in the school of Kemble.24

Kemble played Richard from 1783 to 1802 at Drury Lane,
and at Covent Garden from that time to his retirement in
1817. At the latter theatre he for a time, i. e., until 1810,
took the part of Richmond to the Richard of George Fred
erick Cooke. Cooke, indeed, was Kemble's great rival in this
play, and his appearance at Covent Garden, where he played
Richard over twenty times during his first season, caused a
great sensation. Dunlap, the biographer of Cooke, says of
his acting in this part : " His superiority over all others, in the
confident dissimulation, the crafty hypocrisy, and the bitter
sarcasm of the character, is acknowledged by every writer who
has criticised his acting. . . . His triumph in this character
was so complete, that after a struggle, Mr. Kemble resigned it
altogether to him."25

23 Boaden, op. cit., page 102.

** An analysis of Kemble's acting by Leigh Hunt is given in his Critical
Essays on the Performers of the London Theatres.

25 Memoirs of the Life of George Frederick Cooke, Esquire, Late of the
Theatre Royal, Covent Garden. Vol. I, pages 147-8. Cooke used Roach's
1802 edition of Richard the Third, but inserted the four opening lines from
Shakespeare in Richard's first speech and a few lines in his last speech
in Act IV.

Ill

But Cooke left for America in 1810, and Kemble was with
out a rival until Kean's appearance four years later. During
all these years Mrs. Siddons appeared frequently as Elizabeth
with her brother, and gained here, as everywhere, praise for
her interpretation of the part. Mrs. Powell and Mrs. Ward,
two of the best known actresses of the day, also became
identified with the parts of the Queen and Lady Anne.

While contemporary critics agree that Richard was not one
of Kemble's great parts, yet in his staging and revision of the
play he influenced its history considerably. Describing the
conditions when Kemble began his work in this line, Boaden
says : " The old scenery exhibited architecture of no period,
and excited little attention . . . nothing could be less accurate,
or more dirty, than the usual pairs of low flats that were hur
ried together, to denote the locality of the finest dialogue that
human genius ever composed."26 When new Drury Lane was
built in 1794, Kemble engaged William Capon, a man well
known for his antiquarian labors, as " scenic director " for
the new theatre. This was the beginning of a brilliant era of
new methods of staging the older drama. Kemble, like Mack-
lin before him, had made an abortive attempt at " correct "
staging and costume in his early days, and again in the revival
of "Henry the Eighth" at Drury Lane in 1788; but with
Capon, definite antiquarian research became a part of the
theatrical business.27

The new Drury Lane had such a large stage that none of
the old scenery and few of the properties could be used, and
this gave an unusual opportunity to Capon to bring into use
harmonious and correct settings for the plays. It now became
the fashion to lavish vast sums on the revivals of old plays;
when the theatre opened with " Macbeth," in 1794, " so pro
fuse was the wealth of adjuncts in the banquet scene that the
novelty was spoken of as ' a thing to go to see of itself.' " To
meet the expense of this splendor the after-piece was omitted,

28 Op. cit., page 158.

21 The work of Capon is described in an article by W. J. Lawrence
in the Magazine of Art, 1895, on Pioneers of Modern English Stage
Mounting: William Capon.

112

and all the money and labor were put upon the main feature
of the evening. A list of Capon's most successful scenes
include some of interest here:28

Six wings, representing ancient English streets; combina
tions of genuine remains, selected on account of their pictur
esque beauty.

The tower of London, restored to its earlier state, for the
play of " King Richard the Third."

Six chamber wings, of the same order (i. e., pointed archi
tecture), for general use in our old English plays — very elab
orately studied from actual remains.29

When Kemble became manager of new Covent Garden in
1809, he there carried on these archeological reforms, and the
house became noted for truthful and uniform Shakespearian
revivals.30 Added to his efforts for greater splendor of pro-
duction, Kemble exerted his influence beneficially in endeavor
ing to curb the desire of performers to play always great
characters, and to get them to concur cheerfully in such a cast
as should exhibit the full strength of the company, and do the
utmost justice to the ideas of the poet. Kemble illustrated his
policy by appearing with Cooke in the season of 1803 at Covent
Garden as Richmond to Cooke's Richard.31

28 Boaden, op. cit., pages 316-7.

28 Another scene, interesting because of its use in a related play of the
time is " The Council chamber of Crosby House, for Jane Shore — a correct
restoration of pristine state of the apartment so far as could be deduced
from documentary evidence." Given by W. J. Lawrence, in the article
on William Capon, cited above, page 290.

30 The same kind of work had been going on at Covent Garden before
Kemble's management, under Inigo Richards. Old Covent Garden had
burned down on September 20, 1808. A description of the new building
is given Boaden, op. cit., pages 533-4.

81 During this period the play appeared with such added attractions as
Blue Beard, a splendid show with real elephants, as an after piece. In
1805 and again in 1806, Master Betty, aged fourteen years, " the tenth
wonder of the world," an " infant Roscius," appeared as Richard the
Third. He had played in London since 1804, appeared with the best actors
of the day such as Cooke, Kemble, and Mrs. Siddons, and drew enormous
crowds. In 1813, Betty, then a man, again essayed the part of Richard, but
with poor success, and was not offered another engagement. At Bath, ho'v-

113

We find therefore, by the beginning of the nineteenth cen- V'
tury, that " Richard the Third " was thoroughly changed
in setting, but that the play-book of the eighteenth century
still held the stage. In 1810, Kemble published a revision of
Gibber's alteration, but the principal change consisted in short
ening it,32 resulting in the omission of one hundred and
twenty-six and a half lines, and the addition from Shakespeare
of four and a half lines with one and a half of his own.
From Shakespeare he restored the lines at the beginning of
Richard's first speech, curiously omitted by Gibber since they
connect this play so definitely with the series concerned with
Henry the Sixth:

Now is the winter of our discontent;
Made glorious summer by this sun of York ;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

The scenes in which the greatest excisions were made are
Act III, Scene 2, where sixteen lines are taken from Lady $(
Anne's speech on the unhappiness of her marriage, and twenty-
six lines from the scene in Baynard Castle ; and Act IV, Scene */\
4, where Richard's solicitation of Elizabeth is shortened by
seventeen lines. fThe character of Sir William Brandon he ci-w
substituted for Tressel. There are more frequent changes and
greater variety of scene. Thus, in the first act, Scene I is in
the Tower Garden, but for Richard's entrance a change is
made to the court-yard of the Tower ; in Act III, a new setting
is given to the interview with Lady Anne ; in Act IV, Richard

ever, he drew good audiences for a number of years. Byron refers to this
vogue contemptuously in English Bards and Scotch Reviewers thus,

Though now, thank Heaven ! the Rosciomania's o'er,

And full-grown actors are endured once more.

In 1812, Comus was given with Richard the Third as an after piece.
It had figured in the Jubilee Pageant in 1785 and later, with Kemble as
Richard, and imitators, such as Carey, Charles Matthews, and Yates had
found it a favorite subject for impersonations of leading actors.

32 "J. P. Kemble revised Gibber's alteration of Richard the 3d — but
' damned custom had braz'd him so, that he was proof and bulwark against
sense ' — he digested the cold mutton, and even the spiders crawling upon
hopes did not startle him." Genest, op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 233.
9

114

speaks his soliloquy during the murder of the princes, in a
" gallery in the Tower," and the mourning women meet him
at " the city-gates." There is also indication of more elabora-
. tion of details, as the tolling of the bell during the funeral pro
cession, while here Lady Anne and the procession enter, a
change from the " dicovered " scene of Gibber, but which gave
scope to Kemble's love of display, and an opportunity for the
exercise of that archeological exactness upon which he prided
himself. Martial music and flourishes are more frequently
called for, and Richmond's victory is emphasized by the re
moval of Richard's body to the sound of trumpets, and the
tableau at the end with all kneeling and shouting,

Long live Henry the Seventh, King of England !

But the changes, it is seen, are so slight that no essential differ
ence is made in plan or conception, even in details. These
however, met with favor, and appear with little variation in
the best known editions from prompt-books of the time, Inch-
bald's "British Theatre" ( 1806-9), 33 and Oxberry's "New
English Drama" (i8i8).34

It was this modified version of Gibber's " Richard the
Third " that was used by the next and most renowned Richard
of the nineteenth century, Edmund Kean. He appeared in
London in 1814, three years before Kemble's retirement, and
after his presentation of Richard the Third at his second ap
pearance, the city rang with his fame, and Drury Lane, which
had been seriously declining, became once more theatrically
important. Byron, who was in London at this time, after see
ing Kean, wrote in Kis diary, " Just returned from seeing
Kean in Richard. By Jove ! he is a soul ! Life, nature, truth,
without exaggeration or diminution. Richard is a man, and

83 Volume 17. Mrs. Inchbald, whose text was evidently taken from the
prompt-book before publication, records some changes in setting. Thus
Richard soliloquizes in the presence-chamber during the murder of the
princes, and Richmond's tent and the single encounters between Richard
and Richmond are placed in a wood. Neither in this edition nor in
Oxberry's is Tressel dropped from the characters in favor of Sir William
Brandon.

** Volume 3.

115

Kean is Richard."35 Coleridge said it was like " reading
Shakespeare by flashes of lightning." The newspapers took
pleasure in noting the resemblance of his name to that of Le
Kain, the great actor of France who had displaced a conven
tional, studied method of acting for one natural and lively.
Like Garrick, the greatest Richard among his predecessors,
Kean was short and eminently fitted in face and form for the
part ; he was called " the great little man," had a face of won
derful expressiveness with piercing eyes, remarkable energy in
his movements and great versatility. He recalled the best days
of Garrick, with more of recklessness, less of order in his per
formance. Epithets such as Dumas' " Desordre et Genie "36
were freely applied to this surprising person. J. P. Kemble
said when asked his opinion, " Our styles of acting are so
totally different, that you must not expect me to like Mr.
Kean; but one thing I must say in his favor — he is at all
times terribly in earnest."37

Kean's acting, after the classicism of Kemble and the
" butcher-like representation " of which Lamb complained in
Cooke's performance of Richard,38 seemed to realize the richer,
more complex and subtle conception of Richard's character
held by such critics as Hazlitt, Coleridge and Lamb. I can
do no better than to quote in full the most elaborate criticism
of the play that came from these later critics.

33 Detached Thoughts, Volume V, page 437 (ed. 1821-2). Byron says
further : " Of actors, Cooke was the most natural, Kemble the most super
natural, Kean a medium between the two, but Mrs. Siddons worth them all
put together, of those whom I remember to have seen in England." An
other poet, Keats, devoted two of his very few prose pieces to Kean's
acting. In The Champion, December, 1817, he praises his "intense power
of anatomizing the passions of every syllable, of taking to himself the
airings of verse." Keats' Works, ed. H. B. Forman, Vol. Ill, page 5.

38 Dumas, drama, Kean, ou Desorde et Genie, was produced at the Porte
Saint-Martin in 1836.

87 Boaden, op. cit., page 569.

38 On the Tragedies of Shakespeare, London, 1855. Kean said of him
self, " I have got Cooke's style in acting, but the public will never know
it, I am so much smaller." Quoted by Mr. William Winter in Shadows of
the Stage, page 75.

116

" It is possible to form a higher conception of the character of Richard
than that given by Mr Kean (not from seeing any other actor, but from
reading Shakespeare) ; but we cannot imagine any character represented
with greater distinctness and precision, more perfectly articulated in
every part. . . . He is more refined than Cooke ; more bold, varied, and
original than Kemble in the same character. In some parts he is deficient
in dignity, and, particularly in the scenes of state business, he has by no
means an air of artificial authority. There is at times a sort of tip-toe
elevation, an enthusiastic rapture in his expectations of attaining the crown,
and at others a gloating expression of sullen delight, as. if he already
clenched the bauble, and held it in his grasp. This was the precise ex
pression which Mr. Kean gave with so much effect to the part where he
says, that he already feels ' The golden rigol bind his brows.' In one
who dares so much, there is indeed little to blame. The courtship scene
with Lady Anne is an admirable exhibition of smooth and smiling villainy.
The progress of wily adulation, of encroaching humility, is finely marked
by his action, voice and eye. He seems, like the first Tempter, to ap
proach his prey, secure of the event, and as if success had smoothed his
way before him. Mr. Cooke's manner of representing this scene was
more vehement, hurried, and full of anxious uncertainty. This though
more natural in general, was less in character in this particular instance.
Richard should woo not as a lover but as an actor — to show his mental
superiority, and power of making others the playthings of his will. Mr.
Kean's attitude in leaning against the side of the stage before he comes
forward to address Lady Anne, is one of the most graceful and striking
ever witnessed on the stage. It would have done for Titian to paint.
The frequent and rapid transition of his voice from the expression of the
fiercest passion to the most familiar tones of conversation was that which
gave a peculiar grace of novelty to his acting on his first appearance.
This has been since imitated and caricatured by others, and he himself
uses the artifice more sparingly than he did. His bye-play is excellent.
His manner of bidding his friends ' Good-night,' after pausing with the
point of his sword, drawn slowly backward and forward on the ground,
as if considering the plan of the battle next day, is a particularly happy
and natural thought. He gives to the two last acts (sic?) of the play the
greatest animation and effect. He fills every part of the stage ; and makes
up for the deficiency of his person by what has been sometimes objected to
as an excess of action. The concluding scene, in which he is killed by Rich
mond is the most brilliant of the whole. He fights at last like one drunk
with wounds ; and the attitude in which he stands with his hands stretched
out, after his sword is wrested from him, has a praeternatural grandeur, as
if his will could not be disarmed, and the very phantoms of his despair had
withering power to kill." 3I

89 W. Hazlit, The Characters of Shakespeare's Plays, pages 149-50
(Phila., 1854).

G. H. Lewes, who was greatly impressed by Kean's acting, says of one

117

J. F. Molloy, Kean's biographer, in speaking of these first
performances, mentions some of the scenes in which he
achieved his greatest triumphs ; his power of conveying " the
idea of rage stifled beneath a calm exterior " when taunted
by the little Duke of York; his exit when retiring to his tent,
said by the critic of the " Morning Post " to be " one of the
finest pieces of acting we have ever beheld, or perhaps that the
stage has ever known " ; and his death agony, which, the
" Examiner " is quoted as remarking, " was a piece of noble
poetry, expressed by action instead of language."40 He tells
how, " as the curtain fell the audience rose as one man, cheered

scene, " He had no gaiety ; he could not laugh ; he had no playfulness that
was not as the playfulness of a panther showing her claws every moment.
Of this kind was the gaiety of his Richard III. Who can ever forget
the exquisite grace with which he leaned against the side-scene while Anne
was railing at him, and the chuckling mirth of his ' Poor fool ! what pains
she takes to damn herself ! ' It was thoroughly feline — terrible yet
beautiful." On Actors and the Art of Acting, London, 1875, page 10.

Genest, who did not like Kean and seldom says anything in his praise,
notices the death scene particularly. In recording Kean's performance at
Bath, July 14, 1815, he remarks, "Richard was Kean's best part — but he
overdid his death — he came up close to Richmond, after he had lost his
sword, as if he would have attacked him with his fists — Richmond, to
please Kean, was obliged to stand like a fool, with a drawn sword in his
hand, and without daring to use it." On June 15, 1819, he notes, "Kean
on this night (and probably before) left off his absurd habit of collaring
Richmond after he himself was disarmed." Op. cit., Vol. VIII, pages 495
and 692.

40 Does this mean that Kean omitted the death speech which Gibber gives
Richard?

As Ryan had anticipated Garrick's manner, so in the case of Kean,
George Frederick Cooke suggested his general method. Vandenhoff, in his
Leaves from an Actor's Note Book, says that those who had seen both in
Richard the Third, " do not hesitate to award to Cooke the palm for sus
tained power, and intense, enduring energy of passion ; Kean excelled him
probably in light and shade of expression." Kean's admiration for Cooke
was well known, and was attested by his raising a monument to his
memory in St. Paul's churchyard in New York, when he visited America
in 1821. The well-known portrait of Kean as Richard the Third may be
found in Tallis' Dramatic Magazine.

118

lustily, applauded wildly, declaring by word and action this new
actor was great indeed."41

Three years after Kean's brilliant debut, Kemble retired
from the stage. Cooke had died in 1812 in Boston, and until
the appearance of William Charles Macready in 1819, Kean
held the part without a possible equal, and with Junius Brutus
Booth as his only notable rival. Booth resembled Kean strik
ingly in person and he imitated him closely in his Richard the
Third, and was for a time enthusiastically received.42 But
his fame in England was short-lived, for he went to the United
States in 1821, and remained there. There were many other
rivals of all classes, from the genteel and declamatory Charles
Young, of the Kemble school, to the ridiculous Plunkett of
Dublin, but Kean's preeminence in Richard the Third was un
disturbed.43 Kean's " leading ladies " of most note were Mrs.
Glover for Queen Elizabeth, whom he used to frighten with
his tragic earnestness, and Miss Faucit, the greatest English
actress of the time, who played the part of Lady Anne in 1829.

41 The Life and Ad-ventures of Edmund Kean Tragedian. London, 1888,
page 150.

42 An account of his successful appearance is given by Macready in his
Reminiscences, page 101. "A report had reached the managers of Covent
Garden of a Mr. Booth (who in figure, voice, and manner so closely re
sembled Kean that he might be taken for his twin brother) acting Richard
the Third at Brighton and Worthing with great success. An appearance
at Covent Garden was offered to him with the promise of an engagement if
successful. Accordingly on the i2th of February (1817) he appeared in
Gloster, and certainly on his first entrance on the stage, with a similar
coiffure and dress, he might have been thought Kean himself. With con
siderable physical power, a strong voice, a good deal of bustle, some stage
experience, and sufficient intelligence to follow out the traditional effects
of the part, he succeeded in winning the applause and favor of his audience,
and repeated the performance on the following night." Then follows the
account of Kean's dramatic method of proving his superiority to his rival,
with which we are here not particularly concerned.

"A club called The Wolves, was formed to support him, and while they
probably did not do all that was attributed to them, Genest thinks that it
is clear " that there was some combination among Kean's friends to prevent
any new performer from succeeding in Richard." This seems possible
from the treatment given to a new actor, Meggett, when he undertook the
part at Haymarket, in 1815. See Genest, op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 486.

119

Aside from the " business," for which Kean's performance
was remarkable,44 he does not appear to have introduced many
innovations in the staging. At his first appearance in 1814, at
Drury Lane, new scenery, archeologically and historically cor
rect, was painted for the occasion,45 and therefore Kean found
the setting better than any Richard before him. He is repre
sented in a prompt-book of 1827 as making a slight change in
the ghost scene, where the figures do not rise, but a curtain
is drawn from the back of Richard's tent and they appear in
the midst of cloud effects. Genest gives a suggestion of an
innovation in noting that " the Lord Mayor was very properly
played seriously."46 That the Lord Mayor was a comic char
acter in Elizabethan representations seems apparent, and the
tradition had evidently persisted until public taste acquiesced in /" 7j~. ' ftl/l
this change, as it did in Macklin's elevation of the character of
Shylock. TThe costume throughout this period, used both by
Kean and Kemble before him, is given by Oxberry in his " New
English Drama " of i8i8,47 and shows the Elizabethan dress

44 " Every personator of Richard must fight like a madman, and fence on
the ground, and when disarmed and wounded, thrust with savage impotence
with his naked hand,

' And sink outwearied, rather than o'ercome.'

Mr. Kean has passed this manner into a law, and woe be to him who
breaks it. No one but Mr. Kemble can be allowed to parry like a school
boy, and drop like a gentleman." Quoted from The Champion, February
16, 1817, by Asia Booth Clarke in The Elder and the Younger Booth,
Boston 1882, page 15.

45 Molloy, op. cit., page 145. The building that had been opened with
such splendor in 1794, burned down on February 10, 1809. Drury Lane
was rebuilt and opened on October 10, 1812, with a larger stage and finer
appointments. On that occasion Lord Byron supplied the Address. See
Boaden, op. cit., page 568.

48 Op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 692.

47 " Gloster. ist dress. Scarlet doublet, trunks, hose, hat, cloak and
russet boots. 2d dress. Black ditto, ditto, trimmed with gold, crimson
velvet robe, white hose, shoes, and plush hat. 3rd dress. Armour body,
and hat.

" King Henry. Black velvet trunks, hose, and cloak.

" Richmond. Buff pantaloons, russet boots, armour body, scarlet mantle
and black hat.

" Queen. White satin dress, trimmed with point lace and beads, point

120

such as Garrick had used. Here, however, all the characters
are so dressed. We find certain personal additions to Rich
ard's costume made by Kean, as the point lace collar which
Garrick had invariably worn in this part, and which was given
Kean by Wroughton, a fellow-actor.48

Kean, in 1820 and again in 1825, visited America, where
Richard the Third was the most prominent character in his
repertoire. In 1828, he played the part in Paris, at the Theatre
Frangais, where he excited curiosity but no great appreciation.
Kean's popularity, in spite of his dissipated habits and conse
quent diminution of power, remained to the end. Hazlitt tells
how prevailingly he had become the fashion : "If you had not
been to see the little man twenty times in Richard, and did
not deny his being hoarse in the last act, or admire him for
being so, you were looked on as a lukewarm devotee, or half
an infidel!"

This interpretation of Richard was kept constantly before
the public, for it continued to be a favorite part with Kean
to the end of his life,49 was constantly chosen by him for
opening his season at Drury Lane, and was his last play
there. His influence upon the history of the play is sug
gested in these words of G. H. Lewes : " He largely increased
the stock of ' business,' which is the tradition of the stage.
Hamlet, Othello, Richard, Shylock, Lear, Sir Giles Overreach,
or Sir Edward Mortimer have (sic?) been illuminated by him
in a way neither actors nor playgoers commonly suspect. . . .
Edmund Kean did much for Shakespeare. The acting edition
of our greatest dramatist may now almost be said to be based

lace and muslin drapery. 2d dress. Black velvet trimmed with black
crape ; black crape veil, trimmed with bugles.

" Lady Anne. Black velvet dress, trimmed with bugles, black crape veil,
trimmed with bugles.

" The other characters in variously colored doublets, trunks, hose and
cloaks."

1 Molloy, op. cit., page 202, records that after his great success in
Richard, Kean was presented with a gold snuff-box by Lord Byron, having
a boar hunt in mosaic on the lid, and henceforth Kean adopted a boar as
his crest as had King Richard.

** He died in 1833.

121

upon his conceptions of the leading parts. He invented much.
His own quick, passionate sympathy saw effects where other
actors had seen nothing."50

Charles William Macready acted Richard the Third as early
as 1812-3 at Bristol, where his father was manager of the
theatre, but he was entirely dissatisfied with the result, because
" a humpbacked tall man is not in nature." Yet it was this
part which afterwards was of importance in his attainment
of a leading position on the London stage. It was in 1819 that
he acted Richard first in London, at Covent Garden, where
he scored a great success, playing it nine times, though at that
period Kean was at the height of his reputation. In his
" Reminiscences " he gives a full account of his reluctance at
undertaking the part, and how he was actually driven to it by
his manager, Mr. Harris. He tells of his despairing, but char
acteristically painstaking preparation for it:

" All that history could give me I had already ferreted out, and for my
portrait of the character, the self-reliant, wily, quick-sighted, decisive, in
flexible Plantagenet, I went direct to the true source of inspiration,51 the
great original, endeavoring to carry its spirit through the sententious and
stagy lines of Gibber ; not searching for particular ' points ' to make, but
rendering the hypocrisy of the man deceptive and persuasive in its earnest
ness, and presenting him in the execution of his will as acting with
lightning-like rapidity." B2

He goes on to describe the performance, and speaks of the
enthusiasm of the audience particularly over his rendering of
Buckingham's repulse, " I'm busy ; thou troublest me ! I'm not
in the vein " ; over his fevered impatience in the scene with
Tyrrel after the murder of the princes, and tells how at the
death " the pit rose again with one accord, waving their hats
with long-continued cheers." After the performance, he was
called for to announce the play of the next day instead of the
one appointed to do this, and the practice was thus first in
troduced at Covent Garden of " calling on " the principal actor.

50 Op. cit., pages 19 and 29.

51 The first expression of this that I have found. Quin thought he was
playing Shakespeare's work until Garrick enlightened him.

'"-Reminiscences, edited by Sir Frederick Pollock, New York, 1875, page

141.

122

The papers gave enthusiastic accounts of it, some even
acknowledging him equal to the great Richard of the day,
Kean. Leigh Hunt's comparison of the two is of interest:

" Compared then with Mr. Kean, we should say that a division of merits,
usual enough with the performance of such comprehensive characters as
Shakespeare's has taken place in the Richards of these two actors. Mr.
Kean's Richard is the more sombre and perhaps deeper part of him ; Mr.
Macready's the livelier and more animal part — a very considerable one
nevertheless. Mr. Kean's is the more gloomy and reflective villain, rend
ered so by the united effect of his deformity and subtle-mindedness ; Mr.
Macready's is the more ardent and bold-faced one, borne up by a tempera
ment naturally high and sanguine, though pulled down by mortification.
The one has more of the seriousness of conscious evil in it, the other of
the gaiety of meditated success ... in short, Mr. Kean's Richard is
more like King Richard, darkened by the shadow of his very approaching
success, and announcing the depth of his desperation when it shall be
disputed; Mr. Macready's Richard is more like the Duke of Gloucester,
brother to the gay tyrant Edward IV., and partaking as much of his
character as the contradiction of the family handsomeness in his person
would allow." **

The success at Covent Garden provoked instant competition
at Drury Lane, where Kean a few weeks later assumed the
part with Elliston as Richmond, and with the announcement
of " New Scenery, Dresses, and Decorations." For several
evenings " Richard the Third " occupied both play-bills, and
furnished subject-matter for comparative criticisms in the
papers, and even for street-ballads and caricatures in glaring
colors in the print-shop windows, representing the " Rival
Richards.""

Leigh Hunt in the selection above quoted says, " It is to be
recollected that Mr. Kean first gave the living stage that exam-

53 The Examiner. Quoted in the Reminiscences, page 144.

54 Reminiscences, page 145. Later opinions of Macready's Richard are
found in Genest, under entry of May 2$d, 1823. "He was very inferior to
Kean, till the ghosts appeared ... he was then superior, as having stronger
physical powers ... he arose from the couch with one of his arms quite
naked above the elbow — every person noticed this stage trick, but no person
could tell what Macready meant by it." Vol. IV, page 223. The Times on
March 13, 1821, after his performance in his own version, said of the part
generally, " His Richard is a performance of great merit, and would be
still more complete, if he always retained his self-command." Remi
niscences, page 162.

123

pie of a natural style of acting on which Mr. Macready has
founded his new rank in the theatrical world." This suggests
the interesting position which Macready held in regard to the
two great schools of acting. He was " eclectic," and tried to
combine the dignity of Kemble with the vivacity of Kean, the
deliberateness and majesty of the one with the animal spirits
and rush of the other. In his lines, he paid more attention to
logical than rhythmic structure, in distinction to the accenting
of measure strongly with the meaning secondary, as in the
older school.

Soon after his first success in " Richard the Third," Mac-
ready, dissatisfied with the Gibber version, and always cherish
ing the hope of restoring the Shakespearian text to the stage,
in 1821 attempted to return to the original play. That the
" restoration " was only a partial one, we find from his account
of it in his " Reminiscences :"

" An alteration of Gibber's ' King Richard III.' had been sent to me by
Mr. Swift of the Crown Jewel Office, but varying so little from the work
it professed to reform, that I was obliged to extend the restoration of
Shakespeare's text, and it was submitted (March i2th, 1821) to the public
ordeal.85 The experiment was partially successful — only partially. To
receive full justice, Shakespeare's ' Life and Death of King Richard III.'
should be given in its perfect integrity, whereby alone scope could be
afforded to the active play of Richard's versatility and unscrupulous
persistency. But, at the time of which I write, our audiences were
accustomed to the coarse jests and ad captandum speeches of Gibber, and
would have condemned the omission of such uncharacteristic claptrap as

' Off with his head ! so much for Buckingham ! '
or such bombast as

' Hence, babbling dreams : you threaten here in vain.
Conscience, avaunt ! Richard's himself again ! '

In deference to the taste of the times, these passages as well as similar
ones were retained." B8

56 The playbill announced, " Of the Tragedy hitherto acted under the
title of King Richard the 3d, more than half is the exclusive composition
of Gibber. The present is an attempt to restore (in place of his ingenious
alteration) the original character and language of Shakespeare ; in which
no more extraneous matter is retained than the trifling passages necessary
to connect those scenes between which omissions have necessarily been
made for the purposes of representation."

08 Reminiscences, page 162.

124

It was regarded rather as a rearrangement of Gibber's text
than as a restoration of the original, according to " The
Times " of the next day :

" At a period when Shakespeare is regarded almost with idolatry, any
attempt to rescue the original text from the omissions and interpolations
which successive ages have accumulated, must at least be viewed with
favor ; with that feeling we witnessed last night the representation of his
' Life and Death of King Richard III.', which was announced to be, with
a few deviations, the text of the author. . . . The performance of last
night was merely another arrangement and certainly inferior in dramatic
effect to that of Gibber.57 . . . The only scene of much value was that
of the Council and the condemnation of Hastings." M

Genest gives some account of the performance:

" The first two acts went off with great applause, and the audience was
evidently delighted at the idea of the original play being revived — in the
3d act the Bishop of Ely made his exit in so ludicrous a manner, that it
threw a damp on the rest of the play — Egerton was much applauded in
Clarence's dream — Mrs. Bunn (Margaret) made the greatest impression —
such is the account of a gentleman who was present on this evening." °*

This version was acted for a second time on March nine
teenth, and then laid aside.60 At Macready's next appearance
in Richard the Third, which did not take place until 1831, at
Drury Lane, when he played the part three times, the text was
the Gibber form. Again he appeared in it five times in 1836-7,
but during the period of his management of Drury Lane and
his Shakespearian revivals there, from 1841-3, " Richard the
Third" was not attempted.61 Neither does it seem to have

57 Although an American commentator says, " The bloated reputation of
Gibber's interpolations he [t. e., Macready] decried, and felt anguish at the
innovations of even Dryden and Massinger." Francis, Old New York,
page 245.

88 Reminiscences, page 162 note.

59 Op. cit., Volume IX. Buckingham was played by the " imitator " Yates,
and Queen Elizabeth by Mrs. Faucit.

60 Genest gives as his reasons for its cold reception that " few like to
acknowledge that they have been applauding wretched stuff," and that it
was further due to the lack of foresight on the part of the management in
not preceding the performance by suitable observations in the newspapers,
and thus preparing the audience for the change.

61 The play seems, however, to have been in his mind from time to time,
as, in 1838, we find in the Reminiscences the following note, " Looked
through the plays of Shakespeare to discover if any others could be

125

been in his repertoire in either of his visits to America in 1826
and in 1843, although at that time it seems to have been a
favorite play with English " stars " for opening an American
season. Indeed, while Richard the Third had been an im
portant role in starting Macready on his successful theatrical
career in London, he seems never to have been suited in
figure or in disposition to this part, and it was never a favorite
or a frequent role with him.62

Macready, as we have seen, did not attempt " Richard the
Third " in the Shakespearian revivals under his management,
but this play was among the first given by Samuel Phelps at
Sadler's Wells Theatre, after the patent privileges were abol
ished.63 Its production took place February 20, i845.64 The

available for revival. Decided that ' King Richard III.,' and afterwards,
perhaps, ' King Henry V.' were the only ones. Looked at Schlegel's re
marks on Richard." On December 23d of the same year he wrote :
" Looked through the unused plays of Shakespeare for cementing lines
for ' Richard III.' " He says in the account of his first attempt at a
restoration of the original text : " At a later period, if the management of
Covent Garden in 1837-9 had been continued, the play, with many others,
would have been presented in its original purity." (Page 162.)

82 One of the last appearances of Macready as Richard the Third is con
nected with a serio-comic incident which is highly characteristic of the
sensitive and irritable actor, and at the same time reveals the degenerate
state of Drury Lane fortunes. Bunn, the manager, planned a combined
attraction in which the first three acts of Richard the Third were to be
given with The Jewess and the first act of Chevy Chase. The rage and
disgust of Macready, who was forced to appear as Richard, resulted in an
attack by him upon Bunn, which caused him afterwards agonies of self-
reproach and humiliation.

68 The patent privileges, which restricted the legitimate drama to the
three patent theatres during the main season, was abolished in 1843. The
minor theatres at once turned to Shakespearian plays, but only at Sadler's
Wells were these received with sufficient favor to warrant an extended
us of them. The history of Sadler's Wells under the management of
Samuel Phelps is one of the most interesting episodes of stage annals.
At this theatre, at one time one of the most humble, he revived nearly all
of Shakespeare's plays, and here fostered the best in the drama for nearly
twenty years, at a time when the older houses were given over to spectacles
and animal shows.

84 It ran for twenty-four nights, according to The Life and the Life-Work
of Samuel Phelps, by his nephew, W. May Phelps, and John Forbes-
Robertson, London, 1886, page 69. Lounsbury, op. cit., page 320, note,
found it advertised for only twenty-one nights.

126

reports of the day speak of the remarkable care and attention
with which it was staged, and note as especially beautiful the
views of Cheapside and of the Tower, and the approach of the
Mayor by water. The tent scenes were given as in Shake
speare, the two tents being set up before the audience, and the
ghosts advanced between them " by some ingenious process,
but so far only as to be dimly visible to the audience." A more
important element of the performance was that the text used
was Shakespeare's. This was modified by " such alterations
only as were necessary either to reduce the play within acting
length, or obviate some otherwise insurmountable difficulty
. . . with occasionally the introduction of a few lines (Shake
speare's) to conclude an act or make a graceful exit."65

The play, although revived with such care and attention to
details, was not repeated until the close of Phelps' manage
ment, in 1862, on November 23. On this occasion, strangely
enough, Gibber's version was used, the reason avouched being
that the actress available for Queen Margaret, Miss Atkinson,
was unequal to the part.66 This performance was repeated
on January 4, and again on the i8th. Phelps, as Richard,
gave an acceptable and conscientious presentation, but one in
no way great; but he is of importance in the history of the
play because of the thoughtful and artistic staging which he
gave it, and because his was the first thorough and successful
restoration of the original form.

During 1851-9, Phelps' work at Sadler's Wells was rivalled
by that of Charles Kean at the Princess Theatre, but the
productions here were on a much more splendid scale, and
mark the culmination of the methods inaugurated by John

85 Phelps and Forbes-Robertson, op. cit., page 75. The play-bill read :
" In order to meet the spirit of the present age, so distinguished for
illustrating and honouring the works of Shakespeare, and with at least
an honest desire of testing his truthful excellence over all attempted
improvements, this restoration is essayed, in lieu of the alteration, inter
polation, and compilement of Colley Gibber, which has so long, held
possession of the stage."

66 Phelps and Forbes-Robertson, op. cit., page 202. The part had been
played by Mrs. Warner, who was at her best in severe and majestic charac
ters, such as Queen Margaret.

127

Kemble. " Richard the Third " had its place in these gorge
ous displays on February 20, 1850. It was staged with the
greatest elaboration of the details of scenery and costume, as
were all of Kean's revivals, a practice which won for him the
sneering comment of a newspaper critic of the time : " The
painter, the tailor, and the upholsterer are Mr. Kean's inter
preters of Shakespeare." The play-bill shows a cast of one
hundred and twenty-one ; the funeral procession was large and
impressive, including monks with torches, priests with a golden
cross, banner-men bearing the banners of the arms of Eng
land, numbering in all fifty-nine; and the coronation scene
matched it in splendor. No longer a few actors ran in and
out to represent an army, but Richard is followed by fifty-
eight of his men, appropriately distinguished as trumpeters,
royal archers gorgeously dressed, banner-men in steel with
various insignia, knights with white roses on their breasts and
shields. Richmond's following is as complete, as appropri
ately dressed, and decorated with red roses. The dress dif
fers materially in fashion from that used hitherto. In the
" Fly Leaf," which the manager was accustomed to append to
the play-bill upon the appearance of a new revival to prepare
the audience for the innovations in architecture and costume,
he gives his authorities at length.67 Not only correctness, but
great richness is shown in the costume, as in Richard's dress,
which is described thus:

" Crimson velvet shirt, edged with sable fur, gold waistcoat with black
velvet sleeves puffed with gold coming through the hanging sleeve of the
shirt, gold waist-belt carrying a cross-hilted sword and dagger, purple
stockings, order of garter, under left knee, gold collar of suns and roses,
black velvet cap with jewel, high riding boots and spurs, and gauntlets.
In Act II. the same, with crimson velvet shoes with pointed toes instead
of boots. . . . Act IV. King's Dress. Long gown representing cloth of
gold edged with ermine, purple velvet robe edged with ermine and ermine

07 Meyrick's Ancient Armour, Col. C. H. Smith's Ancient Costume of
Great Britain, Blanche's unpublished work on the costume of Richard
the Third, Strutt's Dresses and Habits of the People of England, Fairholt's
Costume in England, Fosbroke's Encyclopaedia of Antiquities, Dugdale's
Monasticon Anglicanum, Shaw's Dresses and Decorations, Stothard's
Monumental Effigies, Froissart's Chronicles, Pugin's Glossary of Ecclesi
astical Ornament and Costume, and the Herald of Office.

128

cape, crimson stockings, purple velvet pointed shoes with cross-bars of gold,
gold cord and tassels round waist, jewelled sword, diamond collar of suns
and roses, gold and richly jewelled crown, without feathers, as worn by
Henry VI. After the Coronation scene, instead of the coronation robe,
a puce velvet open robe with hanging sleeves, the velvet cap edged with
ermine. Act V. Suit of complete armor, with a surcoat emblazoned with
the arms of England." *

Lady Anne's dress presented a markedly different appear
ance from the usual one for this part:

" Black velvet demi-train with hanging sleeves, and tight blue shirt under
to the wrist, square body, a muslin chimesette to the throat, fold of linen
under chin, cowl of white linen, large black veil, square velvet head-dress
(shape of that worn by Neapolitan peasantry). Second dress: Surcoat of
sea-green trimmed with gold and ermine, under-dress of orange-colored
cloth with tight sleeves, cowl of silver, and jewelled head-dress."

As in the case of the performance at Sadler's Wells, Richard
was thoughtfully, intelligently acted, but with none of the
originality of the days of Cooke or Kean. It was a time of
excellent second-rate talent, when the traditions that had gath
ered about this character were carried on by such men as
George Bennett and Henry Marston.

In regard to the text, Kean set forth his views in the " Fly
Leaf." This ran as follows:

" In selecting the play of ' King Richard the Third,' I have, upon mature
consideration, decided on adopting the well-known version of Colley Gibber,
instead of going back to the original text of Shakespeare. The text has
been practically declared by the greatest ornaments of the drama, less fitted
in its integrity for representation on the stage than almost any other
generally acted play of the great poet ; whilst, on the other hand, the
tragedy, as modified by Gibber, being rather a ccndensation than an altera
tion of Shakespeare (the interpolations themselves being chiefly selections
from his other plays), has been pronounced one of the most admirable and
skilful instances of dramatic adaptations ever known. . . . With such
distinguished precedents for my guide, I might well hesitate in reverting,
on the present occasion, to the original text, even if their judgment had
not been sanctioned by the voice of experience, and were it not also a
fact that the tragedy of ' King Richard the Third,' as adapted by Gibber,
is most intimately associated with the traditionary admiration of the public
for those renowned and departed actors." "

88 A portrait of Charles Kean as Richard may be found in Tallis' Drawing-
Room Table Book, from the original painting by Reid.

89 The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean, F.S.A., by John

129

This is interesting and shows the trend of public opinion,
from the very fact that the manager thought an apology
necessary.

The performance does not seem to have been repeated, nor
did it meet with entire favor. It was given for only nineteen
nights, a short " run " at this time, when plays were being
acted for twenty weeks at a stretch. The public seemed to
feel that in the superabundance of scenery and " effects," the
play was almost left out, that the dramatic interest was being
exchanged for something else of less value.70

After the performances of " Richard the Third " at Sadler's
Wells in 1862, the play seems to have returned to its former
position in the stock plays of the best houses. In the 6o's and
early 7o's, Henry Irving was establishing his " monopoly of
stage villains " in the provinces and London, and we find no
greater • Richard than the " robustious " Barry Sullivan at
Drury Lane until Irving's performance of the play at the
Lyceum in 1877. With this performance a new kind of
Richard made his appearance, and the Shakespearian text
received a fuller vindication than had been possible before. It
was the first time on the modern stage that a great actor had
appeared with the original form.

Irving's adaptation of the play consists entirely in cutting
out certain scenes chiefly epic, but no characters are dropped
except the children of Clarence, and there is no rearrangement
of scenes. The omissions in detail are as follows.

Act I (Sh. I, i, 2). — Chiefly shortened in the speeches of
Lady Anne.

Act II (Sh. I, 3-11 end). — The speeches of the Queen and
of Margaret are cut down. Most of the conversation of the
murderers is omitted, making the murder of Clarence a short

William Cole, London, 1859, page 101. For the very slight changes, such
as the omission of lines, etc., see Lacy's Acting Edition of Plays, Vol. 13
(Richard the Third), This gives the play as performed in 1854, at the
Royal Princess's Theatre, London.

70 A newspaper of the time remarks : " The little importance which Mr.
Kean attaches to good acting needs no other proof than the fact of his
generally taking the principal characters himself." On over-staging, see
Macready's Reminiscences, page 685.
10

130

scene. The scene of the nobles about the dying King Edward
is much shortened. The remaining scenes of Act II are
omitted.

Act III. — The principal omissions are the scene between
Hastings and the pursuivant, later Buckingham (Sh. Ill, 2),
the leading of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan to death (Sh. Ill, 3),
the speech of the scrivener (Sh. Ill, 6), and sections from the
speeches of Buckingham and Richard in the scene in Baynard
Castle (Sh. Ill, 7).

Act IV. — The act opens with Sh. IV, 2, the coronation scene.
The part of Queen Margaret is omitted from this act, and the
solicitation of Elizabeth is much shortened. The scene be
tween Derby and Urswick is omitted.

Act V. — Scenes I, 2 and 3, as far as the scene in the camp
of Richmond, are omitted. The ghosts of Prince Edward,
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan do not appear, and the others
speak only to Richard. The play closes with the fall of
Richard, and nothing is spoken after his second cry of
A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse !

Irving's Richard was much admired as a convincing, sug
gestive interpretation. The epithet most often applied to it
was " intellectual," while the princely character of his render
ing of the part was frequently commented upon. Tennyson,
in analyzing his acting in this play, said : " I often wonder
how he gets his distinctively Plantagenet look." The critics
called him " splendidly Satanic," spoke of his superb mono
logue, and remarked how well the part displayed his person
ality, which was " peculiarly rich in the elements of the weird,
the sinister, the sardonic, the grimly humorous, the keenly
intellectual." Irving seemed to carry to finest culmination the
conception of Richard's character which such romanticists as
Hazlitt saw suggested in Edmund Kean's presentation, his sub
tlety, imagination; but in Irving's case with more of that
" pride of intellect " which Coleridge took as the predominat
ing note in Shakespeare's play.71

71 The staging of the play while beautiful, was not extravagant. Indeed
Irving, in his speech to the Garrick Club, cites this as an instance where
success was not achieved through splendid mounting.

131

The play, although commended on all sides, was not repeated
for twenty years, until 1896, nor was it given72 in any of
Irving's visits in America.73 Moreover, at its later revival,
the success was only partial.74 These performances and
Irving's presentation of the part are noteworthy, however, in
the history of the play in marking the establishment of the
Shakespearian text upon the stage, and at least the measurable
vindication of its superiority, if not its complete victory over
the altered form. It is significant to notice that in spite of
the fact that in returning to Shakespeare, Irving had been
heralded as foreswearing the melodrama of Gibber, his per
formance in the second revival of the play is described as " a
little more highly colored " and as containing " here and there
touches which almost verge upon the melodramatic." This
seems in a measure to sum up the long history of the play from
the melodramatic and un-Shakespearian performances of the
eighteenth century, through the attempts to avoid these affects
in the nineteenth century " restorations," to the unintentional
recognition of the melodramatic in the Shakespearian play
itself.75

12 Except Act I, with which Irving closed his first engagement in America,
November 24, 1883. See T. A. Brown, History of the New York Stage,
page 305.

78 In America, in the meantime, as early as 1871, the Shakespearian text
was used at Niblo's Garden, New York, combined with great elaborateness
of scenery and costume.

74 A correspondent to The Evening Post for Wednesday, November 21,
1906, says: "The records of the London Lyceum do not show that the
Irving revival of ' King Richard III.' was a profitable venture ; while I
had the distinguished actor's word for it that his personal achievement in
the role was a matter of satisfaction to neither himself nor his clientele.
He spoke to me, in 1901, in Philadelphia, to the effect that he regarded
' King Richard III.' and ' Coriolanus ' as his chief mistakes in management."

75 In Germany the stage version of Franz Dingelstedt is notable, as
showing the Meiningen methods of individualizing the minor characters.
The management of the ghost scene is also interesting, as one of the
various attempts to make this scene effective and quasi-convincing. The
stage directions read : " Der hintere Vorhangsimes Zeltes theilt sich
langsam. Die ganze Tiefe der Buhne, in Wolken gehiillt, wird sichbar.
Im Mittlegrund erscheinen auf einer Erhohung, in magischem, nich zu
hellem Lichte, die Geister ; im Hintergrunde das Innere des Zeltes Rich-

132

Thus have we followed the history of " Richard the Third "
through one hundred and fifty years, from Garrick, who first
made its possibilities evident to modern audiences and used it
during his long career as one of his most successful plays,
through the period of the classical, heroic interpretation of
John Kemble and the impersonation of Kean, vivid and con
vincing especially on the emotional side, to Irving, when, after
a lapse of fifty years, we again have an original conception of
the character. Other lines of development have been followed
in the successive experiments in staging made by Kemble,
Phelps and Charles Kean, and in the attempts to " restore "
the Shakespearian text, which with Irving attained a measure-
able success. That these efforts in restoration have met with
only partial success may be explained, in part at least, by the

mond's, den man, heller als die Geister bleuchtet, ruhig auf seinem Lager
schlummern, sieht. Richard liegt rechts auf der Biihne, sich unruhig bin
und her walzend ; Richmond links in der Hohe. ' Zwischen beiden stehen die
Geister, ihre Reden bald rechts herab in den Vordergrund, bald links hinauf
in die Hohe richtend." Theatre von Franz Dingelstedt, Richard HI, 1877.
As in the preceding periods, so in the nineteenth century, the figure of
Richard the Third appeared in other plays. In 1818, Richard Duke of
York was performed at Drury Lane on December 22, and once afterward.
This was a compilation of the three parts of Henry the Sixth, with the
introduction of passages from Chapman and other Elizabethan dramatists.
See Genest, op. cit., Vol. VIII, page 640. Charles Kemble condensed
the Henry the Sixth plays into a single one, which was never performed.
He used in addition Richard the Second and Richard the Third. See Henry
Irving Shakespeare, Vol. II. In 1757, C. F. Weisse produced a Ri'chard
der Dritte, but he disclaims any imitation of Shakespeare. The story
appeared in France under the title of Les Enfants d'Edouard, written by
Casimir Delavigne. Fechter " doubled " the characters of Buckingham
and Tyrrel in this with great success, and is thus brought into some slight
connection with the history of Richard the Third. (He seems never to
have used the English play.) The dramatis persona may give some idea
of it; Edward the Fifth, Richard Duke of York, Richard Duke of Glou
cester, Buckingham, Tyrrell, Queen Elizabeth, Lucy the Queen's maid,
Emma and Fanny, court ladies, William the Queen's serving-man, Cardinal
Bouchier, Archbishop of York, Digton, Forrest, Lords, etc. A play on
Edward the Fourth and Elizabeth Grey appeared at Covent Garden on
October 10, 1829, by Isabel Hill, called First of May, or a Royal Love-
Match. It was acted eleven times. See Genest, op. cit., Vol. IX, page
513.

133

fact that with the rejection of the Gibber text, which was
frankly melodramatic according to the modern ideas of
melodrama, and in so far represented a familiar equivalent
for the heightened effects of the Elizabethan play, the
" restored " " Richard the Third " appeals to literary rather
than to dramatic interest. So far as the stage is concerned,
there are evidences that the struggle for the Shakespearian
form that has long closed for all the other plays, is destined
to wage for an indefinite period in the history of " Richard
the Third," for Gibber's form, while nominally despised by
first-class actors and the critical public, is still holding the
stage and is still preferred by a large part of the community
whose opinions cannot be ignored.

RICHARD THE THIRD IN AMERICA

The earliest recorded Shakespearian play in America — The Philadelphia
Company — The first English company — Theatricals during the Revolution —
The revival of theatrical activity after the war — The Old Park Theatre —
Last days of the American Company — Cooke — Edmund Kean's visits to
America — J. B. Booth — Forrest — Charles Kean — Some curious performances
of " Richard the Third " — Edwin Booth — The " restoration " of " Richard
the Third " at Niblo's Garden — Booth's version — Comparison with Irving's
— Booth's contemporaries — General significance of the history of the play
in America.

Dunlap, in his history of the American theatre, quite arbi
trarily begins his narrative with the first English company
that came to this country, merely noticing that " as early as
1749 it is on record that the magistracy of the city (Philadel
phia) had been disturbed by some idle young men perpetrating
the murder of sundry plays in the skirts of the town, but the
culprits had been arrested and bound over to their good beha
vior after confessing their crime and promising to spare the
poor poets for the future.1" This passage is interesting in
that it suggests the existence of a native organization of actors
in America at this early date, prior to the English company
of 1752, and in that it gives early evidence of the attitude of
the Quaker City toward players, a factor that afterwards had
to be reckoned with in the efforts to establish the drama in
that city. The first theatrical notice which has been preserved
in this country is thought to relate to the later attempts of
these same " idle young men." It reads as follows :

By his Excellency's Permission,

At the Theatre in Nassau Street,

On Monday, the sth day of March next (1750)

Will be presented the Historical Tragedy of

King Richard 3d !

1 A History of the American Theatre. New York, 1832, page 17.

134

135

Wrote originally by Shakespeare,
and altered by Colley Gibber Esqr.

In this play is contained the Death of King Henry 6th ; — the artful acquisi
tion of the crown by King Richard; — the murder of the Princes
in the Tower ; — the landing of the Earl of Richmond, and

the Battle of Bosworth Field.

Tickets will be ready to be delivered by Thursday next,
and to be had of the Printer hereof.
Pitt, 5 shillings ; Gallery, 3 shillings.

To begin precisely at half an hour after 6 o'clock, and no
person to be admitted behind the scenes.2

This is the first recorded dramatic performance in New York,
and while the opening play was probably one that the company
had already given in Philadelphia, it is the initial Shakespear
ian performance in America of which we have any account.

The managers of the Philadelphia Company3 were Messrs.
Murray and Kean, the latter playing the leading roles in trag
edy and comedy. Thomas Kean is therefore, with odd coin
cidence of name, the earliest American Richard. We know
almost nothing about him, or whether he was an amateur or
professional actor, although the reception of his company in
New York would indicate that they were something more than
mere " idlers." The place of this performance was the first
Nassau Street Theatre, situated between John Street and
Maiden Lane. It was an improvised theatre in a house which
had belonged to the estate of the Honorable Rip Van Dam, a
two-storied building with high gables. The stage was raised
five feet from the floor; the scenery, curtains and wings had
been brought by the managers in their property trunks ; a green
drop-curtain was suspended from the ceiling; and the wings
were made of a pair of paper screens. Six wax lights were
in front of the stage, and the house was lighted by a chandelier
made of a barrel hoop through which were driven a few nails

2 Quoted from the Weekly Postboy, a continuation of the New York
Gazette, published by James Parker, in Records of the New York Stage
from 1750 to 1860, by Joseph N. Ireland, Vol. I, page 3.

8 In a New York news item in the Pennsylvania Gazette of March 6th,
1750, they are referred to as "a Company of comedians from Philadel
phia." History of the American Theatre, by George O. Seilhamer, Vol.
I, page 6, note.

136

into which were stuck so many candles. The orchestra con
sisted of a German flute, a horn and drums, and the scenery
included two drop scenes representing a castle and a wood, and
bits of landscape, river and mountain.4 Under such crude con
ditions the drama, in Shakespeare's " Richard the Third," was
introduced, so far as we positively know, to the colonial town
of New York.

This was the only Shakespearian play given by the company
during its first season, but it was repeated on March 12, when
the farce, " Beau in the Suds," was added, and on April 30
with the " Mock Doctor." In the second season in New York,
on February 25, 1751, we find the first instance of the play
being given for a benefit, a sure indication of its popularity,
in this case for Mrs. Taylor, evidently the leading lady, and
therefore the first Queen Elizabeth. An added evidence of
its drawing powers is gathered from the announcement, which
also gives an idea of an evening's entertainment of the time:

By his Excellency's Permission,

At the Theatre in Nassau Street,

(For the Benefit of Mrs. Taylor;)

On Monday the 25th Instant will be presented the tragical history of
King Richard III. To which well be added a Ballad Opera called Damon
and Phillida and a favourite Dialogue called Jockey and Jenny to be sung
by Mr. Woodham and Mrs. Taylor. As there wasn't much company at
Love for Love, the Managers took the Profit arising by that Night to
themselves and gave Mrs. Taylor another Benefit ; who hopes that the
Ladies and Gentlemen that favour'd the other Benefit will be so kind as to
favour hers with their Company.6

In the following seasons it was frequently so used, and these
benefit announcements throw interesting light upon the per
sonnel of the troupe, which at this time is supposed to have
numbered at least seventeen. Thus one performance was
given for the benefit of Master Dickey Murray, who probably
represented the earliest Prince Edward or Duke of York;
another was for Mr. Jago, " as he has never had a benefit
before and is just out of prison " ; and one was advertised for

4 A History of the New York Stage, from the First Performances in 1732
to 1901, by T. Allston Brown. New York, 1903, Vol. I, pages 2-3.
8 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, page 9.

137

Mrs. Davis, " to enable her to pay off her time," showing that
the practice of indenture obtained in theatrical enterprise as
well as in other undertakings.

When the company is next heard of, the manager is Robert
Upton, who on January 23, 1752, appeared as Richard, and
thus is the second representative of the part in America. Up
ton had been sent as advance agent for the English company,
but upon his arrival in New York, he seized the opportunity of
a star engagement with native performers. Of this manager-
actor we know little, and his season was a short one, as he
soon returned to England. The company was reorganized
however, and in existence for more than twenty years, but
its work lay chiefly in the south and we have no further full
accounts of the performances. We know that it was in
Annapolis in 1752, an important plcae at that time, and that
" Richard the Third " was given twice, the parts of Richard
and Richmond being taken by Wynell and. Herbert of the Eng
lish Company which had just come over.6

From this meager account of the Philadelphia Comedians
it is seen that, whether made up of amateurs or professional
actors who had found their way to America, the organization
was probably of native origin, and, long before the establish
ment of an English company here, attempted to reproduce in
this country what was most popular in London at the time.
In this early transplanting of the British drama across the
Atlantic, " Richard the Third " is found to be the first Shakes
pearian play attempted of which we have any record, and seems
to have proved one of the most successful, and one constantly
in requisition for special theatrical occasions.7

8 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, page 33.

T The late Judge Charles P. Daly established the existence of a play
house in New York as early as 1733, but finds that it was principally used
for the exhibition of puppet shows and such entertainments. There is
also evidence that in Williamsburg, Va., the drama had been cultivated
as early as 1736, from the notice in the Virginia Gazette of September loth,
which read : " This evening wil be performed at the Theatre by the young
Gentlemen of the College, the Tragedy of ' Cato,' and on Monday, Wednes
day and Friday next will be acted the following Comedies by the young
Gentlemen and Ladies of this country — The ' Busybody,' the ' Recruiting

138

In the meantime, in England, the American field offered
tempting prospects for speculation in dramatic as well as in
other lines. In 1752, therefore, William and Lewis Hallam,
said to have been of Goodman's Fields,8 organized a company
which arrived here on September 5 of that same year. There
are rumors of earlier English companies here. Anthony Aston,
the contemporary of Colley Gibber and the continuator of his
" Lives of the Actors," said that he had acted in New York in
1732, and Moody, an actor in Garrick's company at Drury
Lane, is supposed to have visited Jamaica in 1745, and there
carried on the first dramatic enterprise in America. But this
company brought over by Lewis Hallam ( for William Hallam
was merely the " backer," and did not accompany the actors
to America), seems to be the first regularly organized for the
American field. They went to Williamsburg, Virginia, since
the south offered more encouragement to theatrical perform
ances than the Puritans or Dutch in the north, or the Quakers
in Philadelphia. Only two of their performances during the
first season have been recorded, the first, according to Dunlap
(who obtained the account from Lewis Hallam, Jr.), being
" Merchant of Venice "9 with " Lethe " as the after piece,10

Officer ' and the ' Beaux Stratagem.' " Quoted by Seilhamer, op. cit.,
Vol. I, page 39. There is evidence of a play-house at Williamsburg even
earlier, as is shown by the description of the town given by Hugh Jones
in The Present State of Virginia, published between 1710 and 1723. He
writes : " Not far from hence is a large area for a market place, near which
is a play-house and good bowling green." American Historical Record,
March, 1872. There are evidences of a theatre of some kind in existence
in New York in 1736; and in Boston in 1750 two young Englishmen,
assisted by young men of the town, gave a performance of Otway's Orphan
at a coffee-house in King Street. Beyond bare reference and shadowy
tradition however, little is known of these earliest native efforts.

8 Seilhamer does not accept this tradition, but thinks that they came from
a provincial theatre.

•In 1852 a centennial celebration of the introduction of the drama into
America was held in Castle Garden, when The Merchant of Venice was
given in commemoration of its performance at Williamsburg on September
5th, 1752. The Philadelphia comedians had played The Merchant of
Venice as early as 1751.

10 John Esten Cooke has used the situation of this performance for the

139

and the other " Othello " with " Harlequin Collector." In 1753
the company went to New York. Among the earliest plays
there was " Richard the Third,"11 which was given " by par
ticular desire," on November 12, with " Devil to Pay." The
cast was as follows:

Richard Mr. Rigby.

Henry VI Mr. Hallam.

Prince of Wales , Master L. Hallam.

Duke of York Master A. Hallam.

Richmond Mr. Clarkson.

Buckingham Mr. Malone.

Norfolk Mr. Miller.

Stanley Mr. Singleton.

Catesby Mr. Adcock.

Lieutenant Mr. Bell.

Queen Elizabeth Mrs. Hallam.

Lady Anne Mrs. Adcock.

Duchess of Rutland Mrs. Rigby.12

Of this Richard we know nothing, except that his acting of
the French doctor in " The Anatomist " made that piece the
most popular one in the company's repertoire. He was evi
dently the leading actor, playing tragedy and high comedy
parts.13 The theatre in which they played was one built for
them on the site of the house in Nassau Street used by the
older comedians.

In 1758 Hallam was again in New York, and built another
theatre on Cruger's Wharf, where on February 7, 1759, " Rich
ard the Third " was given with " Damon and Phillida." The
Richard was probably Harman, a recruit from England, with
his wife as Lady Anne, and Mrs. Douglass, formerly Mrs.
Hallam, as Elizabeth, while young Hallam played Richmond,
a " star " cast for those days. The conditions must have been

central interest in his Virginia Comedians. Great liberty is taken with
dates, however, the performance being placed in 1763, and the parts of
some of the actors are confused.

11 The other Shakespearian plays were Lear, on January 14, 1754, and
Romeo and Juliet on the 28th.

12 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, page 53.

13 Rigby was the first representative in America of Romeo and of many
other stock characters. See Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 18.

140

most primitive, for the building was evidently little more than a
barn, and was soon after demolished.

In the following seasons at Philadelphia, Annapolis and New
York, " Richard the Third " constantly appeared and was a
favorite, as before, for benefits. A notable performance of
these early days was that at the Southwark Theatre in Philadel
phia, where " Richard the Third " was given on December 5,
1766, the first Shakespearian play performed in this first per
manent theatre in America.14 At this time the part was taken
by Lewis Hallam the younger, long a favorite and now the
leading actor of the country. Douglass, in the meantime, was
building a permanent theatre in New York in John Street,
which was opened on December 7, 1767, and where " Richard
the Third " was played on the I4th.15 The audience on this
occasion was the attraction rather more than the fortunes of
the hero, for a Cherokee delegation, visiting General Gage at
the time, was present at the play and excited much curiosity.
The Pennsylvania Gazette of December i7th had the following
item:

" The expectation of seeing the Indian chiefs at the play on Monday
night occasioned a great concourse of people. The house was crowded,
and it is said great numbers were obliged to go away for want of room.

" The Indians regarded the play, which was ' King Richard III,' with
seriousness and attention, but as it cannot be supposed that they were
sufficiently acquainted with the language to understand the plot and design
and enter into the spirit of the author, their countenances and behavior
were rather expressive of surprise and curiosity than any other passions.
Some of them were much surprised and diverted at the tricks of
Harlequin." ™

14 During this season the first performance of Cymbeline in America took
place on June 29, 1767. Garrick's version was used. Godfrey's Prince of
Parthia, not the first American play, as has been asserted, but the first
written, acted and printed in America, was played for the first and only
time during this season.

1B The other Shakespearian plays of the season were Cymbeline, Romeo
and Juliet, Lear, Merchant of Venice, Henry the Fourth, Macbeth, Othello,
Hamlet, and Garrick's version of Much Ado, Catherine and Petruchio. See
Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, pages 213-218.

18 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. I, pages 42 and 219. Another interesting notice
of a visit of an Indian " emperor " and " empress " to the theatre is given
on page 220. The pantomime here given was Harlequin's Vagaries, which
had highly pleased the Indians when at the theatre in Williamsburg in 1752.

141

The benefit of the three Misses Storer, on May 2, 1768,
shows the character of an evening's entertainment when the
play was only a part of the attraction. " Richard the Third "
was the piece ; between the second and third acts Foote's inter
lude of " Taste " was performed, and between the third and
fourth acts Miss Storer sang the celebrated song, " Sweet
Echo " ; the entertainment ended with the farce, " Miss in her
Teens." Another theatrical attraction is indicated in the notice
of the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. Douglass on June 14, 1773,
when the prologue to " Richard the Third " was delivered by
Mr. Douglass " in character of a Master Mason."17

During the following seasons before the Revolution " Rich
ard the Third " continued to be popular and frequently played,
until on October 24, 1778, Congress passed a resolution recom
mending a suspension of all amusements, and thus brought to a
close the colonial period of the American stage. Throughout
this period Lewis Hallam had held the part of Richard without
a rival, for Rigby seems to have disappeared from the bills
very soon. In appearance Dunlap describes the former as " of
middle stature or above, thin, straight, and well taught as a
dancer and fencer " ;18 and according to John Bernard in his
method was " formed more on the model of Quin than of Gar-
rick."19

Another contemporary wrote :

" No one could tread the stage with more ease ... In tragedy it can
not be denied that his declamation was either mouthing or ranting; yet
a thorough master of all the tricks and finesse of his trade, his manner
was both graceful and impressive, ' tears in his eyes, distraction in his
aspect, a broken voice, and his whole function suiting with forms to his
conceit.' He was, ... at Philadelphia as much the soul of the South-
wark Theatre as ever Garrick was of Drury Lane." x

Of the women who had taken the part of Queen Elizabeth,
Mrs. Douglass was the most notable. She had played " legiti
mate " roles at the Wells Theatre, such as Lady Percy in

17 Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 60.
"Op. cit., page 81.

19 Retrospections in America, page 265.

20 Memoirs of a Life Chiefly Passed in Pennsylvania, by Captain Graydon.
Quoted by Seilhamer, op. cit,, Vol. I, page 202.

142

" Henry the Fourth," Desdemona, and Angelica in " Love for
Love," and her name is unbrokenly connected with the leading
parts on the American stage from 1752 to the Revolution.
Mrs. Harman who played the part of the Duchess of York in
1766-7 and Anne in 1759-60, is of interest as being the daugh
ter of Charlotte Charke and grand-daughter of Colley Gibber.
She seems to have been a useful member of the company and
was, according to her obituary, " a just actress, possessed
much merit in low comedy, and dressed all her characters
with infinite propriety, but her figure prevented her from suc
ceeding in tragedy and genteel comedy." Another Elizabeth
was Mrs. Morris, for a time the greatest attraction in the com
pany, a tall stately woman of the Siddons type, invariably
described as piquing the public with " a very mysterious man
ner."

These pre-Revolutionary performances offer little of note
in themselves, and no performer in them is now remembered.
Of the actual conditions which obtained we know little, but
they probably differed in no wise from those of traveling
companies in England.21 Of most interest in this colonial
period is the natural persistence here of the older method of
acting, when in England the star of Garrick was at its mer
idian; and the predominance of the one American Company
which enjoyed a monopoly of the theatrical field akin to that
of the licensed houses in London.

The Continental Congress had put a period to theatrical
activity as far as its jurisdiction extended, but the stage offered
a grateful resource to the British officers stationed in the
larger cities in the enforced idleness of winter quarters.22
Under General Burgoyne in Boston theatricals were very popu
lar, but we have little information about the repertoire, except

a It is interesting to find some features of the early history of the drama
repeated in America, as shown in the laws against players, the prevalence
of strolling companies, the necessity of recommendations when going from
one place to another, and the persistence of the audience upon the stage.
This last was abolished by Douglass in 1761.

22 For a full discussion of this entertaining chapter in American stage
history, see Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. II, Chapters II, III and IV.

143

that it included Mrs. Centlivre's " Busybody," Rowe's " Tam
erlane," and Hill's " Zara." Of the performances in New
York our information is more extensive. In 1777, the com
pany opened the John Street Theatre, jocularly called Theatre
Royal, with Fielding's " Tom Thumb," and until 1781, per
formed throughout the successive seasons with some marked
degree of success, and with the favor of Generals Howe and
Clinton. It was inevitable that " Richard the Third " should
have been chosen for performance, but the first record of it
that we have is in the second New York season, on March 6,
1779, when it was given with " The Lying Valet." It was
repeated on March 18, a " new comic dance " being substituted
for the farce, and again on April 26th, these closely recurring
repetitions indicating a favorable reception. In the third sea
son we have records of three performances of " Richard the
Third," on March 6, 1780, when it was announced that the
characters would be " dressed in the Habits of the times,"
suggesting the acquisition of stage costumes from some quar
ter, on March 18, and on April ig.23 In the last season it
appeared once, on May 28, with " The Mayor of Garratt."

When Clinton's Thespians, as they were called, began their
performances, the young subalterns took the parts of women,
but in the second season they announced that these parts were
to be performed " by young ladies and grown gentlewomen
who never appeared on any stage before." Later, at least one
professional actress was numbered among them, Mrs. Tomlin-
son, who had been a member of the American Company from
1758 to 1772. She had been off the stage nearly six years at
this time, but, with her knowledge of stage-craft, she was no
doubt a valuable member of this amateur company. The lead
ing lady in New York in 1779, was a young English girl, to
whose acting high praise is given. It is conceivable that, in
the performances of " Richard the Third," she should have
represented Elizabeth, and Mrs. Tomlinson the Duchess of
York. Dunlap has identified some of the performers in these
plays, as Major Williams, of the artillery, in the part of Rich-

23 The farces were Polly Honeycomb, Lethe, and Hob in the Well.

144

ard, Captain Stephen Payne Adye, Artillery and Judge Advo
cate, in that of Henry the Sixth, and Captain Thomas Shreve
of the Lord Mayor.24 The young and handsome Major Andre,
while in New York as Clinton's aide, probably took part in
these plays, although we do not know what parts he assumed.
He gave efficient help as scene painter when the Thespians were
in Philadelphia in 1778, and these scenes were used for many
years after the Revolution.25

There is some evidence that the Continental officers craved
like entertainment, and attempted theatrical performances in
Philadelphia in 1778, but Congress promptly put a stop to it on
the grounds that " frequenting play-houses and theatrical enter
tainments has a fatal tendency to divert the minds of the peo
ple from a due attention to the means necessary for the de
fense of the country and the preservation of their liberties."20
According to a letter written by the French minister on Novem
ber 24, the prohibition came just in time to prevent " a public
(theatrical) performance, given by army officers and Whig
citizens."27

In the south, away from the immediate seat of operations,
theatrical activities revived as early as 1781, when, in spite
of the resolutions of Congress in 1778, a Baltimore company
built a theatre and gave a season from January to June, 1782.
The history of this company is of little importance, most of
the names were new and soon disappeared from stage annals,
but it is of some slight interest here that " Richard the Third "
figured as the play with which the Baltimore theatre opened,
and therefore the one which marked the revival of the drama
in the south. Mr. Wall, the manager, took the leading part
and his wife the part of Elizabeth. After another season in
Baltimore in which " Richard the Third " was performed

24 Lieutenant Spencer of the Queen's Rangers probably figured in these
plays, for in 1785, we find him in Bath performing Richard the Third.
Dunlap, op. cit., page 54.

25 A description of one of these scenes is given by Durang in his History
of the Philadelphia Stage, and quoted by Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. II,
page 31.

28 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. II, pages 51-2.
27 Ditto, page 52.

145

twice, the company, under the management of Dennis Ryan,
came to New York. Here " Richard the Third " was given on
August 13, with the after piece, " The Citizen," by Murphy.
The principal parts were taken by amateurs, perhaps some of
the military Thespians. Thus, Queen Elizabeth was by a
" lady," and Richard, Richmond, Tressel, and the lieutenant
of the Tower by " gentlemen."

During the Revolution, the American Company had been
in Jamaica from 1779 to 1782, but when the war was over,
Hallam returned to Philadelphia and New York and felt the
public pulse with a series of " entertainments."28 When, after
these were favorably received, he ventured to announce regular
plays, it was still necessary to appease the anti-theatrical ele
ment, particularly strong among the Quakers. " Richard the
Third " was revived in Philadelphia, therefore, in the guise of
a " moral dialogue," under the title of " Fate of Tyranny."
So it was announced on July 23, 1788, and on November i,29
but the prohibitions against dramatic performances were re
pealed in 1789, and the play then emerged under its proper
title.

Hallam opened the John Street theatre in 1785 with Henry,
who had brought from England the best company yet seen in

28 The advertisement for one of these suggests that Richard the Third
may have been foisted upon the public unaware. Thus, in the entertain
ment given at Philadelphia on December 2, 1784, the first part is an
nounced thus : " A serious investigation of Shakespear's morality illustrated
by his most striking characters faithfully applied to the task of mingling
profit with amusement. On the first evening the instability of human
greatness ; the inevitable and miserable consequences of vice ; the piercings
of a wounded conscience and the divine attributes of mercy will be repre
sented according to the animated descriptions of the illustrious bard."
This entertainment opened with a " Monody " to the memory of the Chiefs
who had fallen in the cause of American liberty, and closed with a
" Rondelay " celebrating the independence of America. Quoted by Seil-
hamer, op. cit., Vol. II, pages 165-6. Another entertainment on the i4th
of January, 1785, advertises Garrick's Ode on dedicating a building to
Shakespeare, two scenes from Loutherbourg's Eudiphusicon, much admired
in London at the time, and Garrick's favorite address by an impoverished
poet, all these showing the dependence on London attractions.

39 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. II, pages 245 and 248.
11

146

America. " Richard the Third " figures no less than three
times during this season with Hallam as Richard. A notable
performance was that on February 3, 1787, when " Richard
the Third " and " The American Citizen," were acted in honor
of the arrival of the ship, " Empress of China," from Canton,
this vessel having been the first with the privilege of presenting
the American flag in Chinese waters.30 Later, when New York
became the national capital, we find it frequently given, figur
ing as one of the chief plays during the last days of the
supremacy of the original American Company.

The theatrical situation became greatly changed during the
last years of the century. The American Company no longer
held the ground undisputed, for these years are marked by a
growth of theatrical enterprise and the consequent rise of man
agers who rivaled each other in securing the best English
talent available. Among the recruits which the envoy of the
American Company brought from England at this time, the
most important was John Hodgkinson. In the season of
1793-4 he made his first appearance at John Street in tragedy
as " Richard the Third," and he remained the leading Richard
of the company during its remaining years at this theatre.31
A contemporary description of Hodgkinson's performance of
this part is tempered with more restraint than usually shown
when reporting the impression made by a " star." It ran thus :

" Though we do not pretend to say that Mr. Hodgkinson equals a
Kemble, yet he certainly did great justice to the part. His action was
violent, as the character requires, and at the same time not unstrained.
If we must censure him, it is for his manner of speaking — he lets his voice
fall too suddenly, speaking, to borrow a term from music, in octaves ; he,
however, excels any that ever appeared here in the character of Richard." M

" T. A. Brown, op. cit., Vol. I, pages 8-9.

81 A Narrative of his Connection with the Old American Company.
From the Fifth of September, 1792, To the Thirty-First of March, 1797,
by John Hodgkinson. New York, 1797. This gives some account of the
theatrical business transactions of the time, but throws little light on stage
conditions. He does give an item about the orchestra, which he says " was
composed of about six musicians, some of whom were incapable of their
business."

82 Seilhamer, op. cit., Vol. Ill, page 61.

147

Later he was called the " American Kemble," while John
Bernard, who greatly admired him, gave him the name of the
" provincial Garrick " ; and these titles do not seem to have been
due entirely to hyperbole, for Hodgkinson's successes at Bath
and Bristol before he came to America, were notable. He
is described by Dunlap who was closely associated with him,
as " six feet ten inches in height, but too fleshy to appear tall —
well formed in the neck, chest, shoulders and arms, but clumsy
in his lower extremities, his ankles being thick and his knees
inclining inward. His face was round, his nose broad, and
his eyes, which were of unequal sizes, gray, with large pupils
and dark eyelashes. His complexion was almost colorless and
his hair dark-brown." With such personal qualities, his
adoption of the Kemble manner was inevitable. Mrs. Melmoth,
who played the part of Elizabeth to Hodgkinson's Richard,
had been a successful actress at Drury Lane in 1776-7, before
that at Covent Garden ; and while her figure was at this time
ill-adapted for most parts, her acting was excellent enough to
render her a leading performer.

In the meantime Thomas Wignell had opened the Chestnut
Street Theatre in Philadelphia,33 built on the model of Covent
Garden, with scenery painted from designs by De Louther-
bourg and both scenery and wardrobe imported from England.
" Richard the Third " was given in this new theatre on April
21, 1795, probably with James Fennell as Richard and Mrs.
Whitlock as Elizabeth. In Boston under Powell, and in New
port under Joseph Harper, theatrical companies were making
their way against public opposition and in these places " Rich
ard the Third " was in constant requisition. It seems unneces
sary to follow its fortunes in all of these centers, and therefore

33 It was at this theatre that Mrs. Merry (Elizabeth Brunton), considered
a rival of Mrs. Siddons, and the first actress of eminence to cross the
Atlantic, was introduced to the American public. I have found no record
of her appearance in Richard the Third, but it is more than probable that
it was in her repertoire. Aside from her importance in connection with
the stage in this country, Mrs. Merry is of some curious interest as being
the means of bringing America into touch with the Delia Cruscan vogue
of the day, for her husband, Robert Merry, Delia Crusca, accompanied
her and here spent the last years of his life.

148

the history of the play will hereafter be noted in New York
only, as being typical of its history elsewhere.

The last performance at the John Street Theatre took place
on January 13, 1798, and with the opening of the Park
Theatre34 on January 29 of the same year, a new era began
for New York theatricals. This was the first well-equipped
theatre in New York, for the John Street house was a barn-
like building of modest pretensions. A description of the new
theatre in the Daily Advertiser of January 31, tells us:

" The stage was everything that could be wished. The scenery was
executed in a most masterly style. The extensiveness of the scale upon
which the scenes are executed, the correctness of the designs, and the
elegance of the painting, presented the most beautiful views which the
imagination can conceive. The scenery was of itself worth a visit to
the theatre."

It opened under the management of Hodgkinson and Wil-
lian Dunlap, and was the house that for a half century
presented the best of dramatic and histrionic art in America.
In the history of this theatre we find " Richard the Third " in
the regular stock repertoire, constantly given, used to open the
season, the attraction year after year, and the last tragedy
acted in this house fifty years later. It was therefore the last
tragedy given under the management of the old American
Company, which first presented this play in Nassau Street, for
their history ends with this theatre.

At the beginning of these fifty years we find Hodgkinson
taking the leading parts. After he left New York in 1802,
Thomas A. Cooper, who after a promising trial in London,
had engaged with Wignell at Phidadelphia in 1797, became the
leading tragedian in New York, and, after his predecessor's
death, in 1805, in America.35 He was a " paramount favorite
with the public " for thirty years, and kept this position even
after the advent of George Frederick Cooke, and until the

** A picture of the first Park Theatre, copied from a rare print, may be
found in The American Historical Record of March, 1872.

35 Cooper was educated by Godwin, and had been trained for the stage
by Holcroft. He became a leader in the social life of New York, and was
allied by marriage with some of the best families of the state. His second
wife was the Sophy Sparkle (Miss Mary Fairlie) of Irving's Salmagundi.
Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 156.

149

appearance of Kean and Booth.36 John Bernard ranks him
high, and speaks of him as " endowed with great genius, and
the highest qualifications in face, voice and person," but as
having little or no art and never striving to attain it.37 He
was of the Kemble school, declamatory, stately, " worthy of
imitation both by pulpit and bar," says a contemporary, but
his " Richard the Third " is denominated by the same authority
" an execrable performance."38

The erratic Fennell, already mentioned as one of Wignell's
company in Philadelphia, an actor of some note in English and
Scotch theatres and boasting the acme of theatrical experience
in having acted with Mrs. Siddons, seems to have taken
Cooper's place during the latter 's absence in Europe in 1804.
We have several records of his appearance up to 1810, just
before Cooke's arrival. He was a towering person, with a
full fleshy face, and deep solemn voice, his coldness and stiff
ness fitting him for characters like Brutus, and his Richard
showing the same Kemble-like qualities as that of his prede
cessors.39

Up to the arrival of George Frederick Cooke, therefore, we
find that the theatre in America had made rapid advance to
ward more cosmopolitan conditions. While the only actor of
more than third-rate ability seems to have been Hodgkinson,
all of the three last mentioned are of interest as exhibiting
the Kemble tradition in America. They represented at that
time a new school. Jonathan Oldstyle, commenting upon the
actors of the day,40 says that they " prefer walking upon plain

84 Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, pages 156-7.

37 Op. cit., page 267.

38 F. C. Wemyss, Twenty-Six Years of the life of an Actor and Manager,
page 96. Although I find no record of it, Mrs. Whitlock, Mrs. Siddon's
sister, called the " American Siddons," probably played in Richard the
Third with Cooper. She seems to have been of the Kemble type, master
ful, yet graceful, and with an exquisite voice.

39 Fennell's biography, as it appears in his Apology (Philadelphia, 1814),
filled with Utopian schemes and experiments in salt-making, bridge-building,
and what not, is of more interest than his achievements on the stage.

10 Mrs. Villiers, whom Irving mentions in Salmagundi as the Lady Mac
beth of the day, also figured in Richard the Third when Fennell was leading
man. Knickerbocker Edition, 1871, pages 14-17.

150

ground to strutting on the stilts used by the tragic heroes of
my day," and speaks of the ranting and roaring tragedian as
almost banished from the New York stage. The staging of
plays could be favorably compared with the practice in Lon
don, although the enthusiasm for archeological reproductions
seems not yet to have reached our shores. Irving shows that
there was the same incongruity in costume here as in the Lon
don theatres, remarking that the performers dress for the
same piece in the fashions of different ages and countries, " so
that while one actor is strutting about the stage in the cuirass
and helmet of Alexander, another, dressed up in a gold-laced
coat and bag-wig, with a chapeau de bras under his arm, is
taking snuff in a fashion of one or two centuries back, and
perhaps a third figures in Suwarrow boots, in the true style of
modern buckism."41 We find no records of innovation in any
line, and see here as in London, the Gibber text the exclusive
one, and with no further changes than were probably intro
duced in following Kemble.

The most important event for the American stage, and for
the history of the play in this country, in bringing it into un
precedented prominence, was the arrival of George Frederick
Cooke in 1810. He opened his engagement in America with
" Richard the Third," and played it frequently during the sea
son. With the same play he began all of his successive en
gagements, and appeared in it repeatedly throughout his con
nection with the New York stage, which continued until 1812.
The acting of Cooke, his London success, his appearance with
Kemble, and his later rivalry with Edmund Kean, have already
been touched upon and need not be repeated here. His career

41 The Letters of Jonathan Oldstyle, Gent. By the author of the Sketch
Book. Oldstyle's correspondent, speaking of some of the efforts made
for more congruous stage appointments, says : " The honest King of
Scotland, who used to dress for market and theatre at the same time, and
wear with his kelt and plaid his half boots and black breeches, looking
half king, half cobbler, has been obliged totally to dismiss the former from
his royal service ; yet I am happy to find, so obstinate is his attachment
to old habits, that all their efforts have not been sufficient to dislodge him
from the strong hold he has in the latter. They may force him from
the boots — but nothing shall drive him out of the breeches."

151

in America was short, but rilled with unprecedented triumphs
that were lessened only by his own weakness in giving himself
up to his evil habits. His acting, the first of a preeminent
artist that America had seen,42 left its impress on this country
for many years. Fennell, the leading actor here at the time,
modified his method after seeing the great English actor, and
others made him the subject of minute imitation. Among
these John Duff was the best known, his Richard being " so
closely after the manner of Cooke, as to require the keenest
scrutiny to detect a variation " ; and the " extraordinary imita
tion of Cooke " by a certain Mr. Bibly is also recorded.43

The coming of Cooke to America in 1810, prepared the way
for the greater Edmund Kean, whose first visit occurred in
1820. He opened his engagement with " Richard the Third "
as had Cooke, and it was his important role during this and
his later visit in i825.4* There seems little to add to what has
already been said concerning Kean in his English career. His
visits are important chiefly because of the indication they give
of the attractions of an American engagement, and his influ
ence here seems not to have been so widespread as that of
Cooke or particularly of Booth. The American records of his
successes differ quite markedly in tone from those written on
the other side of the Atlantic, for here an offensive attitude
later dubbed " a certain condescension in foreigners," was
noticed and resented.

Between Kean's first and second visits his great imitator,

42 A detailed description of Cooke's Richard the Third is given in
Memoirs of the Life of George Frederick Cooke, Esquire, Late of the
Theatre Royal, Co-vent Garden, by William Dunlap, New York, 1813, Vol.
II, pages 391-4. Cooke was the first of the great English " stars " to cross
the Atlantic. The Park Theatre managers tried to induce John Kemble
and Mrs. Siddons to come to America for an engagement, but the dread
of the ocean voyage overruled any attractions that might attend an
American tour.

43 Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, pages 297 and 308.

** In connection with Kean's opening appearance as Richard at the Park,
on his second visit, one of the worst riots in our history occurred, because
of the resentment of his conduct in Boston in 1821. See T. A. Brown,
op. cit., Vol. I, pages 27-8.

152

or as some of 'his biographers would have it, his great double,45
Junius Brutus Booth, came to America. His first appearance
was on October 5, 1821, in the New Park Theatre, the finest
one New York had yet had, with a large, commodious stage
and well illuminated with patent oil-lamps. Booth's initial
appearance was in " Richard the Third," a part he constantly
used until the end of his career thirty years later. His Rich
ard needs few words of description,46 for it was a wonderfully
close counterpart of Kean's in general method and in detail,
though according to contemporary witnesses, with greater
emphasis upon what was terrible in the character rather than
upon its pathetic possibilities. Booth was for years without a
rival, and " the little lunatic giant of the stage," with his im
passioned manner, overwrought emotions and awe-striking
impersonations seemed to appeal to the American audience in
a greater degree than did the undoubtedly more subtle inter
pretation of Kean.47

An explanation of this may be found in the career of Edwin
Forrest, the first great native actor of America, whose appear
ance as " Richard the Third "48 took place on January 23 ,
1827, at the Bowery Theatre.49 Forrest's interpretations, as
did Cooke's and Booth's, emphasized the darker and more ter-

45 Notably in The Elder and Younger Booth, by Asia Booth Clarke, Bos
ton, 1882.

**An analysis of Booth's Richard is given in The Tragedian; An Essay
on the Histrionic Genius of Junius Brutus Booth, by Thomas R. Gould.
New York, 1868.

**A thrilling account was given by Count Joannes (George Jones) to
T. A. Brown, who reports it in his History of the New York Stage (Vol.
I, page 1 08), of a real fight between himself and Booth when he was
playing Richmond to the latter's Richard. Booth, intoxicated and half
insane, thinking himself a real Richard, made a savage attempt to kill his
enemy. The audience, believing it to be excellent acting, applauded
enthusiastically. It was only when Booth, exhausted and half fainting,
was pinioned to the floor, that the play could end with some appearance
of order.

48 Forrest had played Richmond to Kean's Richard during the latter's
second visit to America in 1825.

49 This was a new house at the time, and notable in our stage annals
as making the first experiment in American theatres in lighting with gas,
a most important innovation in regard to stage setting.

153

rible aspects of character. It was a time when America was
not entirely freed from the crudity of the colonial period, and
the actor of popular favor was one whose emotions were violent
and patent, and who had a genius for making brilliant points,
rather than for illuminating every part of the character. But
while Forrest enjoyed the greatest popularity and gained the
highest reputation in such a violent part as Metamora, his
Richard was never greatly in favor. This may have been due
to his conception of the character. His friend and biographer,
James Rees (Colley Gibber), says it was an original one, mak
ing Richard " towering and lofty, equally impetuous and com
manding ... a royal usurper, a princely hypocrite — a tyrant
and a murderer of the house of Plantagenet." He tells us
that his idea of Richard's person Forrest took from the por
trait in the fifth volume of the " Paston Letters," and from the
representation of the Countess of Desmond, whose flattering
description of Richard at a royal party as the handsomest man
in the room, except his brother, Edward IV, stands in direct
opposition to the usual descriptions, such as More's.50 His
justification, he claimed, was based upon historical authority,
and he refused, when Shakespeare was urged as the final au
thority for the stage, to " so distort Richard."51 So in his
dressing of the part he entirely disregarded the traditional de
formity, as he credited Richard with the skill to disguise it.
Forrest's biographer rather naively avers that, " if he could
have impressed his audience with the same idea he had of it, we
should have had an American actor to claim the honor of being
the best that ever trod the stage."52 It is certainly of interest
to find that the princely conception does, in some measure, anti
cipate the later ideas of Irving and Edwin Booth, a conception,
however, which required a more complex psychology than

50 The Life of Edwin Forrest. With Reminiscences and Personal Recol
lections. Philadelphia (1874), pages 252-4.

81 This is curiously based on the assumpton that Richard is " the only
one who descants upon his personal defects." A reference to the speeches
of Margaret or Anne, it would seem, would have disproved this.

52 Rees, op. cit., page 256.

154

Forrest's to make convincing.53 The Edwin Forrest edition
of " Richard the Third,"54 for he had his own version of the
Gibber text, shows few changes from the original, except fre
quent omission of lines, the introduction of the four from
Shakespeare at the beginning of the opening soliloquy, adopted
by most performers at this time, and the retention of Rich
mond's prayer in the tent scene, and of a few lines in the
wooing scene which were omitted in the original Gibber ver
sion. The play ends with Richard's dying speech and a tab
leau of soldiers crying " Long live Henry the Seventh, King
of England ! "

A new but shortlived interest entered into American theat
ricals when Charles Kean, after first establishing his reputa
tion in America in 1830, in the character in which his father
had been so distinguished, returned in 1846 and gave " Richard
the Third " in the Park Theatre, " with unexampled magnifi
cence of scenery, dresses, armors, banners, equipments and
properties of every kind, at a cost of ten thousand dollars."
The first performance was given on January 7, and the play
ran for three weeks, an unprecedented length in America.65
These performances, elaborate in setting, unequalled in cor
rectness and splendor, were a repetition of those already pre
sented in London, and have been discussed. The history of
elaborate staging at this time came to an early end. In 1848,
Hamblin, the manager of the Park Theatre, used the scenery
that Kean had left and gave a splendid performance of " Rich
ard the Third," acting the leading part himself, but the play,
in those first days of the extreme popularity of the opera,
failed to attract. This attempt, aside from exhibiting the
public preference at the time, has some added interest from

63 One of the interesting facts in regard to Forrest's performances is
that, in 1837, Charlotte Cushman played Queen Elizabeth to his Richard
at the Park Theatre. See Ireland, op. cit., Vol. II, page 220.

84 Richard III. No. 5 of the Edwin Forrest Edition of Shakespearian
Plays. Correctly marked with the kind permission of the Eminent
Tragedian, from his own prompt-book, and as acted by him at Niblo's
Garden, N. Y. Under the Management of James M. Nixon, Esq. (No
date), New York.

86 Ireland, op. cit., page 450.

155

the fact that it was the last tragedy performed in the Park
Theatre, for, a few days after, the theatre was destroyed by
fire, and with it all of the properties that had given to America
the first example of gorgeous staging.56

During the first fifty years or so of the nineteenth century,
accompanying this succession of English luminaries upon our
stage, such a grotesque procession of youthful prodigies and
incongruous histrions makes its appearance, that it seems
worth while to give some attention to this curious and, in some
respects, significant chapter in our stage annals. While the
history of the youthful prodigy in America may be said to
date from the performances of John Howard Payne,57 the first
recorded appearance of a boy Richard is in January, 1821,
when Master George Frederick Smith, a boy of eleven years,
after playing Young Norval in Home's " Douglas," essayed
this part. He seems to have had only a measurable success,
for Ireland records that he was " somewhat attractive for a
few nights ; "38 but he was brought forward again in March,
1822. In 1831, we hear of a little son of Mrs. Jones, an
actress, introduced on the stage at The Bowery as a prodigy
in " Richard the Third," but quite decidedly disappointing his
mother's hopes.59 Master Joseph Burke, eleven years of age,
acted Richard so well that " none sneered at the absurdity of
a child's assuming such parts."60 Master Mangeon's perform
ance at The Bowery on June 7, 1832, had "some boyish
merit,"61 and we find the mention of a Master Bowers from

56 The Park Theatre burned down December 16, 1848. With it went
the last vestige of the old American Company, which first appeared at the
Nassau Street Theatre in 1753. Ireland, op. cit., Vol. II, pages 525-6.

57 The only native American of celebrity on the stage until the appearance
of Forrest. He made his first entry in 1809, at the age of seventeen, as
young Norval.

88 Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 373.

69 Ditto, page 506.

00 Ireland, op. cit., Vol. I, page 642. He made his debut in Cork as
Tom Thumb when five years of age. For his remarkable performances
in drama and music, see Hutton, Curiosities of the American Stage, pages
229-230.

61 Ditto, Vol. II, page 23.

156

Philadelphia at the Park Theatre in June, i834-62 Stranger
still, it was a part assumed by tiny heroines. The " infant
wonder " of 1838 was Miss J. M. Davenport, aged eleven
years, who played Richard to her mother's Queen Elizabeth.
Probably the most youthful Richard on record is one of the
famous Bateman sisters, Ellen, who when four years of age,
played this part, her sister Kate, two years older, taking the
part of Richmond. This remarkable exhibition took place on
December 10, 1849, at tne Broadway Theatre.63

During these years several women made some reputation in
the character. In 1827, at The Bowery, Mr. and Mrs. H. A.
Williams gave a performance in which Mrs. Williams took the
part of Richard and her husband played Richmond. A Mrs.
Herring, who played Queen Elizabeth to Booth's Richard in
1833, appeared in the title role on June 27, 1835, and was said
to have shown " a force and vigor truly astonishing."64 A
few years after, Mrs. Pritchard, an actress " with the taint of
the Ring attached to her," performed Richard in an appro
priately " spirited " manner. In 1836, Mrs. H. Lewis opened
her season at the Park Theatre as Richard the Third, and
later her engagement at the Franklin Theatre as star with the
same part. Annie Hathaway and Fanny Herring played Rich
ard and Richmond together in i86o,65 and the Batemans in
1861 repeated at the Astor Place Theatre the characters which
they had played as children.

" Richard the Third " seems to have lent itself to all kinds
of theatrical ventures. As in London it had been given at
Astley's as a, circus attraction,66 so at the Bowery Theatre in

82 Ditto, page 114.

M Clara Fisher, called " a Kean in miniature," is about the first of whom
we have any record as figuring in Richard the Third, but her juvenile
efforts were confined to England, where, when she was six years old, she
appeared in a burlesque masque called Lord Flinnip, introducing the fifth
act of Richard the Third. Ireland, op. cit., Vol. II, page 536.

"Ireland, op. cit., Vol. II, page 88.

65 T. A. Brown, op. cit., Vol. I, page 336.

"A spirited defence of such a setting for the dramas of Shakespeare
appears in a letter of Thomas Wooler, a manager, to Elliston of Drury
Lane, in 1833, where he writes: "What think you of mounting Shake-

157

1840, Charles Mason used the battle scene of Act V to exhibit
an equestrian performance. The versatile Charlotte Crampton
played Richard at the Chatham Theatre and in the last act
performed wonderful feats with her trained horses. Later in
a benefit at the New Bowery Theatre in 1862, Richard is pre
sented on horse-back in the battle scene by Harry Seymour,
and the device found favor in subsequent performances. This
play was used in many an eccentric attempt, such as that of
Elder Addams, the Mormon preacher-actor, who gave a
strange exhibition on November 29 and 30, 1847, at the Bow
ery Theatre, or the ridiculous feats of Count Joannes, well-
known to the New York stage forty years ago, or of Dr.
Landis from Philadelphia with his imaginary company,67
which closed the history of theatrical performances in Tam
many Theatre. As early as 1866, at the Neu Stadt, " Richard
the Third " was on the boards of a German theatre, and it
remained in the repertoire of the Bowery Theatre when it was
opened as a German house in 1879, and called The Thalia.
Here Herr Possard played Richard on January 7 and March
7, 1888.

Here, as in England, apt imitators saw a ready field, and we
find James H. Hackett giving imitations of Kean's Richard
and T. McCutcheon of J. B. Booth's in "The Man About

speare's heroes, as the bard himself would rejoice they should be? Why
not allow the wand of Ducrow (the noted equestrian), to aid the representa
tion of his dramas, as well as the pencil of Stanfield ? ' Saddle White
Surrey ' in good earnest, and, as from The Surrey you once banished these
animals, and have taken them up at Drury Lane, think of doing them
justice. . . . Instead of niggardly furnishing Richard and Richmond with
armies that do not muster the force of a Serjeant's guard, give them an
efficient force of horse and foot. . . . Richard should march to the field
in the full panoply of all your cavalry, and not trudge like a poor pedlar,
whom no one would dream of ' interrupting in his expedition.' He might
impressively dismount in compliment to the ladies ; and when in the field
he cries, ' My kingdom for a horse ! ' the audience might fairly deem such
a price only a fair offer for the recovery of so noble an animal." Quoted
by Frost, Circus Life, pages 81-2.

67 The doctor was on the stage in costume, while the parts of Lady Anne,
Richmond, and others were read from behind screens, and Richard alone
" roared and bellowed." T. A. Brown, op. cit., Vol. Ill, page 87.

158

Town." Nor could this play escape the national penchant for
caricature. In 1842 " Richard Number Three," a musical
burlesque, appeared at Mitchell's Olympic. Chanfrau, noted
for his imitations, especially of Forrest, appeared in " Richard
III in Dutch " in 1869, a comic piece in which the actor Glenn
had figured at The Bowery four years before. This seem
ingly favorite burlesque found its way to the Theatre Comique
in the same year, where it was acted by Robert McWade. A
travesty of " Richard the Third," called " Bad Dickey,"68 was
a feature at Tammany Theatre, and was repeated at Union
Square. As late as 1890, D. L. Morris, the German comedian,
performed in a burlesque of " Richard the Third " at Koster
and Bial's.69

These peculiar representations are a comment upon the atti
tude toward the play and an indication of the theatrical taste
of the time. They were not confined to the second-class
theatres, where such entertainments are to be expected, but
took place even in the venerable Park Theatre, and in The
Bowery, which in its early days was one of the leading houses
in New York. They furnish significant evidence of the popu
larity of the tragedy, the extreme familiarity of the audiences
with it, and illustrate the opportunity in the play for striking
and extraordinary situations, which so easily pass over into
the grotesque.

68 The dramatist persona give some idea of its character, thus : Richard,
Henry King, Bucky Gammon, Richmud, Stand and Lie, Catspaw, Rarcliffe,
Lieut. Jenkins, Gnawfork, Oxhead, Tarheel, Cuffy, Sally Ann, Mrs. Mc-
Kween, Dutch Bess of New York. T. A. Brown, op. cit., Vol. I, page 273.
Fanny Herring played the comic Richard.

1 " Legitimate burlesque," according to Mr. Hutton in Curiosities of the
American Stage, began in United States with the production of John
Poole's celebrated travesty of Hamlet, one of the earliest of its kind by
George Holland on March 22, 1828. This led managers to importing, and
our native authors to writing travesties upon everything in the standard
drama. So we had burlesques of Anthony and Cleopatra, Douglas, Macbeth,
Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Manfred, The Tempest, Richard the Third, and
many others. These were at the height of popularity between 1839 and
1859. Wm. Mitchell was the leading man in these burlesques, and Richard
Number Three was one of his famous parts. Later John Brougham was a
leading American burlesque actor.

159

With the appearance of Edwin Booth a new era began in
the history of this play in America, for our greatest actor gave
the newer conception of the character of Richard, consonant
with the later critical study of Shakespeare, and was the first
to make a successful restoration of the original text to our
stage. Booth's earliest appearance had been in this play, when
in 1847 ne made his debut as Tressel to his father's Richard,
as did all the sons of J. B. Booth in succession.70 His first
appearance in New York took place at Burton's Theatre, in
this play, on May 4, 1857, after his triumphs in the West,
where his first substantial success had been gained in this part
at San Francisco in i852.71

Edwin Booth's Richard has always been highly praised. It
was less ferocious, less brutal than his father's, more subtle,
and illustrated the character not only by throwing the great
moments of the play into strong relief, but also by a consistent
illumination of the calmer scenes. As his father's method
resembled Kean's, and both were modelled on Cooke's, so in
his earlier interpretations he followed their lead in such terrific
parts as Richard, Sir Giles Overreach, Pescara, and others.
As he grew older he discarded most of these, though keeping
Richard the Third, but to that character giving the finer,
philosophic cast which distinguished his Hamlet and Richelieu.
So his king was not a tyrannical ruffian, but a wily, cunning,
consummate Plantagenet. Here in America we see, there
fore, the same transition from the older Kean tradition, as it
had been somewhat brutalized by Booth and Forrest, to that
subtler conception of Irving. He dressed carefully for the
part, but his " make up " included " no distortion of limp or
hump." He is said to have based his idea of the personal
appearance of Richard upon the portrait in the House of
Lords, and to have been influenced in his conception of the
character by Lord Lytton's presentation of Richard in " The

70 The tradition of the Booth family in America is comparable to that of
the Kembles in England.

71 His life in the West had been filled with strange adventures, not least
among them being his performance of Richard the Third before King
Kamehameha IV, when in the Sandwich Islands.

160

Last of the Barons." The stage business was always care
fully arranged, with the utmost precision, even to the charac
teristic toying with the ring upon his finger, or the sheathing
and unsheathing of his dagger. In Booth's interpretation the
emphasis is not upon the historical sources, but upon the poetic
conception as given by Shakespeare.72 The return to history
had begun with Kemble ; it is only the later nineteenth century
actors that conceived the idea of going to the original author
for their inspiration for the part.

Before considering Booth's restoration of the original form
of the play, a word must be said about a similar attempt which
preceded it. In 1871 the managers of Niblo's Garden adver
tised " a grand Shakespearian revival, in the performance of
the tragedy of Richard III, with an ensemble of cast, scenery
and accessories such as has never been attempted in this coun
try." They announced that " for months preparations have
been making in Europe, and are now being completed here,
for the production of this great historical play, on a scale
worthy its immortal fame," in order to make this " not only
a great dramatic success, but an incident marking an epoch in
the history of the American stage." In regard to the text,
although confessing that " some important modifications and
certain excisions " of the original had been made, they averred
that they had entirely disregarded the Gibber version. T. A.
Brown, evidently from extra-information, says that the text
was " reconstructed " by Charles A. Calvert,73 that disciple of
Phelps, who for so many years carried on in Manchester a
work similar to that of Sadler's Wells. The music was " in
the main founded on Old English melodies popular at the
time." The chief actor, James Bennet, brought from England
for the occasion, was to appear on horseback, and all was to
be the most elaborate and the most correct ever seen in Amer
ica.74 But in spite of the enthusiasm of the advertiser, and

72 For a discussion of Edwin Booth's acting, see Shadows of the Stage
and The Life and Art of Edwin Booth, both by Mr. William Winter.

" Op. cit., Vol. II, page 210.

'* These details were given in a small pamphlet, evidently patterned after
The Fly-Leaf which used to accompany Charles Kean's elaborate produc-

161

the supreme efforts of the managers, the revival did not attract.
Bennet was distinctly weak, and the text was only partly suc
cessful. At the end of a week, Neil Warner was put in Ben-
net's place, the Gibber text replaced the one that had been so
carefully prepared, with the addition, however, of the dream
and murder of Clarence which had made a " hit " ; and the play
in this form ran for three weeks. Even Count Joannes, who
was the attraction for the last night of the four weeks' run,
scored a success! The history of this attempt resembles that
of similar attempts in England ; Phelps returned to the Cibber
form, and Macready's adaptation was played but one night.
This revival seems to have been undertaken primarily for the
sake of the novelty gained by extraordinary setting, and by the
use of the original text as something hitherto unattempted
here, rather than for the sake of making a serious appeal for
the rehabilitation of the Shakespearian form, in and for itself.

At this time Booth was still using the Cibber form of the
play, and continued to do so until 1878, when as the opening
performance of the season at his own theatre,75 he introduced
his adaptation of the original. It ran successfully for two
weeks, marking an epoch in the history of the play in America
as did Irving's revival of " Richard the Third " the year before
at The Lyceum, London.

The editor of the Edwin Booth version of " Richard the
Third," Mr. William Winter, summarizes the changes made
by the adaptor thus :

" Changes of the original have been made, in both the arrangement of
the scenes and the distribution of the text. Portions of the original have
been omitted. The portions retained, however, have been taken from the
original, and from no other source. The text has been but slightly altered,
and that in only a few places. No new material has been introduced."

To see how it differs from other adaptations, we may note
briefly the changes in successive acts and scenes.

tions. In this a long list of authorities was given, among them some Ameri
can Shakespearian scholars, as R. G. White and others.

75 Booth's Theatre was situated on the southeast corner of Sixth Avenue
and Twenty-third Street. It burned down in 1883. To preserve the
memory of this noted play-house, a bust of Shakespeare has been placed
in the front of the building now occupying the site.
12

162

Act I, Scene I. — The Hastings episode is cut out; otherwise
the scene is merely shortened, and concludes with the wooing
of Anne.

Scene 2. — Richard's soliloquy. Located in " another street."

Scene 5. — Scene of the quarreling nobles, i. e., the same as
in Shakespeare. The first act ends at this point.

Act II. — The dream and murder of Clarence.

Act III, Scene I. — This opens with the reconciliation of the
nobles and the Queen about the sick-bed of the King, gives
a few lines of the lamenting scene, and closes with Richard's
preparation for testing the attitude of Hastings. The epic
scenes in Shakespeare, Act II, Scenes 3 and 4, and Act III,
Scene I, the entry of the young king into London, are omitted.

Scenes 2 and 5. — The testing of Hastings by Catesby, and
his indictment and condemnation by Richard, closing with the
picture of the consternation in the Council Room after Rich
ard's outburst. The intervening scenes are omitted.

Act IV. — The scene at Baynard Castle, considerably short
ened.

Act. V. — This corresponds in general with Act IV in the
Shakespearian text, though with much shortening, and the
omission of the scene of the women lamenting before the
Tower, and the short scene at Lord Derby's house.

Act VI. — Shakespeare's Act V becomes the sixth act in
Booth's arrangement, and coincides practically with it. The
first scene is omitted, and there is considerable rearrangement
of the later scenes and lines. The play ends with the fall of
Richard.76

Comparing this with Irving's adaptation of practically the
same date, it is seen that the American adaptor has taken
greater liberties with the text. Irving's changes consisted in
omitting certain scenes, for the most part epic in character, in
shortening such parts as those of Queen Margaret and Queen
Elizabeth, and in eliminating Richmond's part in the ghost
scene, as in the Cibber version. None of the characters are
omitted except the very unimportant ones of Clarence's chil-

7a Shakespeare's Tragedy of King Richard III, As Presented by Edwin
Booth. Edited by William Winter. New York, 1878.

163

dren. Booth, on the other hand, has cut out thirteen of the
thirty-seven characters, among these the princes, the latter a
most radical change both from Shakespeare and from the
version to which the public was most accustomed; he has
made a materially different division of acts and scenes to bring
into prominence the episodes connected with Clarence and
Hastings, scenes which in former restorations had proved the
most successful ones; he has preserved almost in its entirety
the archaic figure of Queen Margaret, and the appearance of
the ghosts both to Richard and Richmond.77 While both have
cut down the play to nearly half its length, Booth omits the
greater number of lines,78 and takes more liberty in shifting
and rearranging. Booth's adaptation was successful, but as
in the case of Irving's, was not generally adopted.79 It seems
to be only a master interpretation such as Irving or Booth
gave, that has been able to make the poetry of Shakespeare pre
ferred on the stage to the theatrical possibilities of the Gibber
version.

The staging of this play marked a distinct advance, but
rather in permanent theatrical appliances than in any unusual
gorgeousness of setting such as had characterized the " restora
tion " at Niblo's Garden. According to a writer of 1870, who
describes Booth's Theatre, this was the first house in America
to use the modern arrangement of side wings placed obliquely
to the spectator.80 This gives the illusion of distance and great
spaciousness, as the older employment of flat wings could not,
necessary for the best effects in such a play as " Richard the

17 Such an arrangement, a simple matter on the Elizabethan stage, as we
have seen, here brings into requisition the most elaborate contrivances of
scenery and lighting. The stage directions read : " After a few vivid
flashes of light the scene becomes illuminated and shows the ghosts and
the distant tents of Richmond."

78 Irving omits 1435 lines, Booth 1558.

79 Booth himself seems to have felt little satisfaction in his success,
according to the report which Professor Brander Matthews, of Columbia
University, gives of a conversation with him. He told Professor Matthews
that he had made a mistake in taking up Shakespeare in preference to
Gibber as the latter was a better acting play.

so Booth's Theatre; Behind the Scenes. Appleton's Journal, 1870.

164

Third." In cqstuming, properties, and setting, Booth's Theatre
stood for perfection, and was the direct forerunner of the best
equipped New York theatres of to-day. With the performance
of this version during Booth's life-time we close the history
of the play in America.

Little need be said of Booth's contemporaries in this part.
His brother, Wilkes Booth, of lamentable fame, played Richard
with all the ferocity and verve of his father.81 A description
of his performance shows perhaps the most extreme develop
ment of the older conception among the younger actors. It
is given by T. A. Brown, in his " History of the New York
Stage," thus :

" As Richard he was different from all other tragedians. He imitated
no one, but struck out into a path of his own, introducing points which
older actors would not dare to attempt. In the last act he was truly
original, particularly where the battle commences. With most tragedians
it is the custom to rush on the stage, while the fight is going on, looking as
if dressed for court. Wilkes Booth made a terrible feature of this part
of the performance. He would dart across the stage as if he ' meant
business ' ; then again he would appear ' seeking for Richmond in the
throat of death.' His face was covered with blood from wounds supposed
to have been received in slaying those five other Richmonds he refers to ;
his beaver was lost in the fray, his hair flying belter skelter, his clothes
all torn, and he panted and fumed like a prize fighter. In this character
he was more terribly real than any other actor I ever saw."82

The Wallacks, Lawrence Barrett, John McCullough, J. W.
Keene, all rose to respectable eminence in the part, but noth
ing of note marks their performances. The Gibber text was
used by these actors, and the traditional lines in interpretation
seem to have been followed. Not until Richard Mansfield
appeared, did we have a fresh conception, or a new version,
this time a compromise between Shakespeare and Gibber.83

The history of " Richard the Third " in America, aside from
the excesses and incongruities which have at times marked its

81 A story similar to that told of Count Joannes and the elder Booth,
is recounted of Wilkes Booth when he was acting Richard with Tilton, and
became so infuriated that he drove him over the footlights.

82 Vol. I, page 510.

83 This is described in Mr. Winter's Shadows of the Stage, in the chapter
on Richard Mansfield as Richard the Third.

165

production, is not without a sober interest. The frequency of
its telling situations, the patent quality of its emotions, the pos
sibility of adequate representation with small means, which
adapted it to the crudest conditions and made it a favorite with
strolling companies in England, assured its success in the barn-
like theatres and with the provincial audiences of early
America. So we find it first among tragic representations
here, and later, as in England, holding a prominent place
throughout the history of our stage. It is significant that,
with the appearance of great American actors, we have dis
tinct innovations ; Forrest introduced an individual concep
tion counter to that holding the stage at the time but later
realized by a great actor; Booth an adaptation and successful
restoration of the Shakespearian text. In staging and general
conception of the part, America has throughout reflected the
conditions in England, as it has constantly induced the actors
from that country to perform here. But, on the other hand,
America has sent Forrest and Booth to England, and both
were welcomed as of the great ones. The present situation in
America is as it is in England in regard to this play; the
struggle for the " Richard the Third " of Shakespeare is still
" on," and until others as great as Booth appear to confirm
his work, it seems likely to continue.

VII

CONCLUSION

At the end of the long history of this play, a few words
should be said in conclusion. We have noted the character of
Shakespeare's " Richard the Third " as showing within it the
marks of the three great influences of the early Elizabethan
period, the chronicle, the tragedy of Marlowe, and the revenge
play of Kyd; we have found in its presentation traces of the
popular drama as well as the use of the typical devices of the
Elizabethan stage, although it seems to have been markedly
free from such elaborate effects as are suggested by the direc
tions in many of the plays of the period; we have seen that
during the Restoration another play on the subject, showing all
the characteristics of the heroic tragedy and the changed con
ditions of staging, took its place, and influenced the later ap
pearance of Shakespeare's play. With the version of " Richard
the Third " by Colley Gibber, we find it entering upon its mod
ern era, and see in its revision an effort to replace the archaic
elements of the original by the correspondingly popular devices
of the eighteenth century stage. We have shown that for
one hundred and fifty years this play held the stage undisputed,
long after the other dramas of Shakespeare had been finally
" restored," and that the last thirty years of its history have
been marked by a struggle between the original and the re
vision, a struggle which is not yet at an end.

But what is most striking in the history of this play is the
evidence which it gives of the perennial interest in the villain-
type. Shakespeare's " Richard the Third " was preceded by
a line of villain plays, which helped Jo fix the character, and
to connect with it certain attributes which it has always re
tained. In " Cambyses," as well as in " Richardus Tertius "
and " The True Tragedy," we find evidences of a growing
conception of the villain, which affected the later productions.

166

167

With the appearance of Marlowe's Machiavelian heroes, and
of Kyd's vengeful types, new elements were added. That
Richard was an historical personage had little effect upon the
development of this hero, for he had already been converted
into a saga figure, and it was to this that Shakespeare turned.
The conception of Richard, while generally permanent, has
suffered some change as it has been interpreted to the public
since the Elizabethan age. We have seen that, as the ideas of
proper tragic form and subject have changed, so this character
has illustrated new modes of thought, and differing emotional
reactions upon the central idea of the play. The Elizabethan
Richard shows far more of the medieval type of the infallible,
tyrannical despot, with a greater element of bombast and ora
torical splutter than do the later Richards. In the late seven
teenth century, we find the hero torn between love and ambi
tion, an impossible and uninteresting conception to the earlier
audience, who wished its villains of purer dye. Again, in the
eighteenth century, Richard becomes a quieter character, and
although still oratorical, is less bombastic in the hands of the
better actors, the older interpretation persisting, however, with
the second-rate performers. There is here no less brutality,
nor is there less action, but it is all of a more sardonic cast.
The nineteenth century we have seen developing the subtler
side of Richard's villainy, dwelling upon motives, recalling his
kingly characteristics, and producing a hero of decidedly more
thoughtful nature. But through all these changes, and indeed
because of its adaptability to them, the play, ever since the
days when Queen Elizabeth " was pleased at seeing Henry VII
in a favorable light," has been unflaggingly attractive, and the
character of Richard has ever elicited unfailing interest. It is
true indeed, that Richard the Third has not been the favorite
role of any great actor since the time of J. B. Booth, but that
it is not performed so frequently as in the days of Garrick and
Kean, is to be explained by the same conditions which cause
the other plays of Shakespeare to appear only occasionally on
the stage today.

This interest of the audience in the villain play, in the pre
sentation of the unavoidable balking by fate of man's assump-

168

tion of unlimited power, in the tremendous dramatic irony of
the situations, was reinforced from the beginning by the favor
of the actors for a play that gave an unprecedented oppor
tunity for the " star." The part has always been considered of
extreme difficulty, making enormous demands upon the actor,
greater than those of Hamlet, lago, or Lear, but at the same
time, from the " variegated character " of Richard, offering
great possibilities. Its concentration of interest upon the hero,
while lessening the advantage of dramatic contrast, has never
theless made it a favorite play with actors in all ages. While it
has lent itself thus, to one of the worst abuses of acting in the
over-emphasis of the chief character, it has at the same time
been the touchstone for breadth, subtlety of conception of
character, and ingenuity in " business," from Burbage to Irv
ing. It has, therefore, been a prominent role with every well-
known actor except Betterton (and he performed the part of
Richard in "The English Princess"), from the time of its
original appearance to the present day.

Perhaps for that reason the history of this play shows
plainly the succession of schools of acting. From time to
time, an actor has been hailed as giving a new interpre
tation of the part, or as showing a more natural method. So
the older has been repeatedly outgrown, as it hardened into
convention or departed from the fresher perception. Bur
bage was of a new school; later Garrick reformed the older
method as it had been preserved in Betterton; Kean reacted
against the formality of Kemble ; and he was in turn regarded
as artificial by Irving and Booth. We find a repetition of the
same problem from generation to generation. Nor has the
ultimate, natural conception been reached by an Irving or a
Booth, according to present critics, for the language used in a
recent review of the acting of Mr. William Mollison of
London sounds much like that of reviewers in the heyday of the
older " stars." The writer says of his performance of Richard,
" not only is it entirely new alike in fact and spirit, but it does
an enormous deal toward making that sinister personage a
really feasible, appealing character for a modern audience."
He describes the actor's idea of Richard as " a preferably

169

understandable man of action, a truculent, brisk, hustling, ag
gressive fellow, hard as nails, of enormous vigor and per
sonality, and a grim, rough humor." He speaks of the woo
ing of Anne and the parleying with Margaret as displaying a
Richard " delightfully humorous, gay, insolent, aggressive, full
of the right ' alacrity of spirit and cheer of mind.' " And
as has been said of great actors before him, we find that
" the way Mr. Mollison thundered out the ' White-livered
runagate, what doth he there ? ' made the whole audience hold
its breath."

That " Richard the Third " has persisted upon the stage
in spite of all the changes in theatrical taste, and through re
vision into what many have considered a degraded form, is an
evidence of its dramatic excellence, which under all conditions
seems to have been unimpaired. The figure of a great, master
ful character, untroubled by scruple, unappalled by conscience,
of supreme intellectual force, working out his ends, regarding
his fellow-creatures as mere puppets of his will, and at last,
overtaken by the consequences of his crimes, dying valiantly
and desperately, has persisted in Gibber's version and in the
revisions of the Gibber text, as it was in Shakespeare. It is to
this large conception that audiences and actors have constantly
turned. It is a play of startling effects, of patent development
of character, of inevitable situations. While it is still marked
by the peculiarities of its Elizabethan origin in the figure of
Margaret, in the very presence of the Marlowean type of hero,
in the staging, yet the appeal through the universal note of the
motives, and the reality of the language, especially in the
speeches of Richard, have assured its everlasting popularity.

As we have seen, " Richard the Third " contains archaic
elements which are not found in any other play which has sur
vived on the stage, and which have been an effectual bar to its
" restoration." Thus, it has been possible to " restore " the
Shakespearian form of " Macbeth " or " King Lear " without
the violence to modern stage conventions that would have been
felt in the case of the original form of " Richard the Third."
On the other hand, since it has been found capable of adapta
tion to modern methods, it is the only chronicle play (using

170

the term in its narrower significance), that holds the stage
today. Besides, " Richard the Third," although it re-appeared
during the vogue of classical canons in tragedy, escaped with
little mutilation, and was never made into a " regular " play.
Nor was it violated by such inappropriate transformations as
disfigured some of the other Shakespearian plays ; as " Mac
beth " for instance, by the introduction of music and dancing
and sirens in the place of the witches ; or " The Tempest "
when converted into opera; nor did it undergo the conversion
of tragedy into comedy, as in the case of Tate's " Lear,"
and Howard's " Romeo and Juliet," or suffer the introduction
of a distinctly romantic element, as in Crowne's " Henry the
Sixth." The greatest violence to structure consists in its fusion
with a part of " Henry the Sixth," but this was done by no
means after the extreme fashion of D'Avenant's " Law against
Lovers," in which " Measure for Measure " and " Much Ado "
are forced to come into line. Indeed, it is generally conceded
that Colley Gibber, while ruthlessly destroying the poetry of
the play, did make it " fitter for the stage," as he set out to do,
by concentrating, modernizing, and shortening.

The career of this play, as we have seen, has been a most
romantic one. Presented at first by the best company of
London, and possibly at Court, it became the favorite of
strolling comedians, inaugurated the Shakespearian drama in
America in primitive colonial structures, was played for Chero
kee Indians, before the Hawaiian king, in German- American
theatres, under the guise of " moral lectures," as travesty,
burlesque, circus attraction, by children's and by women's
companies. It has been depended upon for benefits, has always
been a favorite as a first performance ; it has figured in some
of the greatest theatrical triumphs, and some of the most inter
esting events of stage history have centered about it. It has
been the object of ambition for every aspirant to histrionic
fame, and has probably launched a greater number of actors
upon their careers than any other play.

Looked at from a larger point of view, this play is of inter
est, not only from the side of popular taste, but from the side
of general social devolopment. Its humor bespeaks an age of

171

cruder sensibilities, as is seen in the evident delight in de
formity in the original presentation. The ignoring or soften
ing of Richard's ugliness in later interpretations has a far-
reaching significance. The appreciation, also, of the com
plexity of this character in the latest portrayals shows an
advance in the conception of the nature of evil, when com
pared with the unshaded villainy of the earlier Richards.

It was pointed out by Schlegel long ago and has been often
repeated, that the dramas of Shakespeare take the place of a
national epic in English literature. In such an epic Richard
the Third gathers about him the racial conception of what is
consummately evil. And so the conception of Richard has
become engrafted within the ideals of our dramatic literature
in a peculiar manner, as a persistent habit of thought, to which
we are constantly attracted by its long line of associations or
by the tradition of its perennial appeal. And, as about the
character and the play certain ideals of the villain and of the
tragic have clustered from the earliest days of English drama,
it still today retains a real significance and lends itself con
stantly to newer and wider application and adaptation.

VIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anonymous. Elizabethan Stage Theories. Littell's Living

Age, Vol. 247 (1905).

The Dramatic Censor; or Critical Companion. 2 vols.
London, 1770. Essay on Richard the Third, as
Altered from Shakespeare by Gibber.
The Laureate; or the right side of C. C. ; containing ex
planations, amendments, observations, on a book,
entitled : " An Apology for the life . . .," etc. Lon
don, 1740.

The Life and Times of that Excellent and Renowned
Actor, Thomas Betterton, etc. London, 1888.

Albright, Victor E. A Typical Shaksperian Stage: The
Outer-Inner Stage. New York, 1908.

American Historical Record, March, 1872.

Appleton's Journal, 1870. Booth's Theatre; Behind the
Scenes.

Archer, William. William Charles Macready. London,

1890.
The Elizabethan Stage. Quarterly Review, April, 1908.

Aston, Anthony. A Brief Supplement to Colley Cibber,
Esq.; his Lives of the late famous Actors and Ac
tresses. Reprinted in Lowe's edition of Gibber's
Apology.

Baker, D. E., Reed, I., and Jones, S. Biographia Dramatica.
A Companion to the Playhouse, etc. 3 vols. Lon
don, 1812.

Baker, G. P. The Development of Shakespeare as a Drama
tist. New York, 1907.

Baker, H. Barton. History of the London Stage and its

Famous Players. London, 1904.
Our Old Actors. 2 vols. London, 1878.

172

173

Bankside Shakespeare. Edited by Appleton Morgan. The

Shakespeare Society of New York, 1888-.
Bernard, Bayle. Early Days of the American Stage. Tal-

lis' Dramatic Magazine, 1850.
Bernard, John. Retrospections of America, 1797-1811.

New York, 1887.
Boaden, James. Memoirs of the Life of John Philip Kemble,

Esq. Including a History of the Stage, from the

time of Garrick to the present period. London, 1825.
Booth, Edwin. Richard the Third. The Prompt Book.

Edited by William Winter. New York, 1878.
Brandl, A. Introduction to Schlegel-Tieck Shakespeare.
Brodmeier, C. Die Shakespeare-Biihne nach den alten Biih-

nenanweisungen. Weimar, 1904.
Brown, T. A. A History of the New York Stage, from the

First Performances in 1732 to 1901. 3 vols. New

York, 1903.
Cambridge Shakespeare. Edited by Clark and Wright.

Third ed., 1891.

Chase, L. N. The English Heroic Play. New York, 1903.
Churchill, G. B. Richard the Third up to Shakespeare.

Berlin, 1900.
Gibber, Colley. An Apology for the Life of Colley Gibber

by Himself. Edited by R. W. Lowe. London, 1889.

2 vols.

The Dramatic Works. 4 vols. London, 1760.
Clarke, Asia Booth. The Elder and Younger Booth. Bos
ton, 1882.
Cole, J. W. The Life and Theatrical Times of Charles Kean,

F.S.A. 2 vols. London, 1859.
Collier, J. P. The History of English Dramatic Poetry.

Three parts. London, 1831.
Corbin, J. Shakespeare and the Plastic Stage. Atlantic

Monthly, March, 1906.

The Elizabethan Hamlet. New York, 1895.
Coryat, Thomas. Coryat's Crudities. 3 vols. London,

1776.

174

Courthope, W. J. A History of English Poetry. 4 vols.

New York, 1895.
Cunliffe, J. W. The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan

Tragedy. Manchester, 1893.
Davies, Thos. Dramatic Miscellanies. 3 vols. London,

1785;.

Delius, N. Uber das Englische Theatrewesen zu Shakspere's
Zeit. Bonn, 1853.

Dohse, R. Colley Gibber's Buhnenbearbeitung von Shakes
peare's Richard III. Bonner Beitrage zur Anglistik,
Vol. II. 1899.

Doran. " Their Majesties Servants." 2 vols. New York,
1880.

Dowries, J. Roscius Anglicanus, or an Historical Review of
the Stage from 1660 to 1706. A Fac-simile Reprint
of the Rare Original of 1708. With an Historical
Preface by Joseph Knight. London, 1886.

Dunlap, William. A History of the American Theatre.
New York, 1832.

Edwin Forrest Edition of Shakespearian Plays. No. 5.
Richard III. Correctly marked . . . from his own
prompt-book, and as acted by him at Niblo's Garden.
New York. No date.

Eversley Shakespeare. Edited by C. H. Herford. 10 vols.
1902.

Fennell, J. Apology for His Life. Philadelphia, 1814.

Fleay, F. G. A Biographical Chronicle of the English Drama,

1559-1642. London, 1891. 2 vols.
A Chronicle History of the London Stage, 1559-1642.

1890.
Life of Shakespeare. 1886.

Fitzgerald, P. A New History of the English Stage from
the Restoration to the Liberty of the Theatres, in
Connection with the Patent Houses. 2 vols. Lon
don, 1882.

The Life of Garrick. 2 vols. London, 1868.
The Kembles. 2 vols. London, 1871.

175

Frost, T. Circus Life and Circus Celebrities. London, 1875.
The Old Showmen and the Old London Fairs. London,

1874.
Furness, Horace Howard, Jr. A New Variorum Edition of

Shakespeare. The Tragedy of Richard the Third.

Philadelphia, 1908.
Genee, R. von. Uber die schenischen Formen Shakespeare's

in ihrem Verhaltniss zur Buhne seiner Zeit. Shak.

Jahrbuch, Vol. 26.
Genest, J. Some Account of the English Stage from 1660 to

1830. 10 vols. Bath, 1832.

Gildersleeve, V. C. Governmental Regulation of the Shakes
pearean Drama. New York, 1908.

Gildon, C. The Life of Mr. Thomas Betterton, the late emi
nent Tragedian. London, 1710.
Gould, T. R. The Tragedian; An Essay on the Histrionic

Genius of Booth. New York, 1868.
Greg, W. W. Henslowe's Diary. London, 1904. Part I.

Text.
Griggs, W. Shakespeare Quarto Facsimiles. Richard the

Third.
Hale, E. E., Jr. The Influence of the Theatrical Conditions

on Shakespeare. Modern Philology, Vol. I (1903).
Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. Outlines of the Life of Shakes
peare. 6th ed., 1886.
Haslewood, J. The Secret History of the Green Room, etc.

2 vols. London, 1793.
Hazlitt, Wm. Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. Lectures

on the Dramatic Literature of the Age of Elizabeth.

London, 1848.
Henry Irving Shakespeare. Edited by Henry Irving and

F. A. Marshall. 8 vols. New York, 1888-90.
Hentzner, P. A Journey into England, in the Year

MDXCVIII. Edited by Horace Walpole. 1757.
Heywood, Thos. An Apology for Actors. Reprinted from

the edition of 1612 for the Shakespeare Society.

London, 1841.

176

Hodgkinson, J. A Narrative of his Connection with the Old
American Company. From the Fifth of September,
1792, to the Thirty-First of March, 1797. New
York, 1797.

Hubbard, F. G. Repetition and Parallelism in Earlier Eliza
bethan Drama. Modern Lang. Asso. Pub. 1905.

Hunt, Leigh. The Examiner.

Hutton, R. Curiosities of the American Stage. New York,
1891.

Inchbald, E. The British Theatre. Richard the Third, Vol.
17. London, 1806-9.

Ireland, J. N. Records of the New York Stage from 1750 to
1860. 2 vols. New York, 1866.

Irving, H. B. The English Stage in the Eighteenth Century.
Fortnightly Review, Vols. 85 and 86 (1906).

Kilian, E. Die scenischen Formen Shakespeare's in ihrem
Verhaltniss zur Buhne seiner Zeit. Jahrbuch, Vol.
28.

Shakespeare auf der Modernen Buhne. Shak. Jahrbuch,
Vol. 36.

Knight, J. Life of Garrick. London, 1894.

Lamb, C. On the Tragedies of Shakespeare. London, 1855.

Lawrence, W. J. A Forgotten Stage Conventionality. An-

glia, Vol. 26 (1903).
Pioneers of Modern English Stage Mounting. Magazine

of Art, Vol. 18.
Stage Scenery in the Eighteenth Century. Magazine of

Art, Vol. 1 8.
Some Characteristics of the Elizabethan Stuart Stage.

Englische Studien, Vol. 32 (1902).

Music in the Elizabethan Theatre. Shakespeare Jahr
buch, Vol. 44 (1908).

Lacy. Acting Edition of Plays. Vol. 13, Richard III.

Lee, Sidney. The Life of Shakespeare. 1898.

Lewes, G. H. On Actors and the Art of Acting. New
York, 1880.

Lowe, R. Thomas Betterton. New York, 1891.

177

Lounsbury, T. R. Shakespeare as a Dramatic Artist. New

York, 1902.
Lowell, J. R. Shakespeare's Richard the Third. In Latest

Literary Essays and Addresses. 1892.
Macready, W. C. Reminiscences. Edited by Sir Frederick

Pollock. New York, 1875.
Malone, E. Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of

the English Stage. Vol. Ill of Edition of Shake
speare's Works. 1790.
Manningham, J. Diary. Edited by J. Bruce. Camden

Society Pub., Vol. 99.

Mantzius, K. The History of Theatric Art. 3 vols. 1904.
Meyer, E. Machiavelli and the Elizabethan Drama. Literar-

historische Forschungen, Vol. I.
Molloy, J. F. The Life and Adventures of Edmund Kean,

Tragedian. London, 1888.

Moorman, F. W. The Pre-Shakespearian Ghost. Shake
speare's Ghosts. Modern Lang. Review, 1906.
Murphy, A. The Life of David Garrick, Esq. Dublin, 1801.
Ochelhauser, W. Uber Richard III. Shak. Jahrbuch, Vol.

Ill (1868).

Ordish, T. F. Early London Theatres. London, 1894.
Oxberry, W. New English Drama. London, 1818. Vol.

Ill, Richard III.
Pepys, S. Diary. Edited by H. B. Wheatley. London,

1896.
Phelps, W. M., and Forbes-Robertson, J. The Life and

Life-Work of Samuel Phelps. London, 1886.
Racinet, A. Le Costume Historique. Paris, 1873.
Rees, J. (Colley Gibber). The Life of Edwin Forrest.

Philadelphia, 1874.
Regel, M. Uber Englisches Theatrewesen zu Shakespeare's

Zeit. Prague, 1895.
Reynolds, G. F. Some Principles of Elizabethan Staging.

Modern Philology, 1905.
Schelling, F. E. The English Chronicle Play. New York,

1902.
13

178

Seilhamer, G. O. A History of the American Theatre. 3

vols. Philadelphia, 1891.
Spedding, J. On the Corrected Edition of Richard III.

New Shakespeare Society Transactions, 1875.
Stoll, E. E. John Webster. Cambridge, 1905.
Tallis' Dramatic Magazine and General Theatrical and Musi
cal Review. New York and London, 1850.
Thorndike, A. H. The Relations of Hamlet to Contemporary

Revenge Plays. Pub. Modern Lang. Asso., 1902.
Introduction to Belle Lettre Series Edition of Beaumont

and Fletcher's The Maid's Tragedy and Philaster.

1906.

Tragedy. 1908.
Trench, W. F. A Mirror for Magistrates, its origin and

influence. Edinburgh, 1898.
Tupper, J. W. The Relation of the Heroic Play to the

Romances of Beaumont and Fletcher. Pub. Modern

Lang. Asso., 1905.
Vincke, G. F. von. Shakespeare auf der Englischen Biihne

seit Garrick. Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Biihnen-

geschichte, No. 6.
Wright, J. Historia Histrionica. Reprint in Lowe's edition

of Gibber's Apology, of the edition of 1699.
Ward, A. W. A History of English Dramatic Literature to

the Death of Queen Anne. 3 vols. 1899.
Wemyss, F. C. Twenty-Six Years of the Life of an Actor

and Manager. 2 vols. New York, 1847.
Winter, William. Shadows of the Stage. New York, 1892.
The Life and Art of Edwin Booth. New York, 1893.

INDEX.

The index includes the names of plays, playwrights, actors, theatres
and companies.

Adcock, 139; Mrs., 139

Addams, Elder, 157

Admiral's Company, 9, 10, I3n,

14", 27
Aesop, 97n
Agamemnon, 38n
Albion Queens, see Island Queens
Albyon Knight, isn
Alchemist, The, 27
Alleyn, nn
Allison, Mrs., 94
Alphonsus of Arragon, i$n, 16, i6n,

20, 21, 46, 47, 48, sin, S3n, 55,

S6n.

American Citizen, The, 146
American Company, The, 142, 143,

145, 146, i46n, 148, issn
Anatomist, The, 139
Anthony and Cleopatra, is8n
Apius and Virginia, 12, I2n
Arden of Fever sham, \y\.
Anthony Aston, 138
Apostate, The, 159
Astley's Amphitheatre, 156
Astor Place Theatre, 156
Atkinson, Miss, 126

Baker, Mrs., g8n

Bad Dickey, 158, is8n

Bajazet, g8n

Baltimore Company, 144

Banks, 62, 62n, 69

Barrett, Lawrence, 164

Barry, 105, 106, io6n; Mrs., 74n,

92n, iosn

Bartholomew Fair, 3on, 57.
Bateman, Ellen, 156
Bateman, Kate, 156

Battle of Alcazar, The, 3, i3n, i6n,
20, 21, 29, 36, 51, ssn, s6n

Beau in the Suds, 136

Beaumont and Fletcher, 3, 63

Beauty the Best Advocate {Measure
for Measure), 77n

Beaux' Stratagem, The i38n

Beggar's Bush, The 71

Bell, 139

Bellamy, Mrs., 92n

Bennett, George, 128

Bennett, James, 160, 161

Bernard, John, 141, 147, 149

Betterton, 6gn, 72, 74, 77n, 78, 92,
94, 99, 100, 107, io8n, 168; as
Richard the Third, 67-8

Betterton, Mrs., 72

Betty, ii2n

Bibly, 151

Black Prince, The, 62

Blackfriars Theatre, 94n

Blakes, 102

Blue Beard, ii2n

Boadicea, 62

Boheme, 98

Bond, 2Sn

Booth, Barton, 92, 94, 100

Booth, Edwin, ngn, 15211, 153, 164,
165, 168; as Richard the Third,
159-160; version of Richard the
Third, 161-2; compared with Irv-
ing's, 162-3

Booth, J. B., 11911, 149, 151, 156,
157, iS9, *S9n, I^4, l67! as
Richard the Third, 118, n8n; in
America, 152, i52n

Booth, Wilkes, 164,

179

180

Booth's Theatre, 161, i6in, 163,

16311, 164

Bowers, Master, 155
Bowery Theatre, The, 152, 155, 156,

iS7, 158

Broadway Theatre, The, 156
Brougham, 15811
Brunton, Elizabeth, 14711
Buckingham, 8, 10
Bunn, Mrs., 124
Burbage, 3, 311, 4, 25, 31, 520, 67,

1 68

Burke, Master, 155, 15511
Burton's Theatre, 159
Bussy D'Ambois, 250
Busybody, The, 13711, 143

Cambyses, 12, i2n, 13, 34, 37, 38,
166

Captives, 48

Carey, i.i3n

Caryll (or Carrol), 60, 62, 68, 78

Castle Garden, i38n

Catherine and Petruchio, i4on

Cato, i37n

Centlivre, Mrs., 143

Chamberlain's Company, i, in, 9,
10, i4n, 25, 170

Chanfrau, 158

Chapman, 2n, i32n

Charke, Charlotte, 142

Charles the Eighth, 86n

Chatham Theatre, The, 157

Chestnut Street Theatre (Phila.),
M7

Chettle, i2n

Chevy Chase, i25n

Children of the Chapel, i4n

Chock, Miss, 95

Gibber, Colley, 67, 7in, 101, io4n,
108, ii7n, 121, 126, i26n, 131,
135, 138, 142, 150, 160, 161, 162,
163, i63n, 169, 170; version of
Richard the Third, 76-100 ; Kem-
ble's revision, 1 1 3-4 ; Macready's
rearrangement, 123-4; Charles
Kean on, 128; Forrest's revision,
154; Mansfield's revision, 164

Gibber, Theophilus, loon

Gibber, Mrs. T., 92n, 93n, 107

Citizen, The, 145

City Customs, Interlude of, g^n

Civil Wars between the Houses of
York and Lancaster, loon

Clarkson, 139

Clinton's Thespians, 143, 144, 145

Clive, Mrs., 93n

Comical Gallant, The, ^^n

Comus, 113

Conquest of Granada, The, 71

Contention between the Houses of
York and Lancaster, The, etc.;
the First Part, 7, 9, i3n, i7n, 29,
5 in, 53n ; the Second Part, or The
True Tragedy of the Duke of
York, 7, 9, 10, i4n, 15, i6n, i7n,
29, Sin, 53n, ssn

Cooke, George F., iron, in, 112,
ii2n, ii7n, 118, 128, 148, 149,
i5in, 152, 159; as Richard the
Third, no; compared with Ed
mund Kean, 115-6; in America,
150-1

Cooper, Thomas A., 148, i48n, 149,

Coriolanus, 13111

Covent Garden, 98, 105, 106, 107,
io7n, no, 112, nan, n8n, 121,
122, i25n, i32n, 147, ism

Crampton, Charlotte, 157

Crofts, 1 02

Cross Keys, The, I3n

Crowne, John, 78, 86n, 170

Cruger's Wharf Theatre, 139

Curtain, The, 7, 9, 10, i2n, i4n

Cushman, Charlotte, i54n

Cymbeline ; D'Urfey's version, 62n ;
Garrick's version, i4on

Damon and Phillida, 136, 139
D'Avenant, 62n, 70, 71, 73, 74, 87n,

170
Davenport, Mrs., 156; Miss J. M.,

156

David and Bathseba, i3n, 39, 40
Davies, Mrs., 107
Davis, Mrs., 137
Davis, Mary, 71
Day, John, i2n
Delane, 102

181

Delavigne, Casimir, 13211

Derby's Company, i2n

Desordre et Genie, 115, 1150.

Destruction of Jerusalem, The, 6

Devil to Pay, 93, 139

Dido, 1411

Dighton, 9911

Doctor Faustus, 1311, 18, i8n, 19,
1911, 30, 63

Don Felix, 10511

Dorset Garden, 6an

Douglas, 155, 15511, 15811

Douglass, 140, 141, i42n

Douglass, Mrs., see Mrs. Hallam

Drury Lane Theatre, 62n, 69, 73, 77,
9on, 93, 95, 97, 97n, 98, 99, loon,
105, 106, io7n, 108, no, in, 114,
119, ngn, 120, 122, 124, i25n,
129, i32n, 138, 141, 147, 1560,

Dryden, 62, 71, 77n,

Duff, 151

Duke's Theatre, see Lincoln's Inn

Fields

Dunstall, 102
D'Urfey, 62n
Duvall, Madam, 102

Eastward Hoe, 2n

Edgar or The English Monarch, 6zn,

63
Edward the First, i3n, 15, isn, i7n,

22, 27, 29, 31, 57
Edward the Second, i$n, 19, 27, 31,

34, 35, 54
Edward the Third, gn, i4n, isn, 16,

i7n, 31, 52
Edward the Fourth, 3, i2n, 78, 85,

99n

Egerton, 124
Elliston, 122, is6n
Enfants d'Edouard, Les, i32n
England's Parnassus, 2
English Princess, The, 60, 62, 69,

70, 71, 72, 72n, 73, 74, 78, 78n,

81, 8m, 82, 86, 86n, 87, 87n, 88,

88n, 92, 93, 166, 168; resume,

64-5 ; general characteristics, 65-

7 ; Betterton in, 67-8
Eugenia, 8gn

Evans, 95

Every Man in His Humour, 53

Fairbank, 95
Fair Em, 130.

Famous Victories of Henry the
Fifth, The, 12, i3n, 16, i6n, i7n,

IQ, 22, 29, 32

Fatal Vision, The, 92

Fate of Tyranny, The, 145

Faucit, Miss, 118

Faucit, Mrs., i24n

Fechter, i32n

Fennell, 147, 149, I49n, 151

Fielding, Henry, 143

First of May or a Royal Love-
Match, The, i32n

Fisher, Clara, is6n

Foote, 141

Ford, 60

Forrest, Edwin, issn, 158, 159, 165;
as Richard the Third, 152-3; ver
sion of Richard the Third, 154

Fortune Theatre, The, i2n, 6m

Franklin Theatre, 156

Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, i$n

Froment, Mons., 102

Garrick, 87n, 92n, 93n, 99, 99n,
115, ii7n, 120, i2in, I3on, 132,
138, i4on, 141, 142, i45n, 147,
167, 168 ; his Richard modelled
on Ryan's, 98, g8n ; characteris
tics of his Richard, 101-9

Generous Chaise, The, gyn

George a Green, i$n

Giffard, 102; W., 102; Mrs., 102,
106

Gildon, 77n

Glenn, 158

Glover, Mrs., 118

Godfrey, Thomas, i4on

Goodfellow, 106

Goodman's Fields Theatre, ggn, 101,
105, 138

Gorboduc, 12, i2n, 34, 37, 49

Granier, Miss, 102

Greene, George, 6, 12, 20, 30

Hackett, James H., 157

182

Hallam, A., 139

Hallam, Lewis, ggn, 138, 139; Mrs.,

J39, 141
Hallam, Lewis, Jr., 138, 139, 140,

141, 145, 146
Hamblin, 154
Hamlet, 30, 31, 49, 5611, 5811, 86,

120, 14011, 15811, 159, 168
Harlequin Collector, 139
Harlequin's Vagaries, 1 4011
Harman, 139; Mrs., 139, 142
Harper, 147
Harris, 68, 74
Hathaway, Annie, 156
Have With You to Saffron Walden,

Haymarket Theatre, 97, 97n, n8n
Henderson, 106, 109
Henry the Fourth, 6211, 77n, 87,

14011, 142
Henry the Fifth, 3n, i6n, 45, 54,

57, 77n, 86, i25n

Henry the Fifth (Orrery's), 62, 74
Henry the Sixth, Part I, 7, 10, i3n,

i4n, i6n, i7n, 40, sin, 53, 78,

81, i32n. Part II, isn, i7n, 34,

Sin, 69, 78, 87, I32n. Part III,

15, i6n, 39, sin, 53, 69, 80, i32n,

170
Henry the Sixth (Crowne's), Part

I, 78, 170. Part II or The

Misery of Civil War, 60, 62n, 69,

69n, 80, 170
Henry the Eighth, 57, 74, 77n, 108,

Henrye Richmond, nn
Herbert, 137
Herod the Great, 86n
Herring, Mrs., 156; Fanny, 156,

Hey wood, Thomas, 3, 6, i2n, 48, 78,

85, 93n, 99n
Hieronimo, First Part of, lyn, 31,

Hill, Aaron, 92, 143
Hill, Isabel, i32n
Hippisley, Miss, 102
Histriomastix, 30, 45
Hob in the Well, i43n
Hodgkinson, John, 146, 147, 148,

149

Holland, 105; George, is8n
Hopkins, Charles, 62
Horestes, 12, i2n, 13, 50
Horton, Mrs., g8n, 107
Howard, Sir Robert, 170
Humour of the Age, The, g$n

Indian Queen, The, 70, 71
Innocent Usurper or Lady Jane

Grey, The, 6211
Iron Age, The, 3
Iron Chest, The, 120
Irving, Sir Henry, 107, 108, 132,

I53» 159, 161, i63n, 168 ; version

of Richard the Third, 129—30; as

Richard, 130-1
Island Queens, The (Albion Queens'),

Jack Straw, i^n, i6n, i7n

Jago, 136

James the Fourth, i^n, i6n, i7n,

56n

Jane Shore, loon, ii2n
Jewess, The, 125
Jew of Malta, The, i3n, 18, i8n,

19, i9n, 23, 30, ss
Jew of Malta, The (Merchant of

Venice'}, 770.
Jocasta, 12, i2n
John Street Theatre, The, 140, 143,

146, 148

Jones, Master, 155 ; Mrs., 155
Jones, George (Count Joannes),

i52n, 157, 161
Jonson, Ben, nn, 48, 53

Kean, Charles, 107, i29n, 132, 154,
i6on; production of Richard the
Third, 126-8.

Kean, Edmund, 42n, 52n, in, 128,
130, 132, 149, 150, issn, 154,
i56n, 157, 159, 167, 168; as
Richard the Third, 114-121 ; com
pared with Macready, 122-3 > in
America, 151 ; compared with J.
B. Booth, 152

Kean, Thomas, 135

Keene, J. W., 164

Kemble, Charles, i32n,

183

Kemble, John Philip, io8n, 115,
nsn, 116, 118, 119, ugn, 123,
127, 132, 146, 147, 149, 14911,
150, ism, 15911, 160, 168; as
Richard the Third, 109-110; ar-
cheological reforms, 111-112; re
vision of Gibber version, 113-114

Kempe, 3

Kent, 95

King Arthur (Dryden's), 62

King Arthur (Purcell's), 93n

King Edgar and Alfrida, 62n

King in the Country, The, ggn

King Johan, i2n, 13, 37

King John, 39

King's Players, The (King Charles

I), 94Q

Knack to Know a Knave, The, 140
Knight, 95

Koster and Bial's Theatre, 158
Kyd, Thomas, i3n, 14, 20, 21, 23,

30, 46, 166, 167

Lacey, 7711

Lamball, Mrs., ggn

Landis, Dr., 157

Lansdowne, Lord, 77n

Law Against Lovers, The, 170

Lear, King, 29, 62n, 120, i39n,
i4on, 1 68, 169

Lear, King (Tate's), 62n, 77n, 83n,
170

Leir, King, 130.

Le Kain, 115

Lethe, 138, i43n

Lewis, Mrs. H., 156

Lincoln's Inn Fields (Duke's Thea
tre), 62n, 68, 69, 71, 78, 95, 98,
104, i25n

Lindar, 97n

Little French Lawyer, The, 3

Locrine, 1311, 16, i6n, i7n, 20, 21,
23n, 36, 38, 39, 46, 47, 48, Sin,
53, 56n

Lodge, Thomas, 6, 48

Looking Glass for London, A, 70

Lord Flinnip, is6n

Love and Honor, 74

Love for Love, 136, 142

Love Makes a Man, gjn

Loves of King Edward the Fourth,

The, ggn

Loyal General, The, 4
London Lyceum, The, 129, i3in, 161
Lying Valet, The, 143

Macbeth, 49, 6 in, io4n, 109, in,

i4on, i49n, ison, is8n, 169, 170;

as opera, 62n

Macklin, 104, io4n, 106, in, 119
Macready, 60, 118, n8n, i2gn, 161

as Richard the Third, 121, 125

compared with E. Kean, 122-3

revision of Gibber's text, 123-4
Mad Hercules, i6n
Malone, 139

Man About Town, The, 157
Manfred, is8n
Mangeon, Master, 155
Mansfield, Richard, 164
Massacre at Paris, The, i4n, 31, 34n
Mayor of Garratt, The, 143
Manning, 97n
Marlowe, in, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, i8n,

19, 20, 2on, 21, 22, 23, 29, 34,

42, 51, 166, 167, 169
Marr, 102
Marshall, 102
Marston, Henry, 128
Marston, John, 2n
Massinger, i24n
Matthews, Charles, 11311
McCullough, J., 164
McCutcheon, T., 157
McWade, R., 158
Measure for Measure, 170
Medecin Malgre Lui, Le, 93n
Meggett, n8n
Melmoth, Mrs., 147
Merchant of Venice, io4n, iosn, 119,

120, 138, i38n, i4on; revised as

The Jew of Malta, 7711
Merry, Mrs. (Elizabeth Brunton),

1470

Merry Wives of Windsor, The, 770.
Metamora, 153

Midsummer Night's Dream, The, 30
Miller, 139
Mills, 95, 97n

184

Misfortunes of Arthur, The, 12, izn,

46, 47, s6n

Miss in her Teens, 141
Mitchell, William, 15811
Mitchell's Olympic, 158
Mock Doctor, The, 136
Mollison, William, 168, 169
Moody, 128
Morris, D. L., 158
Morris, Mrs., 142
Mossop, 105, 106, io6n, 10711
Much Ado about Nothing, 14011, 170
Murphy, 106, 145
Murray, 135 ; Master Dickey, 136

Nash, Thomas, 6n, 7, 12

Nassau Street Theatre, The, 134,

136, 139, 148, i55n
Naylor, 102; Miss, 102
Newington Butts, 9
Neu Stadt Theatre, 157
New Way to Pay Old Debts, A, 120,

iS9
Niblo's Garden, 13 in, i54n, 160,

163

Nobody and Somebody, i^n
Norris, 97n

Oedipus, 38, 38n

Old Wives' Tale, An, 47, 48

Orphan, The, i38n

Orrery, Earl of, Charles Boyle, 62,

86n
Othello, 1 20, 139, I4on, 142, is8n,

168
Otway, Thomas, i38n

Pageant of the Shearmen and Tay
lors, 30, son

Pagett, 102

Palsgrave's Company, i2n, 6 in, 94n

Papal Tyranny, 95

Parasitaster or the Fawne, 2n

Park Theatre, The, 148, i48n, ism,
152, 154, iS4n, 155, issn, 156,
158

Patterson, 102

Payne, John Howard, 155, issn

Peele, George, 3, 6, 20

Pembroke's Company, 7, 9, 10, i4n

Perkin Warbeck, 61

Phelps, Samuel, 125, i25n, 126, 132,

160, 161
Philadelphia Comedians, The, ' 137,

Pinketham, 97n

Fix, Mrs., 62

Plunkett, 118

Poetaster, The, 48

Polly Honeycomb,

Porter, Mrs., g8n

Possard, 157

Powel, 95

Powell, 147; Mrs., 95, in

Prince Charles' Men, 94n

Prince of Parthia, The, i4on

Pritchard, Mrs., 106, 107, 156

Promos and Cassandra, i7n

Puttenham, 102

Queen Catherine or the Ruins of

Love, 62
Queen's Players, The, 7, 8, 10, i3n,

140
Quinn, 94, 97n, 98, 102, 104, 105,

106, 107, i2in, 141 ; as Richard

the Third, 99, loon

Ravenscroft, Edward, 62, 77n
Recruiting Officer, The, i38n
Red Bull, The, 94n
Reddish, 106

Return from Parnassus, The, 3
Richard Crookback, un
Richard der Dritte, i32n
Richard, Duke of York, i32n
Richard Number Three, 158, is8n
Richard the Confessor, 8, 10
Richard the Second, 80, i32n;

Tate's version, 62n
Richard the Third, see Shakespeare,

Gibber, Forrest, E. Kean, J. P.

Kemble, Macready, Mansfield ;

Booth's version, see E. Booth ;

Irving's version, see Irving
Richard the Third in Dutch, 158
Richard the Third or The English

Prophet, i2n, 61, 78, 93n
Richardus Tertius, 5, 6, 6n, ion,

isn, :6n, 29, 2gn, 38, 39, 41, 43,

46, 50, 53, 54n, 84, 84n, 166

185

Richelieu, 159

Rigby, 139; Mrs., 139

Rogers, 95

Romeo and Juliet, 1411, 5711, 9311,

1390, 14011, 15811; Howard's ver

sion, 170

Rose Theatre, The, 7, 9, 10, 1411
Rowe, Nicholas, 9711, loon, 143
Rowley, Samuel, 1211, 1911, 61, 78,

93n

Royal Merchant, The, 9311
Royal Princess's Theatre, The, 126,

Ryan, 97n, 98, g8n, 104, 105, 107,

Ryan, Dennis, 145

Rymer, Thomas, 62, 63, 6sn, 6611

Sadler's Wells Theatre, 125, i25n,

128, 129, 160
Sandford, 91, 95
Savage, icon
Sawney the Scott (Taming of the

Shrew), 7711

School Boy, The, 93n, 97n
Scourge of Villanie, The, 2n
Search for Money, The, ign
Selimus, i3n, 16, 20, 21, 38, 40
Seymour, H., 157
Shakespeare, passim
Sheep Shearing, see Winter's Tale,

The

Sheridan, 105, 106, io6n, 107
Shore's Wife, i2n
Siddons, Mrs., 107, io7n, in, ii2n,

iiSn, 142, 147, 149, I49n, ism
Siege of Rhodes, The, 70
Simpson, 95
Singleton, 139
Sir Thomas More, i4n, i7n, 42,

44, 53"

Smith, E. T., 105, 106, io6n, io7n
Smith (a contemporary of Better-

ton), 68

Smith, Master G. F., 155
Solyman and Perseda, i3n, 56
Southwark Theatre, The, 140, 141
Spanish Tragedy, The, nn, i3n, 20,

27, 34, 38, 44, 46, 47
Steel, Mrs., 102, 106
Storer, Miss, 141

Strange's Company, 9, 10, 1311, I4n
Strappado for the Divell, 3
Sullivan, Barry, 129
Sussex' Company, 8, 10, i4n

Tamburlaine, i^n, 14, i6n, 18, i8n,
19, ign, 20, 2on, 21, 27, 29, 30,
31, 3in, 32, 39, 51, Si", 62

Tamerlane (Rowe's), 143

Taming of the Shrew, The, 7711, 93n

Tancred and Gismunda, 12, 34, 39,
55, 56n

Taste, 141

Taswell, 99n

Tate, Nahum, 4, 62n, 77n, 170

Taylor, Mrs., 136

Tammany Theatre, 157, 158

Tempest, The, 68, is8n, 170;
D'Avenant's version, 73

Thalia Theatre, see Bowery Thea
tre

Theatre, The, 7, 8, 9, 10, i^n, i4n,
25, 36, 58

Theatre Comique (New York), 158

Theatre Frangais, 120

Theatre Porte Saint-Martin, 11511

Theatre Royal, see Drury Lane

Thomas, 95

Titus Andronicus, i4n, 34, 45n ;
Ravenscroft's version, 7711

Tom Thumb, 143

Tomlinson, Mrs., 143

Troas, The, 38

Troublesome Reign of King John,
The, i3n, 15, isn, 16, i6n, 22,
55n, 57

True Tragedy of the Duke of York,
The, see Contention, the Second
Part.

True Tragedy of Richard the Third,
The, in, 7, 10, i4n, 16, i7n, 2on,
21, 29, 33, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 52n,
53, 54, 58, 78, 166

Troilus and Cressida (Dryden's),
77n

Unhappy Favorite or the Earl of

Essex, The, 6zr\, 69, 74n
Union Square Theatre, The, 158
Upton, R., 137

186

Vandenhoff, 11711
Vaughan, 102
Villiers, Mrs., J4Qn
Virgin Martyr, The, 73
Virgin Unmasked, The, 102
Virtue Betrayed or Anna Bullen,
6211

Wall, 144; Mrs., 144

Wallacks, The, 164

Ward, Mrs., in

Warner, Mrs., 12611

Warner, Neil, 161

Warning for Fair Women, A, 44,

47, 48, 49
Weisse, C. F., i32n
What You Will, 2n
Whitlock, Mrs., 147,
Wignell, 147, 148, 149

Wilkes, 93, 94, 97, 97n
Williams, H. A., 156; Mrs., 156
Winter's Tale, A (Sheep Shearing),

107

Wit's Miserie, 48, 49n
Woffington, Peg, 93n, xosn, 107
Woodstock, i4n, 27, 34, 35, 46, 46n,

47H
Wounds of Civil War, The, i3n, 16,

46, 47, sin
Wroughton, 120
Wymell, 137

Ximena, g6n

Yates, H3n, I24n; Mrs., 102
Young, Charles, 118

Zara, 143

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

STUDIES IN ENGLISH
Joseph Glanvill

A Study in English Thought and Letters of the Seventeenth Century

By FERRIS GREENSLET, Ph.D.,

Cloth, i2mo pp. xi -(- 235 $1.50 net

The Elizabethan Lyric

By JOHN ERSKINE, Ph.D.,

Cloth, I2mo pp. xvi -f- 344 $1.50 net

Classical Echoes in Tennyson

By WILFRED P. MUSTARD, Ph.D.,

Cloth, i2mo pp. xvi -{-164 $1.25 net

Byron and Byronism in America

By WILLIAM ELLERY LEONARD, Ph.D.,

Paper, 8vo pp. vi -|- 126 $1.00 net

Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature

By MARGARET BALL, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo pp. x-)-i88 $1.00 net

The Early American Novel

By LILLIE DEMING LOSHE, Ph.D.,

Paper, 8vo pp. vii -(- 131 $1.00 net

Studies in New England Transcendentalism

By HAROLD C. GODDARD, Ph.D.,

Paper, 8vo pp. x-|-2i7 $1.00 net

A Study of Shelley's Drama "The Cenci"

By ERNEST SUTHERLAND BATES, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo pp. ix-(-io3 $1.00 net

Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance

By SAMUEL MARION TUCKER, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo pp. xi + 243 $1.00 net

The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in

English

By JACOB ZEITLIN, Ph.D.,

Paper, 8vo pp. viii-)-i77 $1.00 net

Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Theater

By VIRGINIA CROCHERON GILDERSLEEVE, Ph.D.,

Cloth, 8vo pp. vii -{- 259 $1.25 net

The Stage History of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third

By ALICE I. PERRY WOOD, Ph.D.,

Cloth, 8vo $1.25 net

The Macmillan Company, Agents, 66 Fifth Avenue, New York

BINDING SECT. AU6 2 1 1981

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

PR Wood, Alice Ida Perry

2821 The stage history of

W6 Shakespeare's King Richard

the Third

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The stage history of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third"

See other formats