Private theatricals were all the rage during the late 18th century\/ early\n19th century.
\nCertainly, Jane Austen reflected this craze, when she portrayed the young\npeople in Mansfield Park being consumed with the itch for acting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
No one knows exactly why. But certainly from about 1770 genteel British\nsociety was affected by the urge to perform plays in private theatres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And they had to be private and amateur; unlicensed public performances were\nillegal .The Licensing Act of 1737 stipulated a fine of \u00a350 for anyone\nconvicted of acting for \u201chire, gain or reward\u201d in any play or theatrical performance\nnot previously allowed by royal patent or Licensed by the Lord Chamberlain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Marc Baer in his excellent book \u201cTheatre and Disorder in Late Georgian\nLondon\u201d theorizes that private may have been preferable to many of the upper\nclasses who wished to avoid the riots which were so prevalent a part of theatre\ngoing, in the 18th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Also that it was a step by the upper classes to distance themselves from the\nincreasingly plebeian nature of performances at the two Patent theatres in\nLondon. They were once concerned only with productions of serious plays and\nopera, but were increasingly incorporating elements of pantomime, and\nmelodrama, burletta and pure spectacle into the evening\u2019s entertainment. In\nshort the evenings were becoming vulgar. Horrors!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt was beyond everything vulgar I ever saw the people were hollowing and\ntalking to each other from the pit to the gallery, and fighting and throwing\noranges at each other. The play itself was a representation of all the low\nscenes in London… a sort of very low Beggar\u2019s Opera, but it is impossible to\ndescribe the sort of enthusiasm with which it was received by the people who\nseems to enjoy a representation of scenes, in which, from their appearance, one\nmight infer they frequently shared.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n (Extract from a letter written by Mrs. Harriet Arbuthnot, writing about\nseeing a performance of Life in London by Pierce Egan and George Cruickshank at\nthe Adelphi Theatre in 1822.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some of the more prosperous amateur performers constructed very elaborate\nprivate theatres- some were decidedly amateur. Barrymore’s elaborate private theatre was modelled on Vanbrugh\u2019s Kings\nTheatre in the Haymarket. It supposedly seated seven hundred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We know from records of the very elaborate and private theatricals at\nRichmond House – home to the Duke of Richmond (and his daughters, the Lennox\nsister, subjects of Stella Tillyard’s book Aristocrats<\/em>) that these\nprivate theatricals could be very professional indeed. (See future post-Private\nTheatricals at Richmond House.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n This craze for theatricals was reflected in the literature of the time. Jane\nAusten was not the only author who used the craze in her work. Amanda Vickery\nin her book the Gentleman\u2019s Daughter remarks:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe donning of disguise and the doffing of decorum might be thrilling\nfor participants but it could be disquieting to attentive observers, as novels such\nas Jane Austen\u2019s Mansfield Park (1814) Maria Edgeworth\u2019s Patronage (1814) and\nFanny Burney\u2019s The Wanderer (1814) dramatically demonstrated.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n In a note to this part of her text she adds;<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe narrative possibilities inherent in amateur performance were seized\non by novelists, but assessments of the morality of female exhibition differed.\nFanny Price piously refuses to take part in Lovers Vows, which rebounds to her\ncredit. The pure and perfect Caroline Percy declines an invitation to take part\nin Zara, which in the event demonstrates the vanity of her rival, yet Caroline\nremains a sympathetic member of the audience. On the other hand, the\n\u2018incognita\u2019 is allowed to give a dignified performance as Lady Townley in The\nProvoked Husband, which convinces many in the audience of her gentility.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Opinions as to the desirability and correctness of \u2018polite\u2019 females\nappearing on the stage certainly varied as evidenced from these novels, a\nposition certainly reflected by Jane Austen in Mansfield Park.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Certainly, members of the growing Evangelical Movement in the Church of\nEngland voiced grave concerns about such performances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Consider the attitude shown by the Reverend Thomas Gisbourne in his work\n“An Enquiry into the Duties of the Female Sex (1797): he took a stance very\nmuch against this type of theatrical performance. Remember – actresses were\nstill not quite “respectable\u201d at this time in history, despite the success\nof actresses such as Mrs. Siddons, who was a favourite with King George III and\nQueen Charlotte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “For some years past the custom of acting in plays in private\ntheatres, fitted up by individuals of fortune, had occasionally prevailed. It\nis a custom liable to objection among others: that it is almost certain to\nprove, in its effects, injurious to the female performers. Let it be admitted\nthat theatres of this description no longer present the flagrant impropriety of\nladies bearing apart in the drama in conjunction with professional players. Let\nit be admitted, that the drama reflected will in its language and conduct\nalways be irreprehensible. Let it even be admitted, that many theatrical\ntalents will not hereafter gain admission upon such a Stage for men of\nambiguous or worse than ambiguous character. Take the benefit of all these\nfavourable circumstances; yet what is even then the tendency of such an\namusement? To encourage vanity; to excite a thirst of applause and admiration\nof attainments which, if they are to be thus exhibited, it would commonly have\nbeen far better for the individual not to possess; to destroy diffidence, by\nthe unrestrained familiarity with the persons of the other sex, which\ninevitably results from being joined with them in the drama; to create a\ngeneral fondness for the perusal of plays, of which so many are unfit to be\nread; and for attending dramatic representations, of which so many are unfit to\nbe witnessed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Jane Austen read this work, on Cassandra\u2019s recommendation, in 1805. She had\nexpected to dislike it, but surprised herself by approving of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the performances in which we are interested were produced by very\nrespectable people in modest circumstances. I refer to the plays produced first\nin the dining parlour, and later the barn, at Steventon rectory.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Private theatricals were all the rage during the late 18th century\/ early 19th century. Certainly, Jane Austen reflected this craze, when she portrayed the young people in Mansfield Park being consumed with the itch for acting. No one knows exactly … Continue reading
\nPaula Byrne writes in her book Jane Austen and the Theatre remarks;
\nMakeshift theatre mushroomed all over England from drawing room to domestic\nbuildings. At the more extreme end of the theatrical craze member of the\ngentrified classes and the aristocracy built their own scaled down imitations\nof London playhouses. The most famous was that erected in the late 1770s by the\nspendthrift Earl of Barrymore, at a reputed cost of \u00a360,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n