THOMAS WIGNELL AND THE CHESNUT STREET THEATRE

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MTCHIGAN STATE LENNERSITY
TOHT‘T HARULD HERE
1969

Tflhbu: _fl__~ _
- ““9“” ..

LIBRAR! v.
Michim- 9cm
UNVLt t7

   
 
  

 
 
  

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THOMAS WIGNELL AND THE CHESNUT STREET
THEATRE

presented by

John Harold Herr

has been accepted towards fulfillment

 

of the requirements for

Eb . I) . degree in__T.hga_tx-e

MWmlessor
Datem I

 

 

0-169

ABSTRACT
THOMAS WIGNELL AND THE CHESNUT STREET THEATRE

By

John Harold Herr

Thomas Wignell (l752?—1803) is best known as manager
of the Chesnut Street Theatre from 1794 until his death in
1803. Wignell was a native of England and a relative of
the Hallam family who provided the impetus to the growth
of professional theatre in America. At the age of twenty-
two Wignell came to America to Join the American Company
as a performer. Within two days of his arrival, he left
with that company to play in Jamaica throughout the period
of the Revolutionary War.

Wignell was first seen on an American stage in 1785.
He became an immediate favorite and his reputation grew in
stature during the succeeding years. In 1791, he withdrew
from the company of Lewis Hallam, Jr. and John Henry to
establish a theatre in Philadelphia under his own manage-
ment. He was Joined in this venture by Alexander Reinagle.

The years 1791 through 1793 saw Wignell and Reinagle
devoted to the funding of their project, the constructing

of a theatre, the hiring of a company and overcoming

John Harold Herr

opposition to the opening of their theatre. In February,
179“, the Chesnut Street (or New) Theatre was opened in
the capitol of the young nation. Impressive crowds
attended the theatre and the seasons of 179“ and 179A—95
were very encouraging to the managers and their investors.
They built and Operated a second theatre in Baltimore
where their company performed following the seasons in
Philadelphia. Near the end of the 179A-95 season in
Philadelphia, the financial supporters of the theatres
agreed to a large subscription for the payment of existing
debts. In order to float this subscription, both theatres
were mortgaged.

This newly acquired indebtedness plus payments on
the original subscription placed Wignell and Reinagle under
an extremely heavy burden of payments. This burden com-
bined with the high cost of opera production caused the
managers considerable anxiety over finances. Their situ—
ation was made impossible by a recurrence of the plague
in the summers that succeeded 1795. The theatres were
closed because of Yellow Fever. The result of this combi-
nation of problems was that the two men were driven into
bankruptcy and the loss of their investment in the Chesnut
Street Theatre. Following this loss a new arrangement was
made between the managers and the proprietors. Wignell
and Reinagle, who had hoped one day to own the theatre,

were reduced to tenant lessees from that time on.

John Harold Herr

The period of greatest financial stability for
Wignell and the Chesnut Street Theatre followed this
economic crisis of the late eighteenth century and con-
tinued through the remaining few years of Wignell's life.
The organization and operation of the theatre in those
years lay the groundwork for the successful years of
management of Wignell's proteges, William Warren and
William Wood.

The reputation Thomas Wignell earned as a manager
and theatre builder is deserved. Evidence supporting this
reputation and the far more interesting details of his
experiences as recruiter, intimate of the performers in
his company, and struggling servant of his subscribers

constitute the body of this work.

THOMAS WIGNELL AND THE CHESNUT STREET THEATRE
By

John Harold Herr

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Theatre

1969

Copywright by
JOHN HAROLD HERR
1969

Dedicated to

BILL SPIRER

whose death prevented him
from completing his graduate work

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Dr. E° C. Reynolds' professional expertise and his
compassionate understanding of long distance thesis writ—
ing are deeply appreciated. I am most thankful to the
other members of the committee for their criticism and
aid°

The Historical Society of Pennsylvania must be
singled out as an excellent repository of information where
there is a ready willingness on the part of the staff mem-
bers to be helpful. I am particularly indebted to Mrs.
Vilma Halcombe and the other members of the Manuscript
Department there who aided me when I could provide only
the slimest clues to the whereabouts of materials.

Permission for reproduction of the figures used has
been received from The Historical Society of Pennsylvania,
The Public Library of the City of New York, and the Bath
Municipal Libraries and Victoria Art Gallery.

My wife, Linda, has been a marvelous source of
strength to me throughout these years, providing a sensi-

tive mixture of confidence, encouragement and patience.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . Vi
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii
Chapter
I. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD AMERICAN
COMPANY TO 1791 . . . . . . . . 1
II. THOMAS WIGNELL, ALEXANDER REINAGLE, AND
THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE NEW THEATRE. . HO
III. PLANNING AND BUILDING THE CHESNUT STREET
THEATRE, 1791-179“ 0 o o o o o o 66
IV. THE NEW THEATRE, ITS PERFORMING COMPANY,
AND OPENING IN 1794. . . . . . . 111
V. FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF WIGNELL AND THE
CHESNUT STREET THEATRE COMPANY . . . 16”
VI. ACTORS AND AUDIENCES AT THE CHESNUT
STREET THEATRE . . . . . . . . 219
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . 258
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
Appendix
A. Preposals by Messieurs Wignell and
Reinagle for Erecting a New Theatre
in Philadelphia. . . . . . . . . 271

iv

Appendix Page
B. Survey of the New Theatre . . . . . . 275
C. Resolutions and Summary of the Meeting of
Subscribers to the New Theatre, June 25,
1795 o o o O I 0 o o o o o o o 278

D. Excerpts from the Resolutions and Articles
of the Proprietors of the New Theatre,

Philadelphia, 1799 O o o o o o o o 282

E. Prologue Spoken at the First Performance
in Washington, August, 1800 . . . . . 287

F. Articles of Agreement of William Warren
and William Wood with Charlotte Placide . 290
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 298

Figure

10.

LIST OF FIGURES

 

Page

The Southwark Theatre . . . . . . . 6
Title Page of Wignell's Edition of The

Contrast by Royall Tyler . . . . . 61
Design Reproduced on Subscription

Certificate . . . . . . . . . 72
Birch View of the Chesnut Street Theater,

1800. o o o o o o o o o o o 113
Facade of the Chesnut Street Theatre

Designed by Benjamin Latrobe, 1805. . 114
Ground Plan for the Chesnut Street

Theatre, 1806. . . . . . . . . 116
View of the Auditorium and Stage from

the New York Magazine, 1794 . . . . 121
Sketch of Auditorium as Imagined by the

Author . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Exterior of the Theatre Royale, Bath,

England, 1784. . . . . . . . . 140
Interior of the Theatre Royale, Bath,

England, 1784. . . . . . . . . 141

vi

INTRODUCTION

This is a study of Thomas Wignell and his relation-
ship to the Chesnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia, from
1791 to February, 1803.

The major purpose of this work is to provide infor—
mation about the operation of a theatre and the super-
vision of its playing company at the time the professional
theatre began to make important strides towards acceptance
in American society. An additional, though secondary, pur-
pose is to correct some information used in other histories
and combat impressions that may be gained from writings
that are general or superficial in their treatment of
Wignell and the period in which he worked as a manager.

Studies in the management of early American theatres
begin with the Chesnut Street Theatre, but focus on its
history after 1800. The early years of that theatre
deserve more intensive study. Philadelphia was considered
the theatrical center of America from 1790 until approxi-
mately 1815 and the theatre of consequence in Philadelphia
was the theatre built by Wignell and his partner, Alexander
Reinagle. This theatre, erected in 1792-94, was called

"01d Drury" after 1800 because it had established a

vii

reputation which merited, for some, comparison with Drury
Lane in London. The efforts of Wignell and Reinagle
gained the reputation that invited this comparison.

In this study, because of the desire to provide an
objective picture of forces supporting and opposing the
theatre, the reader may receive the impression that the
theatre was unpopular in Philadelphia. Every community
in the early United States had a segment of its pOpu-
lation that presented Opposition to the introduction of
theatre within its boundaries. Usually religious groups
led the opposition and the Quakers were strongly opposed
to playing in Philadelphia. However, Philadelphia had a
population of over fifty thousand in 1800 and sufficient
numbers of these people were frequenters of the theatre
to insure its success. Indeed Philadelphia was a thriving
theatrical center in the first decades of the nineteenth
century.

Wignell is of particular interest as the manager of
the Chesnut Street Theatre responsible for the choice of
plays, actors, costumes, scenery, and many of the financial
decisions made in the theatre. Wignell's determination,
despite numerous disappointments, to produce plays and
to entertain single him out as a dedicated and persever-
ing professional. He was an important pioneer in the
development and expansion of theatrical activity in this

country.

viii

Records of management practices and procedures in the
American theatre before 1800 are practically non—existent.
William Warren's journal beginning in 1796 is the only
extant record of accounts of the Chesnut Street Theatre
in its first days, though it was not an official document
of the managers in the first years it was kept. Examin-
ing the evidence of Wignell's experiences will provide
information about the problems of directing the affairs
of a theatre and an acting company during the early
Federal era in America.

Previous studies of the theatre in Philadelphia in

the period 1790-1805 have been general in nature and none
has focused on the particular role of Thomas Wignell.
Ruth H. MacKenzie's doctoral dissertation, "Organization,
Production, and Management at the Chestnut Street Theatre,
Philadelphia, from 1791 to 1820," concentrates heavily on
the period after 1800 when records were more complete and
indicates no knowledge of the managerial crises of 1797,

1798, and 1799. Thomas Clark Pollock's The Philadelphia

 

Theatre in the Eighteenth Century includes an incredibly

 

valuable Day Book of performances and performers, but its
treatment is in the nature of a survey of the whole cen—
tury, and, while it outlines the development of the
Chesnut Street Theatre, it is most useful for the day

book it provides. Written for newspaper circulation in

ix

the Philadelphia Sunday Dispatch for the years 1855 to

 

1860, "The Philadelphia Stage from the Year 1749 to the
Year 1855? by Charles Durang, has much relevance for this
study. Durang's primary source for the period of prime
interest here was his father, John, a performer during
that time whose memoirs have just recently been published
by the American Society for Theatre Research. A disser-

tation by Richard B. Stine, later published as The Phila-

 

delphia Theatre, 1682-1829: Its Growth as a Cultural

Institution, is more of an evaluation of a social phe-

 

nomenon than a specific history of a theatre or a man.
The recent and important additions to the general history

of American theatre, e.g., Barnard Hewitt's Theatre USA,

 

1668—1957, and Glenn Hughes' The History of the American

 

 

Theatre, Dunlap's History of the American Theatre, and the
efforts of T. Allston Brown, Arthur Hornblow and others.

Reese D. James' Cradle of Culture 1800-1810 is a useful,

 

though not completely accurate, contribution to the history
of the Chesnut Street Theatre.

Wignell and his co-manager, Alexander Reinagle, appear
not to have kept a record or diary of the sort recorded by
their proteges, William Wood and William Warren. Some of
the managers' correspondence remains among the manuscripts
in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and The Library

Company of Philadelphia has approximately a dozen scripts

of the Chesnut Street Theatre Company. The correspondence
of some of the prominent citizens who invested in the
theatre includes references to Wignell and the Theatre.
Diaries are particularly useful for general information
about social conditions and customs as well as specific
details about the physical theatre and playgoing. Exten-
sive diaries kept by foreign visitors while traveling in
America have provided some of the best descriptions of
the theatre, its decor, audiences, and details of per-
formances.

Of the newspapers consulted, the mose useful are

The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser,

 

The General Advertiser and Political, Commercial, Agri-

 

cultural, and Literary Journal Daily (later simply The

 

General Advertiser), The Pennsylvania Gazette, and Poulson's

 

 

Daily American Advertiser. The Pennsylvania Magazine of

 

History and Biography and The New York Magazine or Literary

 

 

 

Repository are periodicals that contain entries that are

 

meaningful to this study. Included in these works is
information about the acting company, competitive enter-
tainments, natural disasters that prevented playing in
Philadelphia, problems the theatre experienced with its
patrons, and various bits of information that supplement
the broader references and provide a more complete picture

of the theatre.

xi

The first chapter presents a brief history of the
development of the 01d American Company to 1791. Included
in this account is the entrance of Thomas Wignell into the
life of the American theatre, the struggle in Philadelphia
for the legal right to play in that city, some account of
the players' vicissitudes, and a description of Wignell's
separation from the 01d American Company.

Following this last event, the guidance in the
planning and construction of "The New Theatre in Chesnut
Street" was taken up by Wignell in conjunction with
Alexander Reinagle, a prominent musician of the period.
Chapter II focuses on these men, providing background in-
formation about their training and experience. A list of
people who were original subscribers to the theatre is
included in this chapter. This group included singularly
prominent figures in the early Federal era. Their support
of the theatre indicates the concern citizens felt for a
"rational amusement" as an integral part of a civilized
community.

The months of planning and construction from the
summer of 1791 when Wignell broke with the Old American
Company until the official opening of the theatre in
February, 1794, resulted in a structure unique in America
at that time. Americans were finally able to attend plays

in a "modern" theatre that had been designed expressly for

xii

the purpose Of playing. Chapter III is a study of the
period Of planning and construction.

The theatre was only partially completed when it
Opened in February, 1794. Descriptions and a drawing Of
the inside Of the theatre suggest the advanced state Of
completion Of the auditorium and stage at that time.
However, the facade Of the building was not finished
for a decade and rooms that were tO adjoin the lobby
and auditorium were unfinished for some time after regu-
lar performances had begun. The accommodations for the
performers were considered comfortable and the initial
season was begun with enthusiasm and optimism. Chapter
IV is devoted to the physical characteristics Of the
theatre, the company Wignell had hired for the opening
Of the theatre, and some reaction to the Opening.

Chapter V is a financial history Of the New
Theatre during Wignell's tenure there, viewing the impedi-
ments to success, efforts to recover from adversity, finan-
cial disaster, and some days when things went well for the
company. This chapter also describes the competition from
other forms Of entertainment and the hardships Of playing
in cities other than Philadelphia.

The last chapter focuses on the two essential elements
in the theatre, the performers and the audiences. Wignell's

relationships with his actors and their Opinions Of his

xiii

gOOd Offices are the subject Of the first part Of this
chapter. The growth Of independence for the individual
star is demonstrated and the future Of the star system
seen in microcosm in Wignell's experiences with COOper,
Fennell, and Hodgkinson. Actor-audience interplay is
treated briefly and the behavior Of the patrons is de—
picted by actors and other audience members.

A summary will make an essessment of Wignell as a
manager and conjecture about the possibilities Of im-
provements he might have been able to exact tO insure
continued success throughout his career on Chesnut
Street.

The choice Of the spelling "Chesnut" as Opposed to
"Chestnut" is dictated by the desire tO be historically
correct. References tO the theatre as the "New Theatre"
are included because most contemporary references identify

it in that way.

xiv

CHAPTER I

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD AMERICAN

COMPANY TO 1791

The first important theatrical company in America
was organized in England by William Hallam. Hallam had
been manager of a theatre in Goodman's Inn Fields, London,
during the late 17408. By 1750 the necessity of competing
with the royally approved theatres in Covent Garden and
Drury Lane drove him into bankruptcy.1 In a singular and
impressive vote of confidence, Hallam's investors relieved
him of repayment for losses incurred and gave him the
theatrical trappings that remained in the theatre. Hallam
immediately determined to return to the theatrical wars,
to what Charles Durang called, "a fresh field of action."2
In concert with his brother Lewis, William mounted an

expedition to the "woods and wilds" of America. "Lewis

Hallam was appointed manager, chief magistrate, or king,

 

lWilliam Dunlap, A History of the American Theatre

(New York: J & J Harper, 1832), p. 3.

2Charles Durang, "The Philadelphia Stage from the
Year 1749 to the Year 1855," The Sunday Dispatch (Phila-
delphia), Chapter I.

 

and William who staid at home, to be 'Viceroy over him.'"3

Organized into a commonwealth by William, with responsi-
bilities, parts and shares divided, the company was chosen
to fill various roles popular in the eighteenth century.
Lewis Hallam was the low comedian and his wife played
leading comic and tragic parts. Lewis' small band of
performers embarked in May, 1752 aboard the Charming
Sally.“ Traveling with his parents was Lewis, Jr., age
twelve, who was destined to carry the Hallam name and
association with this company for almost half a century.
The troupe arrived in Virginia, where the least
amount of Opposition to playing was expected, and performed
The Merchant Of Venice for its initial Offering September
15, 1752.5 Known simply as "A Company of Comedians from
London," they played in the colonies until 1754. Mid-
eighteenth century America was predominantly rural; many
of the communities were economically depressed and the
influence Of people with intense religious convictions
against the theatre was prevalent in every colony. There—
fore in 1754 Hallam transfered the company to Jamaica,

where he sought a more lucrative and receptive market.

 

3Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 4.

“Durang, op. cit.

5Glenn Hughes, The History of the American Theatre
1700-1950 (New York: Samuel French, 1951), p. 17.

 

Lewis Hallam, Sr., died the next year in Jamaica and the
company disbanded there.6

. David Douglass, an actor who had come to Jamaica
from England in 1751, succeeded Hallam as husband and
manager. With only Mrs. Douglass and her son Lewis from
the original company, Douglass gathered a corps of per-
formers and arrived in America in 1758. From 1758 to
1762 and from 1766 to 1774, Douglass led this band to
the larger population centers in the American Colonies
to provide seasons of theatrical activity. The company
also appeared in other communities for occasional per-

7 The years 1762 to 1766 saw

formances between seasons.
the company in residence in Jamaica for the second time.
This second period of absence was prompted by danger to
the players from the Sons of Liberty and the difficulties

lcaused by playing during the French and Indian War.

 

6Arthur Hornblow, A History of the Theatre in America
from Its Beginnings to the Present Time (New York: J. B.
Lippincott A 00., 1919), I, p. 96. Hewitt gives a false
impression in his discussion of the Hallam Company, i.e.,
that its personnel experienced continued membership until
after the Revolutionary War; see his chapter on "The
Original Pioneers" in Theatre USA 1668—1957 (New York:
McGraw-Hill Company, Inc., 19597.

7Philadelphia enjoyed a season from April 15 to
June 24, 1754, another June 25 to December 28, 1759. Other
cities large enough to support seasons were Annapolis,
Williamsburg, Charlestown, Providence and New York. There
are records of announcements for seasons as brief as one
month and as long as eleven months. Local conditions,
e.g., plague or irate moralism, cut short seasons that
were planned for longer periods.

 

Returning from Jamaica in 1766, Douglass was joined
in the management responsibilities by two performers in
the company, John Henry, and Lewis Hallam, Jr. John Henry,
an Irishman, had been brought into the company as an actor
during the second sojourn to Jamaica. The three managers
gave up the title "Comedians from London." At this juncture
in American history, identification with the mother country
was not apt to gain popular support for them. They re-
sumed playing in Philadelphia as "The American Company."
Douglass executed plans for a new theatre to be raised
just outside the city limits of Philadelphia. This was to
be the first of Douglass' theatres for he subsequently
built playhouses in New York, Annapolis, and Charlestown.

The theatre, built in 1766 in Philadelphia, became
known as the Southwark. The area Of Southwark had been
named after Southwark, an area just across the Thames from
London, England. A number of Elizabethan theatres had been
constructed in the latter setting to avoid the jurisdiction
of the Lord Mayor and the Common Council of London. Though
Philadelphia had no Lord Mayor nor Common Council, the de-
cision to locate in South Street was undoubtedly made to
elude the jurisdiction Of the city authorities.

Permission to build had been Obtained from Governor
Denny on condition that a benefit performance be played
for the Pennsylvania Hospital. Quakers residing in the

area applied for an injunction against the theatre. The

English Governor, not holding the same prejudices against
plays and playing, denied the injunction.8 The Southwark
Opened despite "a strenuous remonstrance"9 that included a
memorial in Opposition to the theatre presented to the
local government "from a great number of the inhabitants

of the city and county Of Philadelphia of several religious

"10

denominations. For fifty years the Southwark was to

house performances, legitimate and otherwise,11

of actors,
dancers, pantomimists, slackwire experts and other enter—
tainers. Philadelphia was to use this theatre almost
exclusively until the erection of the Chesnut Street
Theatre by Thomas Wignell and Alexander Reinagle during
the years 1792—1794.

The Philadelphia season extended from November 14,
1766 to July 6, 1767 and was a success.12 The length of

this season alone attests the good fortune which accom-

panied it. In the 1766 company, Mrs. Douglass was reduced

 

8Hornblow, Op. cit., p. 104.

9William S. Dye, "Pennsylvania versus the Theatre,"
The Pennsylvania Ma azine of History and Biography, LV
(October, 19317, 35 .

 

10George 0. Seilhamer, History of the American
Theatre (Philadelphia: Globe Printing'House, 1889), I,

m

llPerformances were given more outside the law than
within it as it took Philadelphians until 1789 to legis-
late in favor Of the theatre.

 

12Hughes, Op. cit., p. 39.

.mhuwm
SH. thzflpsom OgBll-nfl @
hswflm

 

. x .n
u...

5 a ..
.
o".
T-

to delivering occasional epilogues and appearing in minor
roles. Lewis, Jr. was the leading young actor and the
portrayer Of heroes.

After closing the Southwark, Douglass and company
moved on to New York, where the building of the John Street
Theatre was already underway. The route most traveled from
Philadelphia to New York was described by John Durang, a
dancer and versatile entertainer, in relating his experi-
ences on a trip from Philadelphia to Boston:

I set out with this man in the stage by way of New

York to Boston. In our passage we pass'd thro'

(Jersey) Bristol, Trenton, Princeton (with a stately

college), New Brunswick, Woodbridge, Bridgetown,

Elizabethtown. From Elizabethtown point we took

passage in an Open boat to New York, distance 11

miles. We stop'd one day in New York; next day

took passage in a packet and sailed up the East

River to New Haven, took passage there in the land

stage thro' Connecticut, by way Of Middletown and

Harford, [sic] then thro' Massachusetts, Spring—

field, Worcester, and Camebridge; [sic] cross'd a

flat bridge upwards of a mile long over a low water

and marshy ground into Boston.13
On another occasion, Durang took passage at Philadelphia
by water to Bordentown, from there to Perth Amboy by coach,
then by water again to New York.

The movement Of an entire company Of performers
posed serious problems to its managers. In fact, Mrs.

Morris, a member of the American Company, perished while

traveling to New York for the Opening there in December,

 

l3A1an s. Downer, ed., The Memoir of John Durang,
American Actor 1785-1816 (Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 1966), pp. 13-14.

1767. She and her maid chose to stay inside their carriage
while it was ferried across the Hudson River. As the ferry
neared the shore the carriage was overturned and both
ladies drowned.lu

Douglass and his partners must have been dismayed
at the news of Mrs. Morris' death. In 1767, replacing a
mature female member Of the company would have been very
difficult. There were no trained performers from which
to choose. A replacement from London would take three
months or more. The effect on the company's repertoire
would be to alter or curtail it considerably.

The American Company was not as successful in the
New York season Of 1767-1768 as it had been in Philadelphia.
Odell's comments are indicative of the troubles. "We are
glad that the perplexed manager had on this occasion
[December 17, 1767] at least a crowded house; I fear busi-
ness throughout the six months of the season was far from

15

uniformly good." He also comments, ". . . what with hard

times and hard moralists the company was having a bitter

16

road of it toward ever diminishing returns." The players

looked to Philadelphia as a more popular "home" than New

 

1“The Mercury (New York), December 14, 1767.

15George C. D. Odell, Annals Of the New York Sta e
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1927), I, p. 11 .
The occasion was the entertaining of ten Cherokee Chiefs
who witnessed Richard III and a pantomime, The Oracle.

16

 

 

Ibid., p. 126.

York. This was true throughout the period previous to the
Revolutionary War despite strong Opposition to the theatre
in that city.17 "Philadelphia and the Southland were more
lucrative fields for the players." Corroboration for this
comment by Odell is provided by a letter Douglass wrote in
1769. Though unaddressed, the thought is advanced that

the probable recipient was Governor John Penn of Pennsyl-

l8

vania.

Sir,

The great Indulgence, your Honour has, so Often
been good enough to show me, while it demands every
grateful acknowledgement, a breast, I hOpe, not in-
sensible, can possibly entertain, covers me with
Shame, when the Situation of our Affairs, make so
frequent Applications absolutely necessary.

I had flatter'd myself, that I shou'd not, for
a Year to come, at least, have given your Honour any
Trouble, but a Disappointment at Carolina, and the
recent loss of a great and honour'd Friend and Patron,
whose Memory will be ever dear to the American Theatre,
has made such a change in our Circumstances, that
nothing but an exertion of that Humanity, which you
possess in so eminent a Degree, can save us from
Destruction.

Let my Situation speak for me, and, with your
usual goodness, do not think me importunate, if I
sollicite your Honour for Permission to Open the
Theatre, for a short time, this Winter, previous to
my going to Annapolis, where I propose spending the
Remainder Of it.

The Maid Of the Mill, the Padlock, and some
other Pieces, not perform'd, hitherto, on the Stage,
will, I flatter myself, give Your Honour some Enter-
tainment.

I shou'd not have made my application in this
Manner, but wou'd have waited on you myself, were
not my feelings, upon the Occasion, too great, to
permit me to say what I ought.

 

l7Dye, Op. cit., and Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 13.

18Thomas Clark Pollock, The Philadelphia Theatre in

the Eighteenth Century (Philadelphia: University Of
Pennsylvania Press, 1933), p. 25.

 

 

10

I shall intrude no farther upon your time, than
to assure you, that it is impossible for any Person,
among the Numbers who have been the Objects of your
Benevolence to have a more grateful sense of it,

than
Sir
Your Honour's most
Obedt. and Oblig'd hum. Serv.
October 5th David Douglass
1769

During the years 1768 to 1774 the American Company
played primarily in Philadelphia and the South. In the
latter year preparations were underway for a season to
extend into 1775 when, because of the imminence of war
and the gravity of life at that moment, the Association of
the First Congress in session in Philadelphia passed the
following resolution:

We will, in our several stations, encourage frugality,

economy, and industry, and promote agriculture, arts

and the manufactures Of this country, especially that
of wool; and will discountenance and discourage every
species Of extravagance and dissipation, especially
all horseracing, and all kinds of gaming, cock-
fighting, exhibitions Of shews, plays, and other

expensive diversions and entertainments. . . .

Douglass learned of the move in a personal letter
from Peyton Randolph, President of the Congress. The American
Company could only bow to such a weighty resolve. "Their
[the Association's] recommendation was a law to those who
looked to them as the assertors of their rights--the thea—

tres were closed-—and the Thespians embarked for the more

loyal colonies Of the English West Indies."19 While some

 

19Dunlap, op. cit., p. 35.

ll

Of the performers might have been sympathetic with American
causes, the majority are described as loyalists.2O It
seems safe to suppose that they left expecting a rather
hasty conclusion to what they considered to be a temporary
inconvenience.

Among those who joined this expedition to the West
Indies was a young actor who had arrived from London the
day previous to the signing of the Resolution by the
Assembly. Thomas Wignell, who was not to be seen across
the footlights by an American audience for ten more years,
had hied himself Off to have his hair done and was com—
fortably settled when he was informed of Douglass' intent

21

to withdraw. Wignell, having been sent out by his cousin,

William Hallam of London, promptly joined Douglass and com—
pany.

The decade following the congressional move against
playing saw little theatrical activity, particularly where
professionals were concerned. During the period from
October 1774 to 1777, no theatrical performances are re—

corded.22

The Congress remained in Philadelphia until
the occupation Of that city by the British, September 26,
1777. Soon after the entry Of the British Army into
Philadelphia, some Officers of that troop organized per-

formances at the Southwark. The seriousness with which

 

2Olhid. 2llbid.

22See Odell, Op. cit., pp. 179-184 for New York;
Pollock, op. cit., p. 130 for Philadelphia.

12

they approached their playing is indicated by the hiring
of a staff consisting of a "clerk, bookkeeper, treasurer,
carpenters, sceneshifters, and doormen."23 The "Martial
Players" or "Howe's Strolling Players" gave thirteen per-

8.2u The

25

formances between January 19 and May 19, 177
performers were amateurs and predominantly British.
Less than a month after the final performance in
May, the city was recaptured by the revolutionaries and
no time was wasted in reaffirming the then historic
opposition to the theatre. Unfortunately for those who
might have been ambitious to play, the respresentatives
Of the Crown, who had formerly interfered in their behalf,
were no longer on the scene. The Assembly, meeting March
10, 1779, enacted "An Act for the Suppression Of Vice
and Immorality" and Section X of that Act reads:
. . . every person and persons whatsoever, that
shall from and after the publication of this act,

erect, build or cause to be erected or built any
play house, theatre, stage or scaffold for acting,

 

V—

23Willard O. Mishoff, "Business in Philadelphia
1777-1778," The Pennsylvania Ma azine of History and
Biography, LXI (April, 1937), 1 5.

24

 

Hughes, Op. cit., p. 47.

25Although Dye (p. 360) suggests that the performers
were a combination Of professionals and amateurs, it is
unlikely that the actresses were working professionals,
i.e., making their livelihood performing. There were
women who traveled with the British army but nothing has
come to my attention to support the notion that they were
actresses. The male roles were played by Officers,
amateurs certainly.

13

showing, or exhibiting any tragedy, comedy or tragi-
comedy, farce, interlude or other play or any part
Of a play whatsoever or that shall act, show or
exhibit them or any of them or be in any wise con—
cerned therein, or in selling any tickets for that
purpose in any city, town or place in this common-
wealth and be thereof legally convicted in any

court of quarter sessions in this commonwealth

shall forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred
pounds.26

History was playing quaint tricks on the theatre in
the Western Hemisphere. For, while the British soldiery
at various times in Boston, New York and Philadelphia were
entertaining what had to be, at least in part, American
audiences, the members of the American Company were enter—
taining almost completely British audiences in Kingston,
Jamaica. "The audiences in Jamaica were to a great extent
military and naval," says Seilhamer, "the repertoire was
naturally moulded to the taste of this important element

"27 A notion of this taste

among the company's patrons.
is suggested by the list Of the "Familiar Pieces" of the

professionals in Jamaica: The Beaux Strategem, The Busy-

 

body, The Constant Couple, The Distressed Mother, The

Gamester, The Jealous Wife, Lionel and Clarissa, Love in

 

a Village, The Recruiting Officer, several other plays

 

 

and eight farces.28

 

26Statutes of Pennsylvania, XII, 313-322.

27Seilhamer, Op. cit., p» 145.

281bid., p. 146.

14

Records Of the playing in Jamaica between 1774 and
1783 are sketchy. The players continued to refer to them-
selves as the American Company, despite the persecution
it cost them among the loyalists in Kingston and the other
communities where they played.29 Familiar names appear in
the cast lists of performances. Hallam, Morris, Woolls,
Goodman,3O Mrs. Morris and Miss Storer had all played
prominently in America before their "exile." Conspicuous
by his absence from these roles is John Henry. Seilhamer
attributes this to sickness that plagued the man for some
time. When he was "brought out" in Jamaica, he continued
to be a pOpular figure, playing leading parts in benefit
performances.31

Thomas Wignell was playing the major comic roles and
third leads for the American Company in Jamaica by the late
1770's. His prominence in the company warranted him bene-
fit performances. John Henry thought highly enough of

Wignell to come out Of "retirement" to act in one Of his

benefits.32

 

29See letter, pp. 9-10.

3OJ. T. Scharf and Thompson Westcott, History Of
Philadelphia (Philadelphia: L. H. Evarts and CO., 1884),
II, p. 966. Goodman was added to the American Company in
1770 or 1772. He had studied law in the colonies before
experiencing "an irresistible vocation for the stage."

31

 

 

Seilhamer, Op. cit., pp. 146—147.

32Ibid.

15

While the Opportunity to play in Jamaica must have
been gratifying, the desire to return to the theatres that
Douglass had newly built between 1765 and 1770 was very
strong. The Jamaican adventure was unprofitable. The
professionals in Douglass' company must have been galled
that performances in the island capital by military per-

33 As early as 1782, Henry and,

sonnel outdrew their own.
in 1784, Hallam were in the colonies again preparing to
take up their Old stands. David Douglass, the former
manager, does not appear again in the history Of the Ameri—
can Company, as he retired in the Indies.3u

Following the passage of the 1779 law to continue
the prohibition of playing, a decade elapsed before the
elected Officials of Philadelphia legally sanctioned pro—
ductions Of plays in that city. This decade saw a series
of stormy exchanges that resulted in the authorized
acceptance of this diversion in the second largest city
in the English speaking world on March 2, 1789. The
struggle in Pennsylvania is well documented in William S.
Dye, Jr.'s "Pennsylvania versus the Theatre."

Lewis Hallam, Jr. and John Henry appear to have

parted ways during the Jamaican days. We know Henry re-

turned to the colonies as early as 1782 and secured

 

33Ibid.

3“Hornblow, op. cit., p. 163.

l6

permission to play in Maryland as is indicated in the letter
quoted below. Henry's letter, addressed to President Moore
of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, gives the
impression that he was acting as representative for the
American Company.

As I have not the honor to be personally known to
your Excellency, I presume the inclosed, which I

had the pleasure of receiving the day before my
departure from Jamaica, from a gentleman whose
attachment to the cause of America (tho' resident
among the British) is, I dare say, too well known

to your Excellency to need mentioning, will explain
who I am and my business on the Continent. At the
same time give me leave to Observe that our leaving
America was at the particular request Of the Honor-
able, the Congress, so early as the latter part of
1774, on which account the Honorable, the Legislature
of the State of Maryland, not three weeks ago passed
an act in our favor, and which, when happier times
arrive, I flatter myself will have some weight in
this State on a similar occasion. I find our theatre
here entirely out Of repair, and a debt for ground
rent and taxes incurred to the amount of l74f'7s 6d.
I learn, also, that it had been used for some time,
by permission, for the Exhibition of a Wire Dancer.
On this account I presume to address your Excellency
for permission for one night only tO deliver a
Lecture on Heads, for the purpose of paying the
above debt incurred since our banishment, the nature
Of which, I dare say, will have weight with your
Excellency in granting me this favor, particularly
as I venture to affirm The American Company, for
which title (to this hour preserved) they have
suffered no small persecution, are as firmly attached
to the country (tho' absent by command) as any resi-
dents in it.

I shall do myself the honor tO—morrow Of paying
my personal respects to your Excellency, assuring
you that I am with the greatest respect,

Your Excellency's
Most devoted, very humble servant,
John Henry
July 1st, 1782

17

John Henry's plea was denied the very next day. The
authorities were not to be fooled by the deliverance of
a "Lecture on Heads" which, in truth, would be a play
presented under that guise.
After his unsuccessful bid to appear in Philadelphia,
John Henry moved on to New York where he performed several
Of these lectures.35
Hallam appeared in Philadelphia in early 1784. He
petitioned on behalf Of "the comedians, commonly called
The American Company" for the repeal of the law restrain-
ing the performers. Certificates accompanied his petition
signed by a "considerable number of the inhabitants of the
city of Philadelphia and its vicinity." Despite Hallam's
efforts, on February 14, 1784, a bill to repeal the restric-
tive law was defeated. Undaunted by the lack of formal
sanction, Hallam Opened the Old Southwark in December to

36

perform with a small company, "Lectures on Heads."

 

35The entertainment called a "Lecture on Heads" was
first attributed to an English writer, George Alexander
Stevens, who presented such an evening's diversion at the
Haymarket in London in 1762. Included in its various forms
were musical interludes, moral admonitions, historical
commentaries, and didactic parables using the famous plays
as models. For example, part of such a lecture might be a
"moral and instructive tale, called 'Filial Piety Exempli-
fied in the History Of the Prince Of Denmark.'" Lighter
plays were accorded serious descriptions. She StOOps to
Conquer was introduced as "A Lecture on the Disadvantages
of Improper Education, Exemplified in the History of Tony
Lumpkin."

36Hallam, Mr. and Mrs. Allen, the dancer John
Durang and Durang's sister, Caroline.

 

18

Associated with Hallam in the management was a Mr. Allen.
Their company played intermittently until July Of 1785,
when they moved to New York.37
A question arises here as to whether Hallam or

Henry was the authentic representative of the company once
known as the American Company. Both men had left the
colonies for Jamaica in 1774. While there, Hallam's name
appears in the cast lists supplied by Seilhamer as the

leading male player of the company.38

As was pointed out
above, Henry did not play with regularity because of his
health. Henry did play at Drury Lane in London in the
season of 1779—1780.39 Yet very clearly, he was in
America in 1782, as witness his letter to President Moore.
His "mission" in May of that year "seems to have been to
secure to the American Company a confirmation of the
property rights that it had acquired in the theatres

built under Mr. Douglass' supervision.“O

 

37Hornblow, Op. cit., pp. 163-164.

38Seilhamer, Op. cit.

39Hugh F. Rankin, The Theater in Colonial America
(Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press,
1965), p. 197. John Genest in pp. 125-133 of Volume VI
in Some Account of the English Stage from the Restoration
‘in 1660 to 1800 (London: H. E. Carrington, 1832), lists
a Mr. Henry in the following performances: October 18,
1779 as Othello; November 15, 1779 as Beverley in The
Gamester; January 24, 1780 as Cassius in Julius Caesar;
and Posthumus in Cymbeline, a benefit for Henry played
April 18, 1780.

uoSeilhamer, Op. cit., p. 159.

 

 

 

l9

Hallam is difficult to trace but may have spent some
time in England before his arrival in Philadelphia in
1784.41 He appears to have returned to America alone,
though he claimed to be acting in behalf of the American
Company.“2 At least two items cause this claim to be
questioned. Why, if Hallam were acting for members of
his old campany, did he assemble what might be described
as a pick-up collection Of local talent when he did lec—
tures at the Southwark and performances in New York in
1785? Also, why was Henry, upon arriving in New York in
1885 with his company that included the Jamaican performers,
surprised to discover the John Street Theatre already
occupied by Hallam's small contingent?43

Hallam's Philadelphia troupe played New York from
August 24 to October 24, 1785. Included in the casts were
Hallam, Moore, Lake, Allen, Durang, Mrs. Allen and Miss
Durang.uu This company apparently disbanded shortly after
its New York closing, for Allen appears at the head of

his own group in Albany, New York, shortly thereafter.“5

 

ulIbid., p. 177.

u2POllOCk, Op. cit., p. 42.

“3Seilhamer, Op. cit., p. 176.

uuDunlap, op. cit., p. 58.

“5Hornblow, Op. cit., pp. 168-169.

20

In less than a month after the last performance Of
Hallam's company, The Gamester by Moore and Macklin's Love

a la Mode were announced at the John Street Theatre for

 

November 21, the former of these plays with the following

cast:
Beverly....Mr. Henry Stukely ......... Mr. Harper
Lewson.....Mr. Wignell Charlotte.......Mrs. Harper
Jarvis.....Mr. Morris Lucy............Miss Tuke
Dawson.....Mr. Woolls Mrs. Beverley...Mrs. Morris

Bates......Mr. Biddle
Hornblow suggests that Henry proposed a joint venture to
Hallam and that they produced this evening's entertainment
as partners.)46 "Hallam brought to the partnership by which
he and Henry agreed to be bound his property and prestige--
Henry a company that as a whole was superior to any that
had as yet been seen in America."u7

All this suggests that Henry had been the more right-
ful claimant to direct lineage with the former American
Company despite Hallam's closer blood relation to its
founder.

In 1785 the company took the name The Old American
Company.“8 It fell to Henry to provide the prologue to

the November 21 performance:

 

u61bid., p. 164. Dunlap agrees on page 60 Of his
history. The possibility must be allowed that Hornblow
used Dunlap as a source.

u7Seilhamer, Op. cit., p. 177.

u80ral S. Coad, "Willaim Dunlap: A Study of His
Life and Works," Dunlap Society Publications (1917),
p. 31.

21

We went to the island of Jamaica. Ten years we

languished in absence from this our wished for,

our desirable home, and though often solicited

to return . . . we as constantly refused, sup-

posing it incompatible with our duty to the United

States. . . . Many of us have passed the Spring

and Summer of our days in your service, and we are

now returned, trusting we shall be allowed to wind

up peaceably the evening of them, under the happy
auspices of your protection.

There is no surprise in the fact that the cast list
presented above comes from the annals Of the New York
theatre rather than the Philadelphia theatre. Playing
in Philadelphia continued to be difficult and The Old
American Company was absent from that city from its in-
ception in 1785 until January, 1787. In his memoir,
Durang wrote, "Great exsertions where [sic] making at this
time through the city to shut up the theatre." Those per—
formances that had been played illegally roused the ire Of
the legislature of that Quaker community which, in 1786,
repealed the 1779 law in favor of a new law with the same
provisions but heavier penalties.

The Old American Company performed at the Southwark
during 1787, 1788, and into 1789 despite the more severe
law enacted in 1786. These presentations were not dis-
guised as the "Lectures on Heads" had been. The players

were brave enough to include footnotes to their playbills,

naming the specific plays to be presented. Through these

 

“9Hughes, op. cit., p. 54.

22

years Hallam and Henry continued efforts to secure Official
sanction for their activities.

Music did not experience the same strenuous Oppo-
sition as the theatre. Soirees and concerts were pOpular
and accepted. During the seventeen-eighties and nineties,
one of the important figures in the development of music
in Philadelphia was Alexander Reinagle, a conductor, com-
poser, and expert on the piano-forte. Arriving in the
country from England in 1786, Reinagle performed in New
York and then to an enthusiastic response in Philadelphia.
Reinagle's popularity and reputation led to an acquaintance-
ship with Thomas Wignell. In 1791 these two men, with the
support Of some influential Philadelphians, were to pro-
vide the driving force that caused the Chesnut Street
Theatre to be built. The erection of that theatre and
Wignell's success in recruiting performers in England were
to significantly improve the quality of production and
performance in the United States.

The citizens Of Philadelphia were not united in their
reactions to the theatre. Numerous arguments were made in
support Of playing. One of the most sensible arguments put
forward by champions of the theatre was that men should
have the Opportunity and freedom to choose whether or not
they would frequent, and thus support, the stage. As
early as 1784, token support for the theatre had been

provided by selected news publications Of the day. An

23

amusing commentary appeared in The Pennsylvania Packet on

 

April 17 of that year:

Intelligence Extraordinary.—-As the Assembly Of the
State of Pennsylvania have positively refused to
admit of plays, Mr. Hallam, we hear, intends to pur-
chase the building erected for the exhibition of
grand fireworks in Philadelphia (provided it should
withstand a second conflagration), and after they
have been displayed to the great joy and safety Of
every individual present, to convert and metamorphose
it into a playhouse and air balloon, and proposes to
raise it thirteen hundred miles perpendicular over
the State House; for notwithstanding the Assembly
have or pretend to have a right to control all
terrestrial matters within their jurisdiction, we
know [they] have not the least right by charter,

the constitution, or otherways, to the celestrial
regions.

A number of stage balloons are also to be con-
structed to take up such as are inclined to see the
plays and bring them safe back again, GRATIS.

This seems to be a judicious plan and will be
a very great saving to the company of comedians;
moreover, as they will be at so great a distance
from the earth, their ideas will be subtilized
and enlightened and Of consequence their plays for
the future to be more sublime, rarified and free
from all heterogeneous matters, so as not to Offend
the ears of the most immaculate Puritan.

The struggle wore on and in the spring Of 1788, at
the behest of Hallam and Henry, the Pennsylvania Assembly
appointed a committee to investigate the problem of playing.
This committee returned a recommendation favorable to the
licensing Of a theatre. But time passed and the motion
was tabled.

Finally, with the help Of a group of prominent
citizens, a Dramatic Association was organized to direct
the activity in favor of establishing a "Theatre in

Philadelphia, under a liberal and properly regulated

24

plan."50 Meeting first on the twelfth Of January, 1789,
and thereafter almost weekly until the repeal was passed,51
these interested people prepared a petition to be presented
to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania. The petition,
entered in the Minutes of the Assembly, for February 6,
carried the signatures of nineteen hundred Philadelphians.
Eleven days later, thirty-four hundred signatures were
provided by inhabitants Opposing the theatre.

A petition presented by a committee of the Dramatic
Association on the seventeenth of February indicates the
enlightened character Of that association. The document
submitted by the association contended that the existing
law took from the citizens "the natural right of every
freeman to dispose of his time and money, according to
his own taste and disposition, when not Obnoxious to the

real interests of society."52

The Objectivity Of this
epistle is substantiated by the following inclosure:
"while . . . we cannot admit that a theatre is the temple
Of vice, we presume not to insist that it is the school

of virtue."53

 

50Independent Gazeteer, January 7, 1789, p. 1.

 

51See Independent Gazeteer, January 17, 1789;
Pennsylvania Packet and Dairy_Advertiser, February 3.

 

 

52Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Evening Post,
February 17, 1789.

 

53Ibid.

25

The debate that accompanied the consideration of the
repeal measure was heated. Those sympathetic to the
theatre and who spoke for it included Robert Morris,

54

General Anthony Wayne and George Clymer. Members of
the Assembly were undoubtedly aware of the sentiments Of
that famous American, George Washington. Washington
attended the theatre and was in sympathy with its pre-
sence in the community.55 However, he was not a Pennsyl—
vanian and had no voice in this Assembly.

The final tally Of petitioners was approximately
four thousand Opposed to repeal Of the prohibitive law
and six thousand in favor of repeal. On March 2, 1789
the Assembly repealed the act prohibiting "theatrical
representations . . . within the city of Philadelphia and
the neighborhood thereof." It is not clear whether the
Assembly was moved by the eloquent plea of the Dramatic

Association, the six thousand signatures, or a combination

of these interests and supporters Of the theatre who were

 

5“Morris is referred to as "the financier of the
American Revolution." He was a member of the Council of
Safety in Pennsylvania, later its President in Franklin's
absence, a signer of the Declaration Of Independence, and
member of the Constitutional Convention and U. S. Senator.
Wayne was most significant as a soldier in the war with
the British, though he worked hard for passage Of the
Constitution. Clymer was treasurer for the Continental
Congress, served on the Boards Of treasury and war, and
a signer of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.

55Paul L. Ford, Washington and the Theatre (New
York: Dunlap Society Publications, 1889).

 

26
members Of the Assembly. While providing for perusal and
possible censorship of the literature to be staged in
Philadelphia, the measure enacted had no provisions re-
garding the geographical setting of theatrical productions.
Consequently, the young country was soon to see construction
Of its most sumptuous eighteenth century playhouse in the
heart of that city.

Hallam and Henry had not been idle during the ex-
changes over the legalization of playing. Performances by
their company were staged while the battle raged. They
may have had petitions available at the theatre in South—
wark, although no records have been found by this researcher
to attest Henry and Hallam's soliciting signatures for
petitions supporting repeal Of the existing laws. Immedi-

ately following the repeal, it was announced in The Pennsyl-

 

vania Packet and other newspapers that the "Old American
Company BY AUTHORITY" would perform on the ninth of March,
1789:
A TRAGEDY --- called
THE ROMAN FATHER
An Occasional Prologue by Mr. Hallam,
In Act Fifth
AN OVATION
For Publius's Victory over the Curiatti.

End Of the Play a Hornpipe,
By Mr. Durang

To which will be added — A Comedy -—— called,

THE LYAR56

 

56March 9, 1789.

27

Fifteen more performances are recorded before April fourth
when the company withdrew because Of commitments to the
John Street Theatre in New York.

An examination Of the circumstances surrounding the
efforts Of members and friends of the Dramatic Association
to bring about the legalization Of the theatre in Phila-
delphia suggests that the drive to provide "a rational
amusement" and freedom of speech and assembly was a drive
prompted by other considerations as well. For example,
the hope expressed that theatre would not be included in
legislation condemning "vice and immorality" was undoubt—
edly put forth in the firm belief that this was an in-
appropriate categorization. It is reasonable to expect
that some supporters of the association might benefit
monetarily from the development of new business on Chesnut
Street. In addition, it is conceivable that the supporters
of the theatre might have been looking to the future in the
hope that performances might one day be more convenient,
and in a more pleasant setting than the twenty—three year
Old theatre in South Street. A prideful motive might have
made advocates, interested in the accoutrements of an
enlightened and progressive city, anxious for a place Of
amusement for distinguished domestic and foreign guests.

This conjecturing is not without foundation. The
Old Southwark, a rather crude building, was constructed

as a theatre in 1766. It had been criticized as

 

28

. . . an ugly ill-contrived affair outside and in.
The stage [was] lighted by plain oil lamps without
glasses. The view from the boxes was intercepted
by large square wooden pillars supporting the upper
tier and the roof.57

Nothing leads one to suppose this evaluation is overstated.
The unpleasantness described by a visitor extended to the
approaches to the theatre.

In rainey [sic] weather it was almost impossible

to approach the theatre within one square Of it,
upon account Of the intervening mud and pools Of
water. South Street, and those streets in its
neighborhood, were unpaved. Previously to this

time it was usual to lay planks on such occasions
from Fourth and Fifth streets down to the theatre.
On Opening the theatre this season, it was announced
that a new brick pavement had been laid down to the
theatre from Lombard street. On one evening, before
these arrangements, the audience was taken by sur-
prise. The weather was extremely fine when they
went to the theatre, but, during the performances,

a violent storm came on, which continued the whole
night. The audience, male and female, and children
of all sizes, had to wade waist deep into the city,
there being no hackney coaches at the time to 5
accommodate the public in so sudden an exigency.

In January, 1790, Hallam and Henry Opened the theatre
and closed only three days later for "Alterations and
Improvements . . . to prevent the Complaints Of the
Theatre."59 The heat and humidity during the summers

were problems also for, in 1791, fire engines were

 

57John F. Watson, Annals Of Philadelphia and Pennsyl-
vania in the Olden Time (Philadelphia: The Author, 1879),
I, p. 410.

58Durang, Op. cit., Chapter XIV.

59Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser,
January 13, I790.

29

hired to play water on the roof in hopes Of providing com-
fort for the customers.60

Dissatisfaction with the theatre extended beyond the
physical plant. While loyalty to England was not popular
in matters of state, the customs regarding artistic talent
were another matter. George Clymer's question Of the
Assembly during the repeal debate, "Are we forever to be
indebted to other nations for genius, wit, and refinement?"61
might not have received a general acknowledgment, but many
Americans expected and demanded that talent be imported.
For some older Americans memories of Garrick and Macklin
remained and roused thoughts of the fine performances seen
in England.

The long war and its unsettled aftermath, plus
religious and social opposition to the theatre, acted as
strong deterrents to the stage as a vocational choice. It
must further be admitted that no training facilities
existed in the new States for the preparation Of actors.
Rarely could a nativeborn aspirant apprentice himself to
one Of the established companies and hope to be recognized
as a talent. In fact, no prominent performers found this

the route to success in the eighteenth century. The fact

that Dunlap and others make note of any American performer,

 

6ODurang, Op. cit., Chapter XV.

61Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 56.

30

however secondary his position in a company, indicates

the unlikeliness Of rising to importance through an

apprenticeship.62

Judging from the following, printed in the Federal
Gazette, February 11, 1791, Hallam and Henry had, as early
as the first months of 1789, suggested they would re—
plenish their company with English talent:

To Messrs. Hallam and Henry,

The friends Of the Drama, more particularly,
the members of the late dramatic association, whose
labour and influence procured for you the license
for Opening the Theatre in this city, have become
so much dissatisfied with your want Of attention,
tO the promises you made them relative to strength-
ening your company by good actors from Europe, that
they are determined to evince publicly their resent-
ment of your conduct, which is the more seriously
roused by the information, that there are now seven
or eight good actors in Virginia, who came to America
for the avowed purpose of joining your company . . .
they have made you a tender of their services . . .
and . . . you have refused them. . . . This being
the case, you cannot reasonably flatter yourselves
with the hOpe of further indulgence toward some Of
your company; but, on the contrary, you may depend
ere long, to hear hiss! hiss! Off! Off whenever they
appear in characters for which they are not fully
qualified. The manner in which your gentleman
dancer from Europe was on Saturday evening received,
you may consider as a specemen [sic] of this determi-
nation; but as that kind of disapprobation to your
company comes with reluctance, a reasonable time
will be allowed you to procure actors of ability.
These sentiments would have been communicated to
you privately, but the inattention you have hither-
to shown to the personal applications of several
respectable citizens, leave us without the hope Of
attention.

 

 

62Ibid., p. 89.

63Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser,
February 11, 1791.

 

31

Hallam and Henry replied that they indeed had tried to
procure the actors from Virginia and had received an
indication of interest from these actors; however, the

management in Virginia had increased their salaries,

causing them to remain in the South.“1 In this same

reply, the Old American managers submitted that they
had "exerted themselves to obtain an addition of good
actors to their company from Europe," and that they had
every reason to hope that they would be "eventually
successful."

The word "eventually" would appear to have been ill
chosen. The next volley from the Opposition leveled on
February twenty-first indicated a desire for early action
and a threat Of reprisals should there be no action:

TO the Editor Of the Federal Gazette
Sir,

As the friends to the drama seem dissatisfied
with the conduct of the managers of the Theatre,
and as the managers conceive they have, in every
respect done their duty, I would prOpose an associ-
ation of the citizens for the purpose of erecting an
independent theatre, and encouraging performers who
will make greater exertions to please.

I beg leave just to hint to the managers Of
the present company, that the act of assembly re-
specting that theatre, will shortly expire; and I
would ask them whether they can expect similar
exertions, on the part of the citizens of Phila-
delphia, to those made some time ago in their favor?

Their promises to bring over performers from
Europe have not been fulfilled: Mr. Hallam can sit
at his ease in one Of the boxes, a whole evening,
and oblige Mr. Harper to appear in Egg different

 

6“Ibid” February 15, 1791.

32

characters: Mrs. Henry and Mrs. Morris seldom, if
ever appear on the same evening, though the general
complaint is, that they are exceedingly deficient
in female performers.

The pity Of the audience is excited, on seeing
the inferior actors, eternally brought forward in
parts above their abilities.

In a word, Mr. Brown, if we are to have no
better regulations at the theatre, I shall most
heartily give my consent to shut the doors; and
this I can assure you, might easily be done. . .

A Citizen 5

The proposal for an alternate theatre, the threat to bring
pressure against the existing theatre, and the strong dis-
satisfaction with the managers and the company, presented
tO enterprising souls the cue for action. Very shortly,
the cue was to be taken up.

The Old American Company was not without internal
problems to add to its difficulties. Hallam is reputed
to have referred always to Henry as "a splendid amateur

66

actor," and they were described as being "constantly at

67

Odds." Henry was bad tempered and, occasionally, Hallam

beat him for his troubles. One night in 1789 shortly after
Henry had been mauled by another man,

. . . he had to set-to with Mr. Hallam in the dress-
ing—room Of the Southwark Theatre, in which, not-
withstanding he was a large man and Hallam but five
feet seven in stature, he was beaten. . . . It was
said the two managers never agreed but once, and

 

65Ibid.

66Rankin, Op. cit.

67Ibid., p. 196.

33

then it was in an emergency. . . . That emerggncy
was in an overturned boat in the Schuylkill.

Mrs. Henry was also a problem. She was harshly
criticized for being capricious where her audience was
concerned and unwilling to play Often.69 Dunlap was
stymied in attempts to bring out his first play, Modest
Soldier, because

There was no part suited to Henry, and he was the
acting and efficient manager. There was no part
suited to his wife, and she was another efficient
manager. The best man's part was intended for
Wignell. The best woman's part was cast by the
author for Mrs. Morris, as the representative of
the lively comedy lady. The acting manager and
his manager were jealous of, and at variance with
Hallam and Wignell, and Mrs. Morris was patronised
by Wignell. . . . Buoyed up by hope and expectation
. . . [I] proceeded to write a second, in which,
without design, one part was suited to Henry, an-
other did not displease his wife, and the lively
lady [Morris] was evidently inferior70 to the
character assigned to the manager's lady. This
second comedy was seized with avidity by Henry.
The author was persuaded to let the second come
out first, and the first was ultimately consigned
to Oblivion.71

Mrs. Morris was the more popular actress but Mrs.
Henry's relation to the manager provided her with finest

roles when she wished them. As Dunlap indicates, Wignell

 

68Seilhamer, Op. cit., II, pp. 269-270.

69Ibid. and p. 290 Of the same work, plus Hornblow,
Op. cit., p. 184.

70Here "inferior" probably refers to the length of
Mrs. Morris' role in the play.

71Dunlap, op. cit., p. 56.

34

supported Mrs. Morris. This support was certain not to
ingratiate him with the cO—manager. The fact that Henry
and Wignell had been rivals for some time was an added
source of aggravation to Henry. For a number of years
Wignell, the people's favorite among the company, had
been desirous Of being taken into the management. Wignell
was a shareholder, as were a few others. Yet, he had not
been successful in convincing Hallam and Henry to make
their leadership a triumvirate. Wignell told Dunlap that
Henry had repeatedly promised to take him on as an equal
partner and that Hallam had appeared to agree to this.72
However, no formal move had been made firm by the spring
of 1791. Despite their hesitancy in this matter, the
manager's confidence in Wignell's administrative ability
is evidenced by his conduct of the financial affairs as
treasurer and financial manager of the company.73
It might be argued that these personalities provided
enough problems. However, there may have been other un-
happiness for, according to Durang, whose father worked in
this company, "Hallam and Henry were proverbial for giving
meagre salaries." Durang argued that this was a "mistaken
system; it keeps the actor grumbling . . . ever seeking to
better his condition, and never suitably or satisfactorily

fulfilling his duties to himself or the manager."74

 

72Ibld., p. 91.
73

74

Seilhamer, op. cit., p. 337.
Durang, Op. cit., Chapter XVIII.

35

Whatever difficulties beset the Old American Company
in its inner workings, an immediate response to the strong
public dissatisfaction of February, 1791, was essential.
The managers had given some thought to the problem of
shoring up their ranks. It was now necessary to act on
the question Of recruitment. Wignell volunteered to be
the agent and, upon receiving the appointment, had written
friends in London that he would be visiting them shortly.75

In March an announcement was made in the Philadelphia
papers that Mr. Henry would soon be making a trip to London
to secure new talent. Wignell, believing himself appointed,
accosted Hallam regarding this public statement. Hallam
promptly blamed Henry. After exchanges among the three,
the sharers were called to a meeting to decide who would be
the agent. There ensued an explanation of the existing
conditions, the necessity to recruit, and to purchase
essentials for the theatre. The concluding statement,
undoubtedly made by Hallam, was, "Mr. Henry is willing to
go and Mr. Wignell is anxious to go. If Mr. Henry goes,
we can continue playing and maintain ourselves. If Mr.
Wignell goes, we must shut up." Wignell spoke in his own
behalf calling attention to the promises made earlier and,
in an ultimatum, demanded a position in the management or
the commission as company agent. The meeting was con-

cluded without a decision.76

 

76

75Dunlap, Op. cit. Ibid., p. 92.

36

It may not be a cardinal rule of the conduct of
meetings to adjourn when stalemated or when unpleasant-
ness makes progress unlikely, but this sort of conclusion
allows for cooling Of tempers and regrouping Of forces.

A simple statement attributed to Wignell suggests that
the managers had decided to caucus. At the announcement
that another meeting would be held the next day, Wignell
declined to attend "as I knew all had been previously
determined." His assessment was correct. Henry was
appointed the agent.77

The rationale behind the company's decision is
understandable. It is foolhardy to absent a top drawing
card for personal reasons alone or on company business
that another might undertake with equal success. Each
member's career depended on the general welfare and no
person could reasonably expect the others to jeopardize
their positions for his sake.

However necessary this particular election may have
seemed to the managers and the company, there may have
been a miscalculation about Wignell's response. After
completing the season in July of 1791, he resigned from
the company.

Performing was this man's profession. He was loved
and respected by audiences wherever he played and in

favor with no less a personage than the President of the

 

77Ibid.

FI.

 

 

37

United States.78 He would most certainly have been the
highest salaried player in the company after the managers.
In his defense, the ambition of a man to be a leader in
the company was a legitimate goal. The desire to renew
Old acquaintanceships and to visit London must have been
wished for. The animosity between himself and Henry

could have lent weight to the desire to remove himself.

In this connection an episode must be described that

makes Wignell's action more easily understood.

Wignell and Henry had a very bitter altercation
during the time Wignell was still convinced that the
election as agent would fall to him. The subject Of this
difference is not recorded. Henry was so inflamed during
the argument that he threatened Wignell with the remark,
"[your] reign shall not be long." In the subsequent meet—
ing with his fellow actors, Wignell reported Henry's threat,
arguing that it was Henry's intention to destroy him by
hiring another actor in England who would be suited for
Wignell's roles. Wignell also put forth the thesis that
Henry's preventing him from sharing in the management
would give Hallam and Henry the Opportunity to assign
Wignell's roles to the new player without Wignell having

79

any recourse in the matter. This explains Wignell's

 

780. G. Sonneck, Earlngpera in America (New York:
G. Schirmer, Inc., 1915), p. 69.

79

 

Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 92.

38

demand for either the agency or the managership. Deprived
Of both, he withdrew from the organization.

Joining Wignell in his defection were Mr. and Mrs.
Morris. Mrs. Morris was a particularly important performer
in the company. Hallam and Henry were left to face the
1791-92 season minus their best comedian, one Of their two
best female performers and an established male character
actor. Hallam was not in fine form himself. As early as
1787, he was described as declining: "His battered looks,
and shrunk carcass looks the debilitated rake but the soul,
the animation, the fire, [have] left the withered body."80
Henry began the season but sailed March 5, 1792 for
England.81

The effect Of Wignell's defection along with his
two friends is described as disastrous for the 01d American
Company.82 Henry, after what must have been a hurried stay,
returned to America in September, 1792, with John Hodgkinson
as his prime find, only to discover that Hodgkinson and the
new company were unmanageable. The actor hired specifically
to replace Wignell in the hearts of audiences was not a

83

success. Henry withdrew from the company in 1794, selling

 

80Rankin, Op. cit., p. 196.

81Seilhamer, Op. cit., p. 336.

82Durang, Op. cit., Chapter XV.

83Pollock, Op. cit., p. 53.

 

39

his stake to Hallam. Hallam remained in the company, only
to find himself supplanted in importance by Hodgkinson.
Thus, an early and important phase of American
theatre history was complete. Durang assessed Wignell's
secession to be the occurrence that might be "deemed the
dividing event which separates the records Of the ancient,
or original founders, from the more modern stage history

Of the continent."84

 

8“Durang, Op. cit.

 

 

CHAPTER II

THOMAS WIGNELL, ALEXANDER REINAGLE, AND

SUBSCRIBERS TO THE NEW THEATRE

Wignell was spurred into action by the realization
that he would not be the company representative to search
for new talent in England. Even while playing out his
contract with the Old American Company, he began negoti-
ations for a completely new venture. The season in
Philadelphia lasted until July 11, 1791. As early as
April, Wignell called a meeting to solicit subscriptions
for a new theatre, for which he promised to supply per-
formers, scenery and decor.1

Wignell may have had no notion Of the auspiciousness
of his timing. He had decided to abandon his position as
actor with an established company and, in conjunction with
a musician and an organization Of active Philadelphians,
tO embark upon the building, equiping, and outfitting of
the finest theatre in America; he and Alexander Reinagle

had decided on Philadelphia as the location of their

theatre just as that city emerged as capital Of the new

 

1Pollock, Op. cit., p. 50.

40

 

 

41

nation and the most important community in the infant
country. Whatever the limits of their information, however,
it seems safe to assume that Wignell had done some prelimie
nary investigation into the possibilities for such an
undertaking. He had been well placed to Observe at first
hand any cues that would indicate success for such a pro-
ject. As early as the days when his former associates
performed in Jamaica, Wignell had been entrusted with
financial matters relating to the company.2 By 1791 he
was a shareholder in the company and performed duties
corresponding to those of a business manager today.3
Among the problems to be confronted were the major impedi-
ments to the development of a new theatrical company. For
example, the managers could anticipate rivalry from the
established company that was in the process of adding new
talent to its roster, the necessity to win patrons from
the Old American Company, competition for the use of the
existing theatre, the Southwark, and possible difficulties
in their own company morale and management.

The continued and always mounting financial needs Of
a fledgling effort in the theatre are rarely understood by
backers. In this respect, it will become clear that the

subscribers to the Chesnut Street Theatre were subjected

 

2Richardson Wright, Revels in Jamaica (New York:
Dodd, Mead & Company, 1937), pp. 204-207.

II 3§§?lap, op. cit., p. 60 and Seilhamer, Op. cit.a
, p. .

 

42

to considerable hardship because of the lengthy delay in
Opening the playhouse. In addition to the problems men—
tioned here, there are always unexpected circumstances

to be encountered. Unfortunately, the demands of adminis-
trating and managing often necessitate an unequal balance
between planning and responding to crises, with the second
of these the more time consuming. The judgment of Wignell's
talent for administration and management may be deferred
until more is known about his planning and responses.

In the summer Of 1791, having completed his con-
tractual arrangements, Wignell broke with his cousin,
Hallam, and Henry, and openly joined with Reinagle tO
launch a new theatre company. Durang suggests that Hallam
had proved "somewhat more of kip and less than glad."
Whatever bitterness persisted in nO way retarded the
immediate move into an active partnership with Alexander
Reinagle.

Reinagle, son Of an Austrian musician, Joseph Reinagle,
was born in Portsmouth, England in 1756. While Alexander
was still young, the Reinagle family moved to Edinburgh
where he studied with Raynor Taylor, an important composer
in his time and destined later to compose music for the
Chesnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia. Alexander played
several instruments, composed, and sang well. Before the
age of thirty he had become a member Of the Society Of

Musicians Of London. In 1784, he visited C.P.E. Bach in

43

Hamburg and so impressed this son of Johann Sebastian Bach
that the younger Bach asked Reinagle to provide him with
a likeness to be placed among mementoes he collected from
significant figures in the musical world Of that day.“
Reinagle and his brother, Hugh, visited Portugal in 1784
and 1785 in the hope that Hugh's health would respond
favorably to the warmer climate. During their short stay
in Lisbon, they performed for the royal family. Hugh did
not live through the spring of 1785 and Alexander returned
to England on May 17 of that year. He seems not to have
resumed his professional musical career after he had re-
turned from Portugal.5
Reinagle embarked for the American continent less
than a year later and arrived in New York June 9, 1786.
On arriving he had an announcement published, "Mr. Reinagle,
member of the Society of Musicians in London, gives lessons
on the pianoforte, harpsichord and violin."6 In July he
gave a concert in New York, performing vocally and on the

piano and 'cello. He appeared in mid-September in a

'musical program in Philadelphia to honor Henri Capron, a

 

“Sonneck, Early Opera in America, Op, cit.,
p. 118.

5Dictionary Of American Biography, edited by Allen
Johnson, XI Volumes (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1964), VIII, p. 489.

6John T. Howard, Our American Music (New York:
Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1965), p. 75.

 

44

French musician who had been in America only a short time.
Capron later performed as a 'cellist in the orchestra of
the 01d American Company.

Reinagle was warmly greeted in Philadelphia because
Of his participation in the Capron concert and determined
to make that city his home. He found success as a teacher
and performer and was partially responsible for "city con-
certs" from 1786 through 1794. Reinagle arrived at a time
when the concerts had been discontinued because Of a
quarrel among the musicians. He effected a reconciliation
and emerged as the "principal manager anf featured per-
former. His superior ability was at once apparent and he
forthwith assumed a decisive role in the musical affairs
of the Quaker City."7

In 1787 at a benefit for another musician, Reinagle
was featured before an audience that included General
George Washington. On June twelfth in the same year,
Washington was present at a benefit performance for
Reinagle. The program included a work by Johann Christian
Bach, the "London Bach," and two of Reinagle's own compo-
sitions.8 In ensuing days, Reinagle taught harpsichord
lessons to one of Washington's grandchildren.

Very rapidly, Reinagle's contributions to the musical

life Of Philadelphia won him acceptance in the aristocratic

 

7Gilbert Chase, America's Music (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 113.

81bid., p. 110.

 

 

 

45

cricles of the new democracy. Other cities as well ex-
hibited interest in musicians of the calibre Of Reinagle
and Capron. "In Baltimore, when it was impossible to
maintain artists Of the first rank in permanent resi-
dence, singers and players Of outstanding reputation——
men like A. Reinagle, for instance-~not seldom visited
the city for special occasions that called for their
talents."9 The cities Of Baltimore and New York were
settings for subscription concerts organized by
Reinagle.

Thanks to the abilities Of Reinagle and his associ-
ates, the 1ast years Of the eighteenth century have been
referred to as the "Blutezeit" of music in Philadelphia.
"Its richness in musical ability is seen in no other city

at that time."10

This reference was to American cities.
In the same article, Reinagle is reputed to have been the
"greatest German American musician Of that century."
Durang described Reinagle as dignified and impressive,
while Dunlap found him genteel and skillful.

Although he had distinguished himself in a number

Of ways, there is no evidence to support an argument that

 

9Harold D. Eberlein and Cortlandt v. Hubbard, "Music
in the Early Federal Era," The Pennsylvania Magazine Of
History and Biography, LXIX, 2 (April, 1945), 115.

 

10Robert R. Drummond, "Alexander Reinagle and His
Connection with the Musical Life of Philadelphia,"
German American Annual, V (1907), 297.

 

 

46

Reinagle had been active in the Operas and musical farces
presented in Philadelphia at The Southwark or in The
Northern Liberties during the years 1786-1791. Should
there be any remnants Of his music for performances other
than Operas, i.e., for interludes or afterpieces, more
might be known about his activities during that time. It
is certain he was composing in a very active way for the
Chesnut Street Theatre in the 1790's.11 It is possible
he chose not to compose for the theatre before productions
were declared legal in Philadelphia in 1789, thereby
avoiding the wrath of the sizable portion Of the populace
Opposed to that medium.

Having given some attention to the background Of the
musical partner, it is appropriate here to draw a more
specific picture Of Mr. Wignell, the central concern Of
this study.

Thomas Wignell was born in England in or near the
year 1752 and was related to the theatre through his

father, a performer, and his relatives, the Hallams.

A coy reference in Odell's Annals of the New York

 

Stage must be dispensed with. Odell points out that a
man named Wignel [sic] played with Hallam's company at
Lincoln's Inn Fields, circa 1750.12 He then points out

that a person named Wynell played the part of the Duke

 

11Dictionary Of American Biography, op. cit.

 

12Odell, Op. cit., p. 50.

47

in the first performance Of Hallam's American Company at

Williamsburg, Virginia in 1752. The play was The Merchant

 

Of Venice. Odell then writes, "And the name Wyne11--how

 

like to Wignell. Yet I dare say nothing."13 He might
have said more or avoided pursuing the line Of thought
altogether. There was a Wignell who played at Lincoln's
Inn Fields. It is likely he was Thomas' father.lu

The Wynell who played at Williamsburg shows up in

the Beaux Stratagem at Annapolis and as Richard in a per-

formance of Richard III. When the Hallam company played

 

The Conscious Lovers in New York in September Of 1753 no

 

Wynel, Wynell or Winnell, as Dunlap suggests for an alter-
nate spelling, appears in the cast or in the cast Of the
afterpiece, Damon and Phillida.15 Nor do those names
appear in cast lists thereafter. Thomas Wignell was
probably no relation to any persons who played in America
before him, save the Hallams.

Thomas may have been the son Of John Wignell, a
minor player with Garrick, but it would be enlightening

to know the sources for the suggestion John played in

 

13Ibid., p. 53.

1”G. W. Stone, The London Stage 1660-1800
(Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press,
1962), Part IV, Vol. 3, p. 17u2.

15

 

Dunlap, Op. cit., pp. 11—13.

48

16

Garrick's company at Drury Lane. Genest makes no mention
of Thomas Wignell as a player at Drury Lane nor do other
responsible sources.

After coming to America and instantly shipping out
to the West Indies, Wignell served his apprenticeship in
Jamaica, playing at Kingston, Montego Bay and elsewhere.

There was another Wignell in the company at Jamaica, a

William Wignell, who played in the company's Opening per-

 

formance July 1, 1775.17 This may have been a brother to
Thomas. This same Wignell played Page in The Merry Wives

of Windsor. Both Wignells appear in the same cast as late
8

 

as June Of 1770.1 Seilhamer notes the absence of William
in the cast lists after this and conjectures that he might
have returned to England.19 Some of Thomas Wignell's roles
in Jamaica included Joseph Surface in The School for Scandal,

Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice, Claudius in Hamlet,

 

Benvolio in Romeo and Juliet, and Catesby in Richard III.

 

 

Comparing the performances recorded of Wignell's work, the
number Of comedy roles was more substantial than the parts

he played in serious drama.

 

8 16Hughes, Op. cit., p. 53 and Rankin, Op. cit.,
p. l 7.
l7
Wright, Op. cit., p0 52°
18

Seilhamer, op. cit.

19Ibid., p. 142.

49

A physical description of Wignell is provided by
Dunlap who knew him personally, had seen him perform
numerous times, and, who held him in high regard.

Wignell was a man below the ordinary height, with

a slight stOOp Of the shoulders; he was athletic,

with handsomely formed lower extremeties, the

knees a little curved outwards, and feet remarkably

small. His large blue eyes were rich in expression,

and his comedy was luxuriant in humour, but always
faithful to his author. He was a comic actor, not

a buffoon. He was a clown who did n38 speak more

than was set down in his part. . . .

Most actors who would be as faithful to their texts would
be kindly thought Of by playwrights and Dunlap, of course,
was a playwright.

On December 12, 1785, Wignell made his first appear—

ance in America as Joseph Surface in The School for Scandal,

 

played at the John Street Theatre in New York. This was
the first performance Of the play in the country. American
audiences were immediately captivated by Wignell and he
became a great favorite as Joseph Surface. Dunlap was to

write Of Wignell that his performance in The School for

 

Scandal was "still remembered with pleasure after the lapse
of nearly half a century."21 Comedy proved to be his forte
and his reputation rested as much on success in brief
afterpieces as it did in featured roles. Only three

months after his initial appearance the following hint

was published in The Daily Advertiser in New York:

 

2ODunlap, op. cit., pp. 31-32.

21Ibid., p. 63.

50

HINT to the Managers Of the Theatre. A number of
your steady friends who have the prosperity Of the
Theatre at heart, are full in opinion for the bene-
fit of the House, that the character of Tony Lumpkin,
in the 'Mistakes of a Night,‘ be performed by Mr.

Wignell.22
Hallam had played that part previously and such a notice

 

must have proved galling to him.

The School for Scandal and The Poor Soldier often

 

 

appeared on the same bill. For those who know the first
play, it is understandable that this work would be repeated

often. That The Poor Soldier should be placed on the bills

 

of entertainment again and again is somewhat of a surprise
today. This musical farce, written by the Briton, John
O'Keefe, had been a hit on the stages of England before
it was performed in America. At least nine performances
of this play were presented in the first New York season
or the Old American Company in 1785—1786.23 This short
piece depicted in a comic way the travels of an Irishman
named Darby as he toured Europe and the English colonies
in America. Darby was played regularly by Wignell. This
unfortunate character found great sympathy from audiences
for many years. The character became so identified with
Wignell that others avoided the role, choosing not to be

compared with him.2u Dunlap was impressed deeply by

 

22Odell, op. cit., p. 243.

23Ibid., p. 267.

2“William B. Wood, Personal Recollections‘of the
Stage (Philadelphia: Henry Carey Baird, 1855), p. 90.

 

51

Wignell as Joseph Surface and as Darby. Dunlap included
in his history the comment that the performances were

"still remembered with pleasure after the lapse Of nearly
half a century."25

In a generally complimentary review of the Old P‘

American Company production of The True Born Irishman,

 

Wignell received enthusiastic attention:

 

not only the plaudits of the house, but the embraces
Of the men and the kisses of the women. Ancient
Mythology said that Atlas supported the world upon
his shoulders, you are the Atlas Of the American
theatre; and bear the burden with patience and do
not ever in any fit Of impatience cast it to the
ground.2

Mr. Wignell in every situation Of Mushroom deserved - b

Considering the fact that he had only played in the United
States for two years, this adulation suggests Wignell rose
quickly from anonymity to a position Of prominence. Only
two days after this review appeared, Wignell was to perform
a role for which he gained a place in American theatre

history. Jonathan in The Contrast by Royall Tyler is

 

referred to as the first Of the stage "Yankees." The role
of Jonathan is that Of an independent young man from
Massachusetts who is traveling as a "waiter" to Colonel
Manly, a staunch defender of his country in word and deed.
Jonathan prefers the word "waiter" as the word "servant"

would not be used by a freedom loving American. Jonathan

 

25Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 63.

26Daily Advertiser (New York), April 14, 1787.

 

52

is a rube who goes to the theatre and is not aware he is
in the "shop where the devil hangs out the vanities of
the world upon the tenter—hooks of temptation." His
description of the theatre, its audience, and the perfor-
mance provided the enjoyment contemporary viewers might be
expected to experience at a satire on the theatre of the
day. The behavior of a hearty, congenial American is
juxtaposed against the dandies who aped the Europeans,
especially the English. In Jonathan's recounting of his
experience in the theatre, he was told he had seen the
"School for Scandalization." He was much impressed with
. . . one little fellow . . . shy, he had red hair,
and a little round plump face like mine, only not
altogether handsome. His name was--Darby;--that
was his baptized name, his other name I forgot.
Oh! it was Wig-—Wag--Wag-al, Darby Wag—a1 . . .
I should like to take a sling with him, or a drap
of cyder with a pepper-pod in it.
"Wag-a1" was, of course, a reference to Wignell who was

playing Jonathan. Darby was the character earlier made

famous by Wignell in The Poor Soldier. A reviewer of the

 

first production Of The Contrast said of Wignell, if he

 

"had not quite the right pronunciation Of Jonathan, he

made ample amends by his inimitable humour."27
While "Candour," the reviewer, thought the perfor-

mance "very well acted," a criticism aimed at the prompter

might more appropriately have fallen to Wignell. "The

play was preceded by a good prologue, which was very well

 

27Ibid., April 18, 1787.

53

spoken by Wignell, but the effect much spoilt by the un-
skilfulness of the prompter."28 Two comments are relevant
here. Wignell did not have sufficient time to con the
prologue or his memory of it was deficient. The role of
the prompter in the theatre was accepted by critics and
carried out with varying degrees of success. NO excuse
is offered for Wignell's lapse, only the explanation that
specially written prologues were Often composed on short
notice and with only a brief time for performers to
memorize them.

The Contrast was a happy occasion for Americans in
1787. The conclusion of the war had left the colonies in
a state of confusion and tumult. The years from 1783 to
1789 were difficult times as the leaders struggled to
establish a viable government. Confidence in the leader-
ship wavered at times and there were those convinced the
break with England had not been the wisest move. However,
there was pride in the accomplishments of this rough-hewn
people who had upset the queen of empires. Tyler's play
was the whole action replayed in miniature and the virtuous
patriot's triumph was the triumph Of every member of the
audience. The production was repeated four times during
the month following its Opening. This was a prodigious
number Of performances Of the same play in such a brief

span of time. Because Tyler's play had been such a

 

28Ibid.

54

rousing success for Wignell and the Old American Company,

a second play Of his entitled May Day, or New York in an

 

Uproar was chosen by Wignell for his benefit performance
May 18, 1787. There is no record Of this play having a
second performance so one may safely support Hornblow's
conclusion that it "probably had little merit."29

Later the same year the company moved to Baltimore

where The Contrast was repeated, though Henry refused to

 

appear there in the character Of Manly. It is suggested
that jealousy over Wignell's critical acclaim for his
portrayal of Jonathan had caused Henry to withdraw.30
Undaunted by the company's problems and explaining
the absence of a full scale production because Of "Im-
practicability," Wignell gave a public reading Of Tho
Contrast at the City Tavern, Philadelphia, on December
10, 1787. It is unclear whether he read the play alone
or with a group he rehearsed for the occasion. This
reading did take place during the long period when no
formal productions were played in Philadelphia, so it may
be precipitous to give the impression that internal com-

pany problems were the cause of the play's being read

rather than performed at The Southwark.

 

29Hornblow, Op. cit., I, p. 172.

30Richard Moody, Dramas from the American Theatre
1762-1901 (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1966),

p. 30.

 

 

55

Eleven days after his appearance in Philadelphia,
Wignell was in New York for the opening Of a season that
proved dismal from a financial standpoint. The company
played from December 21, 1787 to May 31, 1788 with almost
a month's layoff in March and April. "Hamlet," acting
as critic for a local paper, was unhappy with the quality
Of some Of the season's performances. Exempted from this
criticism were Mrs. Henry, Mrs. Morris, Wignell and Harper.
"Hamlet" thought their "many characters entitled them to
the applause Of the public, and they would undoubtedly
receive it, were the other performers capable Of afford-
ing them the assistance which . . . is absolutely necessary."31
Dunlap describes the benefit performances in the Spring
of 1788 as unsuccessful and pens this, "Even Wignell, the
great favourite, was obliged to call upon a writer to plead
for him, as one who was an Object of commiseration from

"32

long-continued sickness. Under the non dé guerre

"Humanitas," Wignell's friend wrote,

Those who delight in . . . Tragedy, will remember
how they have been melted into tears by the superior
abilities Of a Wignell; and those, who . . . have
rioted in the luxuriance of mirth, at the simplicity
Of honest Darby, will not fail to give . . . a proof
of their liberality and support . . . when we
recollect the long disposition Of Mr. WIGNELL, and
the vast expence thereby accruing. . . .33

 

31Odell, op. cit., pp. 264—265.

32Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 76.

33Odell, Op. cit., p. 267.

56

Perhaps Wignell's illness had been a cause Of the house
being dark for a month. The nature Of this sickness is
not now known but Wignell performed the "next year,
restored to health and in the full tide of popular favor."34
In the years 1787-1791 Wignell was a continuing
favorite, playing regularly with the Old American Company.

In 1789, William Dunlap's The Father, his second play and

 

his first to be produced, was performed for the first time
on September seventh. The comment by Dunlap that "It had
been studied carefully" and "was played correctly" is evi-
dance to support speculation about some plays being pre-

sented before they were ready. In The Father, Wignell

 

"added to his reputation as a comic actor."35 Dunlap
lauded Wignell for not padding his part or altering the
lines. If we can believe Dunlap, this vice was becoming
more common, but "Mr. Wignell's taste was too good to

"36

permit his falling into such an error. Two years later,

when Wignell left the company, The Father was withdrawn

 

from the repertoire. This would appear to have been, at
least in part, due to his absence, though Dunlap admitted,

"Its merits have never entitled it to rivival."37

 

3“Dunlap, Op. cit.

36

35Ibid., p. 80. Ibid., p. 82.

37Ibid., p. 80.

57

Wignell is credited with a money—making scheme that
took form in 1789. The success that had accompanied The

Poor Soldier encouraged Wignell to propose that Dunlap

 

write a sequel that would focus on Darby's homecoming and
his stories about his visits abroad. The result of this

prOposal was an afterpiece entitled Darby's Return. Like

 

the first version of the escapades of Darby, this found
ready acceptance and was played for a number Of years
while Wignell continued active as a performer. Dunlap is
the person who credited Wignell with the idea for Darby's
Return. This adds credence tO the belief that Wignell
might have been the originator Of the proposal.38

One thing that helped to give The Poor Soldier its

 

unique place in the repertoire of the theatre Of the day

was the great pleasure it gave to a single personage,

George Washington. Paul L. Ford has chronicled Washing-
ton's experience as a theatregoer from the time Washington
was a young man.39 Throughout his adult life, this soldier-
statesman seems to have attended the theatre whenever time
and his responsibilities would permit. Few presidents, if
any, have been in attendance at the theatre as Often as he.

He took particular delight in The School for Scandal and

 

The Poor Soldier. The fact that these were Often chosen

 

for performance when he was present suggests the bill was

 

38Ibid., p. 8A.

39(See footnote number 55, Chapter I.)

58

selected after it was learned he would attend. Changes in
program could be effected without the problems that would
be incurred today. Announcements in the papers would
state that the President would be at the theatre on a
specific date. For the occasion of his visit his usual
box was draped. It must have been a careful business for
the managers to display tastefully an appropriate decor,
respectful but not ostentatious. There is no question
but that Washington was an aristocrat. However, any
slight hint Of this would bring forth criticism or the
accusation that he had monarchic ambitions. Considering
how closely he was observed whenever he was before the
public or entertaining at his Philadelphia home, he must
have possessed great naturalness and an almost total lack
of affectation. The President's reserve was noted in his

reaction to a performance of Darby's Return when "he

 

indulged in that which was with him extremely rare, a
hearty laugh."140
On the evenings Washington would attend the theatre,
soldiers were on guard at the entrances and at the stage
doors as well. Thomas Wignell would meet the President
and light his way to his seat. Wignell seems to have been
chosen for this honor because he was a favorite of Presi—

dent Washington. Indeed, no other explanation seems

reasonable. Though John Henry might have been laid up

 

noDunlap, Op. cit., p. 85.

59

with gout from time to time, he or Hallam would seem to
have been the appropriate person to perform this service,
if protocol were to prevail. Placing aside the question
Of why he was chosen to do so, Wignell enjoyed the
distinction Of playing host to the first citizen of

the time.

In return for this favor and out of respect for the
pleasure Washington took in attending the theatre, in
addition perhaps to wishing to ingratiate himself with
people Of importance, Wignell presented to the President
the first two copies of the two thousand copies he had
printed Of The Contrast. Shortly after this play had
Opened in 1787, Tyler gave the rights to Wignell. Wignell
determined tO have the play published and in 1790 this
ambition was realized. Washington, through one Tobias
Lear, wrote a brief note to Wignell thanking him for the
copies of the play.“1 The published copies of the play
were to be sold by subscription. Dunlap reported that the
play "was coldly received in the closet."u2 There is no
explication of the word cold. One can only wonder if this
suggested that people did not enjoy reading the published
version or if the edition did not sell and Wignell was

thereby deprived Of a profit.

 

ulWignell personal correspondence Of April 30,

1790, at the Historical Society Of Pennsylvania.

u2Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 72.

 

60

In 1791 Wignell received critical acclaim in news-
papers and proved an important asset to Hallam and Henry.
Parts he had played for several years still drew impressive
notices:

Last evening were presented, to a respectable and
crowded autience, the School for Scandal, and The
Poor Soldier. Never were these favourite enter-
tainments performed with more spirit or justness.
Wignell in Joseph, Harper in Charles, etc. fully
equalled, if not exceeded their former excellence
. . . The Poor Soldier was, as usual, received
with the most ample testimonies of applausp. ]
Wignell was himself in Darby, Henry . . . et a1
gave great satisfaction.85

 

Wignell and Reinagle came together in 1791 to make
preparations for a new theatre in Philadelphia. It is
uncertain when they met. As has been pointed out, Wignell

had performed a public reading of The Contrast at the City

 

Tavern December 10, 1787. The first positive date that
established a performance of Wignell in a theatre in Phila—
delphia was announced in The Pennsylvania Packet for 1789
where he was listed in the casts for March 11 Of Tyrrell

in The Fashionable Lover and Count Mushroom in The True-

Born Irishman. Wignell, however, had been performing in

 

America since 1785 and, though cast lists are not available,
he was a member of the Old American Company when it played
in Philadelphia in 1787 from January 15 until February 3

and in 1788 from June 23 through July 26 and again from

October 27 through November 15.

 

u3The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Dally
Advertiser, January 6, 1791.

 

 

 

 

61

eras

CONTRAST,

A

C () NI IE I) Y)

IN FIVE ACTS:

wan-rm n A
CITIZEN or m: UNITED STA TES;

Performed with Applaufe at the Theatre: in Ntw-Yonx.
Putunnmu. and Murmur:

An "Insane (all? u Afigm ojlh 0,1415!) 0'

1?}IC)hdl\ST‘“TI(}}¢IBL.L.

+—
Trims: in patriam
Maia-gcdoxi vertice Mora.

( Inward. )

Fidl on out Thom I try TIIALIA'S pawn,
And bid the laugéing, aye/u! Maid be can.

+

V120".

PHILADELPHIA:

not: can tum. ov PRICIMKD U HALL. u mun: "um.
urn" ucon no non sums.

”o ..‘o “‘0

Figure 2.--Title page of Wignell's edition of
The Contrast by Royall Tyler.

62

These appearances, coupled with the fact that
Reinagle was performing often in Philadelphia and New
York, allow for the reasonable speculation that these
men had been acquaintances for some time when they
joined talents in 1791. It may be that Reinagle was in
the orchestra pit directing the musical proceedings at a
number of performances where he faced Wignell across the
foot lights. Certainly, they would have known each other's
work. The public disaffection with the Old American Com-
pany would have come to their attention. Specific pro-
posals for the improvement of the theatre were made public
previous to their alliance, e.g.,

. . . as the friends Of the drama seem dissatisfied

with the conduct of the managers of the Theatre,

and as the managers conceive they have, in every
respect done their duty, I would propose an associ—
ation of the citizens for the purpose Of erecting
an independent theatre, and encouraging performers
who will make greater exertions to please.

Wignell and Reinagle were a combination of rare
talents for their time. Prominent, pOpular, respected
performers whose reputations were above reproach, they
were to improve the theatrical world of America.

The division Of labor in the early stages of their

relationship was agreed to in the following way: when

enough money had been invested in the enterprise to insure

 

qubid., February 21, 1791.

63

the construction Of the theatre, Reinagle would remain in
Philadelphia to supervise the construction while Wignell
traveled to England to organize and engage a company of
performers. This plan was carried through.

Attention must be paid here to the patrons whose
investment in the theatre brought about its ground breaking
and provided money for Wignell's first voyage to England
to contract for performers. The list of the original
subscribers is included here:

. . . each for one share: Robt. Morris, Henry Hill,
J. Swanwick, J. Swanwick (for W. Mackenzie), Walter
Stewart, Mark Prager, Jr., J. L. (for C. Febiger),
Joseph Rivari, Matthew McConnell, Samuel Anderson,
Robert Bass, Pearson Hunt, Samuel Hays, William
Gingham, C. Richmond, James Lyle, William Cramond,
Edward Tilghman, John Travis, James Cramond, John
Ashley, Thomas M. Taylor, George Padst, Robert S.
Bickley, John Vaughan, Thomas Fitzsimons, Michael
Prager, John Duffied, Richard Potter, John Brown,
Thomas M. Willing, Matthew Saddler, Robert Patton,
John Leamy, Robert Rainey, David Cay (for a friend),
John Mitchell, John Dunlap, Isaac Franks, Charles
Pettit, Thomas M. Moore, James Read, Thomas Wignell
(for a friend), John Swire (for J.D.A.R.N.O.Y.),
Thomas Ketland, Jr., Griffith Evans, James Barclay,
Robert Westcott, J. Swanwick (for James Abercrombie),
Joseph Harmer, Francis West, Andred Spence, A.
Reinagle (for a friend), Thomas Carradine, J.
Delaney, Robert Westcott (for a friend), John

Brown (for James Crawford), John Harrison (L.M.)

A few Of these men should be singled out. Robert
Morris was referred to earlier as a legislator and the
financer of the American Revolution. His subscription in
1791 indicated a continued support already evident in his
battle of 1789 for the legalization of playing. Other

prominent men who appear in the list include William

64

Bingham, banker, legislator, international merchant,
friend to Presidents Washington and Adams, and husband

of the former Anne Willing, "unquestionably at the head
Of American Society";45 Thomas M. Willing, Anne's father,
a Supreme Court Justice, merchant, and president Of the
Bank of America; Charles Pettit, merchant, congressman,
president Of the Insurance Company Of North America, a
member Of the American Philosophical Society, and trustee
of the University of Pennsylvania; Edward Tilghman, a
distinguished member of the law profession; William
Mackenzie, bibliOphile and book collector; and John Brown,
Kentucky senator and friend to five presidents.

Samuel Anderson and Henry Hill deserve special mention.
Anderson, a merchant and broker, worked with Wignell and
Reinagle in the management of the theatre, and Hill was
chairman Of the subscribers, instrumental in selling shares
and raising money, and correspondent in matters regarding
the shares.

Walter Stewart and Robert Bass were on the steering
committee acting for The Dramatic Association in its
earlier struggle for the legal status Of the theatre.

Other subscribers were members of that Association.

 

usScharf and Westcoff, op. cit., II, p. 1693, whose
list of subscribers was from the original parchment docu-
ment in the Society Collection of the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania.

65

It is plain that, by the spring of the year 1791,
there were in Philadelphia persons representing artistic
and financial interests who could combine to provide
the materials and personnel to begin the precarious
business of the professional theatre. The succeeding
steps were to secure plans to begin construction of a

theatre and to engage talent to support that theatre.

CHAPTER III

PLANNING AND BUILDING THE CHESNUT STREET

THEATRE, 1791-179u

Mr. Bache,
By inserting the following notice you will
oblige

A Customer.

It was suggested in a conversation at which I
was present, a few days since, that, should a
subscription be opened for building a Theatre
in a central part of the city, a sum adequate
to the purpose might in a short time be ob;
tained. In order therefore to ascertain if
this opinion prevails so generally as to render
the thing practicable, it is proposed that
those gentlemen who are inclined to adopt and
,support such an undertaking, shall meet at
Moyston's Coffee—House on Monday next, between
12 and 1 o'clock.

Mr. Bache was the editor of The General Advertiser

 

and Political, Commercial and Literary Journal; this announce-

 

ment was printed April 26, 1791. By obliging this "Customer,"
Mr. Bache disclosed the fact that discussions were being held
as to the possible success for the financing of a theatre in
the center of Philadelphia.

Although the anonymity of the person requesting
the entry does not point to any single person, it may, of

course, lead to speculation as to the person's identity.

66

67

That person may have been Thomas Wignell, then employed
by and playing his last season with the Old American
Company. It may have been Alexander Reinagle, who was
on the following Saturday night to conduct the last of
the City Concerts for that season. Another possibility F1
might have been Henry Hill, who was to become so active 1

in the financial life of the theatre, but who chose not

 

to announce publicly his support of such a project be— '.
fore it showed signs of wider endorsement. Anonymity
further allows for the possibility of Hallam or Henry to
have taken such an action in response to public pressures.
Perhaps they may be counted out. Henry's slowness in
leaving for England to recruit talent was singled out

by Seilhamer who felt it was "doubtful if the new theatre
in Philadelphia had not been destined to become a reality,
whether he would have gone at all."1 Through such a device
as this newspaper announcement Hallam and Henry might have
received support for the building of a theatre if they had
exhibited the energy and determination to improve their
company and give the Philadelphians better theatre. They
were firmly entrenched by this time, had never known
serious competition, and probably saw no need to launch
into a campaign to build a new theatre. Probability leads
one to think one of the first three mentioned here was the

person responsible for the newspaper squib.

 

lSeilhamer, op. cit., II, p. 338.

68

The names of those present at the meeting of May
2 or subsequent meetings are not known for sure. There
seem to be no minutes left to us that include roll calls.
Reinagle's presence would have been a boon to the effort
if we may believe that he was held in the esteem Durang
accords him.2 The time of the meeting is significant.
Wignell could have been present at a luncheon meeting
but not the same evening, for there was a performance at
the Southwark at six o'clock. A number of those who be-
came subscribers and whose names are listed in Chapter II
would have been present. The consequence of the meeting
was more important than these details. The result was to
have further meetings, which suggests there was an incli-
nation "to adopt and support such an undertaking."

Early business under consideration at these meet—
ings would have included financial arrangements, the desig-
nation of those responsible for the various tasks to be
performed, a location for the theatre and an expected
schedule for completion of the theatre, thence the time
when the subscribers might hope for some return on their
investments.

The decision about the financing of the theatre
is detailed in the "Proposals" Wignell and Reinagle put

forth "for Erecting a New Theatre in Philadelphia."

 

2Durang, op. cit., Chapter XIX.

 

69

The portions of this worn document that can be read are
reproduced in Appendix A. Though undated, it may be
estimated that the signatures to this agreement were
affixed in late May or sometime in June, 1791. This
estimation is based on the time of the announcement for

the exploratory meeting, time allowed for subsequent
planning meetings to take place, and the portion of the
second paragraph that informs the subscribers of Wignell's
intent to embark for "Europe, in October. . . ." The

year is set by the further instruction in that paragraph
which outlines the due dates of payment for shares, i.e.,
"One Hundred Dollars at the time of Subscribing One Hundred
Dollars on the first day of March and One Hundred Dollars
on the first day of September, 1792." Henry Hill's receipt
for payment on his subscription, dated October 10, 1791,

is conclusive evidence for the belief that the year was
1791.

The financial decision was to sell sixty subscriptions
at three hundred dollars a subscription.3 The interest on
a subscription was to be 6 per cent per annum. "Ten shares
were to be redeemed and paid off annually.“4 This is
interpreted to mean that the managers would be allowed to

buy up shares annually until they were the owners of the

 

3Pollock, op. cit., p. 52.

”See Appendix A.

7O

theatre. The arrangement seems to have been on a "tontine

principle,"5

adapted from the French and Italian practice
of annuities shared among a group of persons with the
provision that, when each beneficiary dies, his invest-
ment accrues to the survivors in the group. The induce-
ment of a percentage income of one's investment was
supplemented by another, more apt to please the wives
of the male subscribers or the female investors; a few
ladies were subscribers, one or two the recipients of
gifts of subscriptions. This additional ploy was the
inclosure of a season ticket with each subscription pur-
chased. Certain extant subscription certificates include
a design for a facade of a building that may have been
the planned southern exposure for the theatre. As the
subscriptions with this design on them are not dated, it
is not clear whether or not the first printed stock certifi-
cates included the picture.6 The certificates read as
follow:
PrOprietors of the NEW THEATRE

These are to certify that Clementina Mifflin

is entitled to one share in the whole property

of the Association of the Propietors of the

New Theatre which share is transferable at the

office of the Agent thereof in person or by

power of Attorn'y. dt
Cha Biddle Pres

Witness
Bernard Dahlgren Sec'y

 

5James Mease, The Picture of Philadelphia (Phila-
delphia: B. and T. Kite, 1811), p. 329.

 

6The certificates seen were Number 11, issued to
Clementina Mifflin, Number 63, issued to Peter Hahn, and

71

It is unlikely that this was a 1791 subscription
certificate as the names Biddle, Mifflin and Dahlgren do
not appear among the list of original subscribers.7
Subscriptions were already available in the early fall
of 1791 as Henry Hill's receipt indicates. Hill's
receipt has no picture on it and we do not have Hill's
certificate to place the picture with the date. If
the certificates that include the picture of a theatre
were issued in the second subscription in 1792, it is
possible the facade shown here was made from a sketch
that reached Philadelphia in February of that year or
of the model that arrived in June. It is here suggested
that the picture shown was a replica of one of these
models, hence reproduced on the second or third sub-
scription certificates. The possibility that this sketch
might have been the intended design for the marquee is
supported by the drawing shown on page 113 in Chapter IV.
This drawing was one of a series executed in 1800 by
William Russell Birch, an artist of the day. While the
pediment and upper stories are the only comparable parts
shown, the shape of the pediment, the framed wooden

decoration around the pediment, the central window, the

 

Numbers 31, MA—A6, A9, 50, 59, 60, and 80 issued to
Charles Biddle. These are in the Manuscript Collection
of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

7This list is reproduced on page 63. It»
should be noted that three names on this list are un-
decipherable.

 

72

 

.mpdoapaupoo coapgfihompzw so oooSUOLQoh cmHmoQII.m mhsmfim

Pg?

. saw..a.

 

. «mandala:

 

73

number of openings in the upper stories are alike, sug-
gesting a close enough likeness to permit an argument
supporting this thesis. The absence in the Birch Drawing
of the decorative pillars, their capitals, and the re—
cessed sculpted figures is not a deterrent to the theory
that they correspond. The unfinished condition of the
theatre pictured by Birch in 1800 might explain the
necessity that could have prevented a physical repro-
duction of the certificate design. If the managers did
not have sufficient funds to complete the execution of
the entrances, as Birch's picture shows, it would have
been surprising for them to concern themselves with
appliqued and non-functional segments of the facade.

Even before the data of Hill's receipt in the fall
of 1791, opposition to the project appeared. The follow-
ing, published September twelfth, is an abbreviated version
of a response to a rumor that the theatre might be in the
offing:

A report has been confidently circulated, for two

or three days past, that a lot of ground in a very

central part of the city had been purchased, for
the purpose of erecting a play-house——whether this
be true, or is calculated for the purpose of in-
cluding the neighbors to join in the actual purchase
of the lot at a high price, to prevent its being
applied to that use, I cannot learn with certainty;
but I think it calls for an immediate attention
from the citizens at large, as the consequences of
such a proceeding would be more prejudicial to the
manners of the present and future generations of
citizens, than any circumstance that has, or per-
haps could, arise among us. . . . If play-houses
must be liscensed in a city, they should be in

such situations as will be least injurious,--
where persons who wish to avoid them and the

74

company which surround them, can do so, without
abandoning their industry, their lawful occu—
pations, and their usual walks. The place said
to be chosen for the purpose, is perhaps more
improper than any other in the city.--Chesnut-
street is the middle line dividing the northern
from the southern half of the city, Fourth-street
divides the improvements of it on an average
nearly into equal parts, east and west. The lot
in question, is then near to the centre of the
built part of the city, it lies in and near the
most public walks, frequented by youth going to
and from the largest schools, the university,

the college, and the quakers' academy, the public
library, and the courts of justice. . . . Though
I believe the manners of the citizens of Phila-
delphia are as pure and uncorrupt as in any capi-
tal of its size perhaps in the world, yet there
are characters enough in it who would rejoice in
an opportunity of drawing a dishonest gain from
increasing that corruption, by seducing the
innocent of both sexes to the gratification of
corrupt appetites. . . . Parents . . . Masters
and mistresses . . . Legislators . . . Citizens

. . . Matrons and virgins . . . I call on you
all, to arouse and avert this impending evil.

Mentor8

If we may assume that "Mentor" was abreast of the
newspaper information of the day, we then know that meet-
ings about the proposed theatre that took place between
May second and September twelfth had not resulted in a
public statement about the intention to build a theatre
or where such a theatre might be located. The report
"Mentor" had heard had been "confidently circulated"
for only "two or three days past." The person who wrote
this letter in September probably had not seen announce-

ments of the May meeting, did not know the results of

 

8Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, September 12,
1791.

 

75

that meeting, nor was he privy to the activities of
persons sympathetic to the theatre who might know about
the building plans.

Public announcements of the project could have
rained down terrific criticism. Many citizens were still
actively and vehemently opposed to acting in Philadelphia;
therefore, the persons proposing the theatre's construction
seem to have been in no hurry to announce their intent,
especially regarding the theatre, until they had secured
a certain percentage of the desired subscriptions or, what
seems more likely, until they had secured the property
they wanted for the site.

The location designated by "Mentor" was close to
the actual site being considered. That site was in Chesnut
Street. Chesnut Street was not considered to be the
dividing line between northern and southern Philadelphia,
as "Mentor" suggests. The street then known as High
Street, a block north of Chesnut, was designated in that
way. "Mentor" was correct in writing that Fourth Street
was near the east and west center of the city. The Quaker
Academy was on Fourth Street south of Chesnut between
Chesnut and Walnut Streets. The court of justice referred
to was probably the Supreme Court which met in Carpenter's
Hall on the southwest corner of Chesnut Street just above
Fifth Street. The rather surprising thing is that no

mention is made by "Mentor" of the fact that the seat of

76

government met in what Pennsylvanians call the State
House, known to others as Independence Hall. This build-
ing was and is on the south side of Chesnut Street be—
tween Fifth and Sixth Streets. In the Birch View on

page 113, the building that is closest to the viewer

and in the left side of the picture is Congress Hall,
some fifty feet west of the State House and one of three
buildings in that block. The Chesnut Street Theatre is
down and across the street in this view.

The actual plot where the theatre was to be located
was above Sixth Street on the north side of the street.
The owner of the property was John Dickinson, the famous
lawyer, legislator, and statesman. The Office of Records
of the city of Philadelphia does not have an account of
the transaction between Dickinson and the subscribers to
the theatre. This may be because the property did not
formally change hands in l791. It is safe to conjecture
that a down payment was made to Dickinson and that there
was an arrangement for periodic payments towards the
purchase of the land.

A close examination of the Birch Drawing shows a
sign for Sixth Street. According to one measurement,
the distance from Sixth Street to the theatre was twenty
feet. Later, the particular lot where the theatre was
located was designated 199 Chesnut Street. Rang

Philadelphia Pictorial Directory and Panoramic Advertiser

 

77

would seem to confirm the measurement from Sixth Street

to the theatre as it shows only one store front between
these two points. More specific confirmation is offered
in the ground plan of the theatre (shown on page 116 of
Chapter IV). This width is determined by a survey made

in 1805 that measures the central part of the building

at sixty-four feet bordered on either side by wings,

each fourteen feet wide. The length usually quoted for
the theatre between Chesnut and Carpenter Streets is

one hundred thirty-four feet. This measurement differs
with the survey performed by a Mr. Justus. On Janaury A,
1805, Mr. Philip Justus surveyed the building and lot
where the Chesnut Street Theatre was located. No mention
is made of the reason for the survey (see Appendix B).

The description is detailed. The inclusion of information
about the materials used to build the structure and the
location of the nearest hydrant in Chesnut Street suggests
that this survey may have been for some municipal purpose.
Mr. Justus' measurement set the length from north to south
at one hundred thirty—two feet. This measurement was made
from the facade of the building as it existed in 179A to
its front in Carpenter Street. The design of and addition
to the theatre of a portico and east and west wings con-
structed after 1800 increases the overall length to one
hundred forty-eight feet. This was possible because the

original plan was to hold the building back from the

78

street. The Birch View shows this hold-back from the
street, where the patrons of the theatre are milling
about in front of the theatre, ostensibly before a per-
formance. The size of the lot would have measured near
to ninety-two by one hundred forty-eight feet.

This location was extremely well chosen from many
standpoints. With the city rapidly growing to the west,
such a spot would be in the center of the city for many
years. A main street like Chesnut would have been easily
accessible from many others. Cabbies would be more
willing to pull up with their "horses' heads to the
Delaware" on Chesnut Street than on South Street. It
should be recalled that a serious objection to the South-
wark was its setting so far out of town. A walk today
from the location of the Chesnut Street Theatre to the
location where the Southwark stood takes approximately
fifteen minutes and covers only about six long blocks.
However, a map of the period shows the older theatre in
a remote place and the paths leading to the Southwark
would have been rough in the 1790's, while Chesnut Street
was a wide avenue.9

The area near the Delaware was becoming rougher
and many of the more stylish gentry who were perspective

theatre-goers had moved, and, were moving to the west.

 

9French visitors were unhappy with many aspects of
Philadelphia, but most complimentary about the widths of
the streets and terribly impressed with the presence of
sidewalks. See the Birch View.

 

79

As this demographic change developed, those nearer the
river would be less likely to prove patrons of the
theatre. The proximity of the governmental buildings

and the Bank of North America, on Chesnut south of Fifth,
would insure that the neighborhood in which the theatre
was located should retain its qualities of attractiveness
and acceptability for some time.

As was pointed out in Chapter II, Wignell and
Reinagle assumed rather specific functions related to
the planning for the theatre. Their primary responsi-
bilities were to engage the best performers, to procure
or arrange for the construction of scenery, costumes and
all necessary elements of productions, to aid in the rais—
ing of funds and to manage the theatre after its opening.
They were in need of help in the purchase of the lot and
erection of the theatre. Within these general guidelines,
the talent and scenery search in England fell to Wignell.
Reinagle was responsible for the supervision of construction
and, with the help of the most stalwart supporters of the
project, dealing with the waiting patrons while the various
parts of this complicated puzzle were to be assembled.

The exact date of Wignell's sailing for England is
unsure. An estimate would be somewhere between October
15, and November 20, 1791. The date may have been earlier
but probably not later than this period. This estimate

is arrived at by the use of two newspaper entries for

80

early 1792. After referring to the difficulties the
theatre had experienced in America, a commentator wrote,

To put the theatre on a more respectable f00ting
than hitherto, in Philadelphia (The Athens of
America) a gentleman of the stage, from this
place, is now in England collecting a more re-
spectable company of actors than has heretofore
appeared on the American continent. A lot of
ground, it is said, has also been purchased at
the upper end of Chesnut Street near Seventh
Street, for the erection of a theatre, upon an
improved plan, and which, it is expected, will
be much more convenient in every respect than
that in Southwark, as well as more favorably
situated for the resort of the lovers of
rational and polite amusement.lo

This account was published January 12, 1792 and
was followed a month later by news from Wignell.

By the last Packet letters were received from
Mr. Wignell, who gives the most favorable
accounts of his success in obtaining per:
formers for the New Theatre in this city--
artists of the first reputation have also
undertaken to supply him with plans and drafts
(which will probably arrive by the next vessel)
for the building, scenery, and decorations.

The materials are already bespoke, and part of
them deposited on the lot adjoining to General
Dickinson's house on Chesnut Street--The sub-
scribers to this undertaking, and the public

in general, may, therefore, expect, during the
ensuing winter, to see the Drama in a more per—
fect state than has hitherto been known in
America.11

The trip to England in very smooth sailing would
have taken close to a month. If the packet on which

Wignell's letter arrived just previous to February 13

 

10National Gazette, January 12, 1792.

 

11
1792.

Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, February 13,

 

81

had made excellent time, it may have left England in
early January. Wignell would have had to be in that
country at least a brief time to receive assurance of
plans and drafts and to experience success in "obtaining
performers" for the theatre that was to be built.
Assuming this kind of success must have taken a minimum
of two weeks and allowing for sailing time, the estimate
above is made. There had been a meeting of the sub-
scribers "on special affairs" the eighteenth of November
but there is no reason to relate that to Wignell's sail-
ing date.12 It would be most interesting to know if,

indeed, it had been some sort of a bon voyage affair.

 

The quotation from the National Gazette informs

 

us that the writer had heard that the ground for the
theatre had been purchased. This is a significant comment
in January, 1792. Numerous secondary sources suggest the
cornerstone was laid in 1791.13 Evidence militates
against this early date. If the ground had been broken

and the cornerstone laid, why the Gazette's reporting of

 

hearsay regarding the purchase of the land and not a

progress report on the foundation or walls? Also, the

 

l2Ibid., November 15, 1791.

13For instance, Scharf and Wescott in Volume II
of their History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884 on page 970
and Joseph Jackson on page 422 of his Encyclopedia of~
Philadelphia (4 vols; Harrisburg: The National His-
torical Association, 1931) place the ceremonies of
laying the cornerstone in that year.

 

 

 

82

last quotation above, a month later, indicates that some
building materials were lying in a field adjacent to the
theatre's proposed location. Further considering this
same letter from Wignell, why would the construction
begin before the plans had been received? Any detailed
blueprints, i.e., the "plans and drafts" mentioned in
the letter, would have taken some time to execute and
probably could not arrive by the next packet, as the
newspaper suggests.

The hope expressed that the lovers of the theatre
might expect an improved quality in the theatre during
the following winter seems to have been possible at the
time of this writing in February. Though the writer
would not have been well informed about construction
schedules and the difficulties in the erection of audi-
toria and stage houses, an estimate of ten months con-
struction time would not seem impossible. At the same
time, any delay after February would make the possible
completion by winter unlikely. Wignell was undoubtedly
recruiting for the 1792-93 season in Philadelphia, ex-
pecting the house to be ready for his company. A letter
of Reinagle's indicates September of 1792 had been the

proposed month for occupancy}!4

 

luThe original of this letter, dated July 11, 1793,

is in the Mansucript Collection of the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania.

83

Little public notice was given the theatre in March
and April. By May there began to be more active develop-
ment of the structure.

Yesterday, the 1st of May, the foundation of the

New Theatre in Chesnut Street was laid, and, as

every article for the building is prepared, the

work will be carried on with the utmost spirit,

and the House be ready to open by the beginning

of November next.15
The time between February and May is not a lengthy period
for preparing "every article for the building." This
would probably include the cutting and sizing of lumber,
the purchase and transportation of the necessary hardware,
and the engagement of carpenters and other tradesmen with
skills necessary to execute a large structure with some of
the problems encountered in raising churches or other
buildings with high, open central areas.

It has been shown that at least one estimate of the
completion of the theatre was set for October 31, 1792 at
the latest. Wignell, in London, would have been watching
the mails with great interest for the late spring and
summer would have to be the time when he must be asking
for commitments from performers. More importantly, he
would have to be making commitments. English performers
would be reluctant about any arrangement that seemed less
than secure, for, if their expected American employment

did not materialize, they would lack engagements for the

coming theatrical season.

 

15Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, May 2, 1792.

 

84

The same American Daily Advertiser that reported on

 

May second the foundation laying for the theatre included
the following three weeks later.

The New Theatre, the building of which has been
retarded for want of the model still expected by
the Pigou, is, we hear, to front on Chesnut-street.
The front on that street will be about 88 feet, of
which the body of the Theatre will occupy 68, with
one arch on each side, one of which will afford a
communication between Chesnut-street, and the street
behind the building. The Theatre will stand ten
feet back from Chesnut-street, and run to the line
of Carpenter's street 13“ feet. The first story of
the main front is to be divided into five arches,
between which and the doors of the theatre there
will be an area the length of the building, and

ten feet in width, which will serve to shelter

from the weather those going in or coming out.

From a view of the plan of this building, it
appears well calculated for convegience, and
displays a great share of taste.1

It may be assumed the comment, "the building . . . which
. . . is, we hear, to front on Chesnut-street," is a
rhetorical device in the style of the writer and not a
display of ignorance about the earlier laying of the
foundation. The important fact exhibited here is that

a definite plan was present and had been seen by the
reporter. The importance of the presence of a scale
model to advance construction is an interesting phenomenon.
Detailed elevations and riggings would seem to have made
such a model unnecessary. There are numerous specu-
lations that might be made regarding this. Perhaps the
elevations and riggings were not sufficiently detailed.

The working drawings may have only outlined certain

 

l6Ibid., May 22, 1792.

85

large masses and the ground plan. Also, the configurations
and decoration exhibited by a model may have been used in
that time to aid during the early construction period.
Perhaps a combination of these is the more accurate
explanation. Ft
The long awaited model arrived about the middle of
June. The announcement of this arrival is worth repeating.

Monday arrived in this city from London, by the way
of New York, the model by which the new Theatre of .
Messrs. Wignell and Reinagle, in Chesnut-street, is ' 7
to be erected. This plan has been pronounced by

European Architects and persons of taste and judg-

ment, to be better calculated for a building, of

convenient and elegant accommodation, as well with

respect to the performers as the audience, than any

Theatre of equal dimensions, hitherto constructed--

The model will in a few days be exhibited for the

gratification of the curious.17

 

It is strange that the clause "to be erected" is used.
Supposedly the foundation was laid in May and the work com—
menced with the parts of the building in readiness. I
suggest that the grammatic construction that might have
been more appropriate would have been "being erected."
Setting aside this possibility, and accepting the quote

as an accurate appraisal of progress on the building would
suggest unreasonably long delays. The suggestion that
progress was underway is reinforced by the fact that a
new subscription for forty shares was made available on
June 2, 1792. It is difficult to imagine Reinagle pro—

posing an additional subscription one year after the first

 

l7Pennsylvania Gazette, June 20, 1792.

86

subscription unless he could indicate some tangible results
of the initial investment, and the foundation was certainly
a tangible piece of evidence.
Wignell was far from idle during the Spring. Witness
a portion of his letter of May twentieth that was printed
on July twelfth.
The afternoon, I arrived from a tour of near seven
hundred miles; in which I have seen many theatres;
—-and from some of them shall procure an accession
of strength that will amply compensate the trouble
and expense. Mr. West, a native of America, and
now President of the Royal Academy in London, has
just seen the plan of the new Theatre, and is
charmed with it. He says it will be the greatest
ornament (if finished on the intended plan) that
the city of Philadelphia can boast of;--and I have
reason to expect, that he will lend us the aid 0
his pencil, in designing some of the ornaments.1
By the time Reinagle had received this letter, he must
have had to respond to this hopeful enthusiasm with an
uneasiness about the expected completion of the theatre.
Meanwhile, Wignell's rival for talent was concluding his
business and soon to return to the United States. Henry,
who had not sailed to England until March of 1792, was
not retarded in his recruitment by concern for where his

company would play. His plan was to use the John Street

Theatre in New York, the Southwark in Philadelphia and a

 

18Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser. Benjamin West

had been interested in painting while a lad in America.

He gained attention as a portrait painter before the age

of twenty. After leaving the colonies in 1763 to live

and study in Italy, he moved from Italy to England where

he married and lived until his death in 1820. During his
long stay he enjoyed the patronage of George III and the
friendship of Joshua Reynolds and others. He became Presi-
dent of the Royal Academy in 1792 and retained that posi-
tion, with the exception of one year, until his death.

 

87

theatre he and Hallam controlled in Baltimore. Hence, he
was able to gather a company in a brief period of time and
have that company arrive in New York in late September and
perform on October first. Henry arrived after his company
but in time for its members to support him in a perfor-
mance on October eighth.

Wignell's lot was predictable. The building had been
delayed, the season postponed, at best. The performers had
to be freed from any contracts already made.

Rumblings appear to have taken place in Philadelphia.
Reinagle wrote to at least one subscriber explaining
Wignell's delay. Wignell, "having been informed from
substantial authority that the theatre would not be com-
pleted before spring [1793], tho't it was prudent to permit
the persons he had engaged to accept of employment for the
winter in England."19 Wignell may have had the subscriber's
interest uppermost in his thoughts. His rationale for
letting these people go was to avoid the great expense of
their being unoccupied in Philadelphia. Their salaries
would have to have been paid, whether they played or not.
No where is it suggested that the two managers considered
playing at the Southwark until their theatre was ready.
They might have been able to arrange to play there. It

may be they corresponded on this point and wished to hold

 

l9Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser,
January 15, 1793.

 

88

off until they could have an opening in the style then
envisioned, with no tawdry theatre, outlying district
and the other detriments accompanying the Southwark.

The author of the Federal Gazette entry quoted here,

 

regretted that Wignell "was not better informed of the
surprising exertions of his partner . . . to get.all in
readiness for his reception." The author may have judged
that all needed to perform plays was prepared by January
of 1793. Subsequent evidence indicates he knew little of
the readiness of the theatre for the production of plays
or Operas. Continued and ambitious progress had been
made in the Fall of 1792 that must have given the impres-
sion by mid-January of 1793 that the theatre was in a
state of near completion. However, an annual publication
in Philadelphia that included the names and occupations
of its citizens, also included the public buildings of
interest and the following excerpt is taken from that
book:

We have here two theatres, the one called the old

theatre situated in Cedar, between Fourth and

Fifth Streets, now open. The other called the

new theatre corner of Sixth and Chesnut Streets,

which we are informed will be open some time in

next September.20

On the day Reinagle's letter was quoted in the

paper, the theatre was opened for an inspection by the

 

20James Hardie, Philadelphia Directory and Register
(Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1793), p. 213.

 

89

Governor and the legislature and found to be "beautiful"

"21 The subscribers

and "nearly ready for performance.
were probably allowed to visit at this time also, though
they may have enjoyed privileges at other times as well.
This estimate of its readiness for opening might have

been the observation of a dilettante gleaned from a
Reinagle tour speech. The work was unfinished and in

such a state of readiness that

. . . the subscribers to the Theatre, were re-

spectfully informed that at the particular request

of the Machinist no person upon any account what-
ever (except those concerned in the direction of
the building) could possibly be admitted till
further notice.
This notice appeared the day following the visit of the
dignitaries. It was repeated in the same newspaper
January nineteenth and twenty-fifth.

The machinist referred to here was probably Charles
Milbourne, a scene painter Wignell had hired in London,
who was responsible for the decoration of the house, the
scenery, also the stage equipment. Milbourne was assisted
by Charles Ciceri, a scene painter who was not hired in
England but taken on after he had traveled some and
worked in several places in America.

On Friday, January 25, 1793, Reinagle provided

Dunlap's paper with an announcement of a meeting to be

 

21Jacob 0. Parsons, Extracts from the Diary of
Jacob Hiltzheimer of Philadelphia 1765-98 (Philadelphia:
W. F. Fell Co., 1893), p. 188.

90

held at the City Tavern the following Monday evening at
seven o'clock. This announcement was printed on Saturday,
the twenty-fifth, and the interest of subscribers to the
theatre would have been aroused by another pronouncement
in the same edition.

The subscribers having all had an opportunity of

seeing the Theatre, are respectfully informed that

it will be positively shut from this time till

Saturday next, 2d February, when it will be

opened for the public, with A GRAND CONCERT, of

Vocal & Instrumental Music.

The timing of these two notices bears some comment.

A meeting had been called for Monday evening.
Reinagle would have known if he and Wignell were to under—
go some serious criticism at that meeting. What better
way to greet his patrons than with an announcement that
he intended to Open the theatre, if only for a concert.
This kind of performance would make no demands on the
stage machinery and still give the audience something to
remember and look forward to. In the interim, closing
the theatre to outsiders would have provided Milbourne
and Ciceri the opportunity to speed their preparations
for public viewing on the second of February.

The meeting on the Monday night at the City Tavern
may have been calm. It may also have been stormy. At
that gathering someone and, presumably, that someone
would have been Reinagle, had to relate "the reasons and

motives" that were causing Wignell to remain so long in

London before sailing with his company. There was not

91

just a "hearing" of these causes for a delay but they
were subjected to consideration. It does not seem un-
likely that this examination of Wignell's motives was
heated and provided some differences of opinion.

The subscribers were in Macbeth's position of
realizing that going back was as difficult as going
ahead. There were few alternatives open to them that
would not prove costly. The result of this meeting

was published on Wednesday, the thirtieth of January.

 

At a meeting of the Subscribers to the New
Theatre held at the City-Tavern on Monday the
28th January 1793, agreeable to public adver-
tisement,

Dr. Ruston in the Chair,

It was unanimously agreed,

That the subscribers after hearing and
considering the reasons and motives which have
induced Mr. Wignell to delay bringing out his
company, do fully approve the same, and have
full reliance on his continued exertions for
their interest and the reputation of himself
and company.22

Wignell's vote of confidence bought him some time.
Reinagle would have been able with safety to predict the
inhabitance of the theatre by a professional company for
the 1793—94 season.

Meanwhile, for purposes of diversion and trying
the theatre for acoustical properties, Reinagle was able
to announce his program of music for the coming Saturday

evening. This program was to consist of an Overture,

 

22Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, January 30,
1793.

92

composed and conducted by Mr. Reinagle and three acts of
music, the first two acts to be separated by a dance and,
at the close, a "Grand Dance." Performances of plays
usually began at six o'clock, but the premier concert
was to start at seven o'clock. The box office was open
from ten a.m. to five p.m. each day and tickets were
7/6 for Box seats, 5/7 for the Pit, and 3/7 for Gallery.23
A second concert was performed on the fourth of
February with pit and gallery prices slightly higher
than on the evening of the Opening. The program was not
announced in the papers but to be "expressed in the Bill
of the Day." Subscribers could obtain their tickets from
a Mr. Young "opposite the North Door of the Theatre."
The north door would have been facing the rear of the
theatre in Carpenter Street. The following description
of the theatre, appearing on February fourth could easily
have aroused the interest of theatre lovers as well as
the curious who had never seen the inside of a structure
designed to be a theatre.
The New Theatre, which is now nearly completed,
already affords a very agreeable prospect of
entertainment to the lovers of the drama, who seem
to be highly delighted with the excellence of the
plan, and the elegance of the decorations; for,
exclusive of its being very large and commodious,
it is, perhaps, one of the handsomest piles of

building in the world for the purpose. The stage
is admirably constructed with a fall of a few

 

23Ibid., January 31, February 1 and 2, 1793.

93

inches, from the front curtain to the Orchestra,
so as to raise the actors considerably to the
view of the audience. The scenery is very.
beautiful, and the perspective well-judged.--

The pit is extremely convenient, as the seats are
better adapted with respect to distance and ele-
vation, than is usually to be met with. There
are two tier of boxes, supported by rows of fluted
Corinthian columns, highly gilt, with a crimson
ribband twisted from the base to the capita1.~-
The tops of the boxes are richly ornamented with
crimson, drapery, festoons and tassels. . . . The
pannels are of pale rose-color, with all the
beadings gilt. The gallery is both large and
convenient, and the view, from every part of the
House, will command the whole extent of the stage.
--The entrances are so well contrived, and the
lobbies so spacious, that there can be no possi—
bility of the least confusion or disturbance,
among the audience, going to the different parts
of the House. There are also two completely—
planned bars for wine and other refreshments, at
each side of the lobby, pertaining to the first
tier of boxes; so that nothing remains neglected
for the gratification of both the eye and palate,
and, by the assay commenced by a concert last
Saturday evening, it has equally charmed the ear
of our citizens, by its sweet echo, proceeding
from the moat perfect vocal and instrumental
abilities.2

A third and, for that period, last concert was performed
on February seventh. The announcement for that concert
was prefaced by the statement that this was to be the
"Last Time till further notice." A footnote to the news-
paper advertisement for the concert mentions that a "very
considerable Number of lights, in addition to the former,

"25 Apparently it

are now added by means of branches.
had been discovered during the first two concerts that

lighting in the theatre was insufficient. It is not

 

2uIbid., February 4. 251b1d-, February 7’ 1793°

94

clear if the additional lights were on the stage or in
the auditorium. It may be that, by standards Of the day,
both areas required better illumination.

The popular acceptance of the concerts might have
encouraged Reinagle to present more evenings of enter-
tainment. At the opening,

. . . notwithstanding the inclemency of the evening,

a large number of citizens appeared in every part

of the house-—the boxes exhibited a blaze of beauty

--the pit was a display of respectable judges, and

the gallery was filled with orderly, well disposed

citizens whose decsgcy of behavior deserves the
greatest applause.
However, no further performances were forthcoming. Why
this was true for the remainder of the winter and spring
is not certain. The impression given is that there was
work the technicians had to complete in the theatre.
Another deterrent could have been a legislative hassle
that centered around the theatre shortly after the con-
certs mentioned above. Some person, observing the Opening
of the theatre, and apparently impressed with its potential
income, had the notion to tax that place of amusement to
pay for the completion of a house for the President of
the United States. It must be understood that attempts
to raise funds for that purpose through legislative action

had not been successful, despite the popularity of Presi-

dent Washington.

 

26Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser,
February 4, 1793.

95

The proposal that recommended this tax was intro-
duced in the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania
and sought to permit the borrowing of seventy-five
hundred pounds to complete the presidential residence.
This loan would then be repaid by a tax on the theatre
of fifty dollars per night.27 Reaction to this legis-
lative move was rapid and adverse.

The citizens of Pennsylvania have heretofore
reposed with confidence, believing that at least
the ninth article of our excellent constitution
was in full force, which contains the declaration
of our individual rights as citizens; and why the
American work of reformation should begin with
the Assembly of Representatives, by an attack on
the Rights of Men, is unaccountable. Yet, we are
told, with an air of truth, that a tax of fifty
dollars per night, was yesterday passed by one
branch of the Legislature, to be levied on the
Managers of the New Theatre, in violation, as is
conceived, of the Constitution, which declares,
that "no expost facto law, nor any law impairing
contracts, shall be made."

That the unfortunate managers, after the
repeal of the law against the establishment of a
Theatre, contracted to pay six percent to the
subscribers, previous to the loan for an expen-
sive building, is well known; nor is it urged,.
that their property, now to be thus partially
taxed or fined, is in consequence of any crime
whatever by them commited. They are to be con—
demned and ruined without trial, although no
offence is alledged against them, in defiance of
the constitution as well as of the Rights of
Individuals. 8

2

Vivat Respublica.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another citizen wrote at length complimenting "Vivat

Respublica," commenting on the "public animadversion" to

 

27
1793.

28Ibid., February 23, 1793.

Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, February 22,

 

96

the plan, and warning that such a precedent could result
in public buildings erected by "taylors," insurance com-
panies, banks or other private agencies at the whim of
the legislature. This citizen felt the managers of the
theatre had no more interest in paying for the presi-
dent's abode than would other citizens, and, that a tax
peculiar to them relieved the general populace of a
responsibility, "necessary or not," that should be
shared by all. It was the hope of this citizen that the
senate would reject the resolution.29 "Philo juStitiae"
followed with similar lengthy argument on March first.30

The attempt to pass the legislation for the tax on
the Theatre came to nought. The defeat of this unexpected
challenge to theatre may have increased the confidence of
some in the wisdom of the solons, but the attempt to levy
the tax could have been a move to insure the failure of
the theatre. It will be seen that, before the theatre
was to open officially, a last-ditch campaign was developed
to prevent that opening.

Mention in Durang of a concert played April 2, 1793
at the Chesnut Street Theatre seems to be inaccurate.
That he uses the second day Of the month suggests that

his source was correct in that the first concert took

 

29Ibid., February 28, 1793.

30Ibid., March 1, 1793.

97

place on the second. However, it is probable the source
referred to the performance February 2 and made error
in recording it as April.

In the winter, spring, and summer of 1793 Reinagle
and Wignell were aiming at an early Fall opening for
their theatre. There were impediments but none appeared
sufficient to prevent such a plan. The stage and audi-
torium would be fully prepared for the production and
crewing of plays, operas, or concerts. The company of
players would have been assembled in England, transported
to Philadelphia and prepared for a season featuring comedy
and tragedy, farce and opera. Wignell, though detained at
length by his release of performers the previous year,
was able to promise employment with the certainty that
the theatre posed no obstacle. It appeared as though only
some disaster of nature could prevent an opening.

In the summer, Reinagle faced what could have proved
to be a crucial difficulty. John Dickinson, owner of the
property where the theatre then stood, pressed hard for
payments he had been promised. From Reinagle's letter of
July eleventh, the impression is given that the payment
had been requested before and there was a threat to bring
some legal action against Reinagle. The co-manager was
cordial and respectful in his reply explaining in brief
some reasons for the delay. At the same time, he seemed

willing to lock horns if necessary.

98

Mr. Jarvis has this moment been with me with re—
peated instructions from you to proceed with
rigorous measures, which if really pursued will

I am convinced be the cause of regret to yourself

as well as infinite injury to us. . . .

In a less than conciliatory tone, Reinagle closes the
letter by asking a month's indulgence which, if granted,
must cause Dickinson to "feel the satisfaction of
averting a disagreement and great inconvenience, from
Sir your most, etc, etc." On July sixteenth, another
letter from Reinagle, more cordial by far, thanked the
land holder for his consent to delay the payment.

In the first of these letters Reinagle refers to a
communication from Wignell: "From the last letter I have
received from my partner in London I have every reason to
expect he will be here in the course of the next month
immediately after which our business will commence. . . ."
He then hedged the prediction of a month by asking "a
short indulgence till the month of September."31

Wignell's preparations were about to conclude and
his company to sail for America. A promissory note for
the cost of the company's passage is dated July 27, 1793
and was signed in London. Fifty-six men, women and chil-
dren were bound for America in the George Barclay. The

cost of their passage was set at thirty-two hundred

dollars. This figure is established from a letter from

 

31Reinagle's letters of July 11 and 16, 1793 are
in the Manuscript Collection of the Historical Society
of Pennsylvania.

99

Henry Hill to Mr. Meade, dated January 7, 179A. Eight
men had made this money available in lots of four hundred
dollars each.32 Wignell had indicated in his promissory
note of the previous July to the George Barclay company
in London that he would pay the first installment against
this figure ninety days after his arrival in America.
At first glance the cost of passage might seem high,
but the total figure divided by the fifty-six persons
to be conveyed results in an individual cost of only
slightly more than fifty-seven dollars. James Fennell,
contracted by Wignell in an arrangement somewhat different
than that of his future associates, had sailed in advance
of them.33

The Old American Company, regularly playing in New
York during the theatrical season, thought to use its
Summer by an engagement at the Southwark. The older house
was Opened for a season beginning July 1 and intended to
run as long as audiences would support the company. The
company played through July and into late August. A bene-
fit for Mrs. Pownall was performed August twenty—third
and Hodgkinson's benefit was advertised for August twenty-

sixth, then rescheduled for August twenty—eighth.

 

32This letter is in the Smith Papers of the Manu—
script Collection Of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

33James Fennell, An Apology for the Life of James
Fennell (Philadelphia: Moses Thomas, 1813), p. 333.

 

100

Hodgkinson was not to enjoy the fruits of a benefit that
season for, by August twenty-eighth, Philadelphia was
torn by a plague of yellow fever that raged through the
city. The announcement for Mrs. Pownall's benefit had
included the note that Mrs. Henry had been "obliged to
go to Bristol for her health,"3u though no mention is
made of yellow fever. The intention of the Old American
Company to further postpone Hodgkinson's benefit due to
the "Indisposition of Part of the Company" indicates some
of its members may also have been victims of this dread
disease.35
The plague descended on Philadelphia in early
August and continued until November ninth. The advent
of winter usually was a signal that the epidemic was
passing. This period in 1793 was one of "unrelieved
horror." Those who could afford to, left the community.36
President Washington, who was seldom able to visit Mount
Vernon, was on September tenth spirited away for safety's

sake. This respite from his duties at the seat of govern-

ment lasted until December second.37 By November

 

3“Dunlap's American Advertiser, August 23, 1793.

 

35Pollock, Op. cit., p. 201.

36Edward M. Riley, "Philadelphia, The Nation's
Capital, 1790-1800," Pennsylvania History, XX, No. 4
(October, 1953), 374-375-

37Rufus W. Griswold, The Republican Court, or
American Society in the Days of Washington (New York:
D. Appleton and Co., 1867), p. 314.

 

101

thirteenth, Thomas Bradford's son wrote him from Elizabeth,
New Jersey that "from all reports the fever has entirely

"38

left the city especially our part of town. The number
of deaths in Philadelphia in the three month plague was
set at five thousand. This would represent somewhere
between 10 and 20 per cent of the population. There was
talk of burning buildings and meeting places. It was

the intent of some to prevent any public meetings.

In the very height of this scourge, Wignell and his
troupe arrived from England. Arriving in September, their
ship anchored in the Delaware River Off Gloucester, New
Jersey. Wignell debarked and paid a visit to Philadelphia
where he met with the news of conditions there. Fennell,
who had been hard pressed for cash since his arrival in
the city somewhat earlier, had been teaching English to
French fugitives from St. Domingo. He was discovered by
Wignell at the home of Morris, the same performer who had
defected with Wignell. Fennell aided Wignell in returning
to the ship with food and provisions and there met his
fellow players. Wignell had no intention of endangering
the lives of the company or the investment of the sub-

scribers. No prediction could be made about the duration

of the plague. The previous year had been the first in

 

38The personal correspondence of Thomas Bradford
is located in the Historical Society Of Pennsylvania
Manuscript Collection.

102

which it had ever been encountered in the United States
and little was known about it.39

The ship could not be held so Wignell decided to
make arrangements for housing his performers in the rural
communities of southern New Jersey. Wignell asked Fennell
to aid him in making temporary arrangements for the
quartering of his company.

. . . Wignell, whom every one who knew him must
have loved, finding himself with so large a
company, in such a state of the City of Phila-
delphia, requested that as I had been some time

in the country, I would take the charge of them
and procure them lodgings in the Jerseys. The
farmers were generous enough to give asylums to
the respective families, and the single men were
accommodated at a tavern in Sandtown. Here we
were visited as strange wild beasts or nondescript
animals--the expansion of intelligent ideas not
having embraced, in the multitude, the conception
of what genus a playactor could be. However, after
having visited us, drank our wine, and heard our
songs, they concluded that we were something human.
Here our revered friend, Wignell, was under the
necessity of leaving us, to provide for exigencies,
depositing in my hands thirty dollars 'twas
all he could, but thus was I left with thirty
dollars only, in the charge OE fifty—six human
beings for three weeks. . . . O

 

The weeks dragged on and the costs of supporting a
large body of players mounted. Wignell and Reinagle were
contracted to supply salaries for their players from the
time they landed in America. Hence, the months of
September, October and November were a drain on the

resources of the subscribers to the New Theatre. Wignell's

 

39John Bernard, Retrospections of America, 1797-
1811 (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1887), p. 260; also,
Hornblow, op. cit., I, p. 199.

quennell, op. cit., pp. 335-336.

103

. . . arrival with so numerous a company (than
which the London stage could boast no better)
during the first yellow fever, was a mortal stab
to the success of his pursuits. Everything that
man could do in such a situation was effected by
Mr. Wignell: he summoned all his fortitude to his
aid; used every exertion to accommodate his com-
pany, and bore with patient resignation the mis-
fortunes of the season. If the peevish complaints
of inconsiderate individuals sometimes excited an r"
extraordinary acuteness of angry feeling, there
was no hypocritical disguise; still was he the
same man, open, candid, and sincere. He felt
and disclosed his feelings; but remonstrated
without acerbity.

 

It is not clear at what point in this period a decision I
was made to use the talents of this group, but it was
determined to transport the company to Annapolis to play
there until Philadelphia was safe for its inhabitants
and their new theatrical servants. Baltimore seems to
have been passed over despite its larger pOpulation be-
cause the theatre there was owned by Hallam and Henry.

The Annapolis season ran the two months of December,
1793 and January, 1794. Seilhamer lists six performance
dates with programs for each date, commenting that this
was only a partial list of productions. Two of the per—
formances he notes were in December, the last of the six
on January twenty-fourth.u2 By the end of this period
Philadelphia had recovered sufficiently for the managers

to set their opening for the middle of February. The

 

ulIbid., p. 366.

“2Seilhamer, op. cit., III, p. 150.

104

Annapolis season was opened with The Castle of Andalusia by

 

John O'Keefe, the same piece later chosen to inaugurate the
Chesnut Street Theatre. Advantages were undoubtedly gained
from playing in Annapolis. The company would have been
able to earn some of its salary, friends could have been
won should the company return to play there again, and,
more importantly, the performers would know each other and
have the experience of working together before an audience.
It is difficult not to feel sympathy for Wignell and Rein-
agle, who had intended to present an auspicious opening for
the people of Philadelphia early in September of 1793.
While Wignell and Reinagle were with the company in
Annapolis, a renewed effort was made by the Quakers and
others to stall or prevent the opening of the theatre. In
December, several letters to the newspapers opposing and
supporting the theatre appeared. They were occasioned by
new appeals to the Pennsylvania Legislature to repeal the
law permitting playing. On the sixth of December, a com-
mittee of Friends (Quakers) visited each house of the
legislature with a petition depicting vices abroad in the
city and the wisdom exhibited by the governors of public
life in 1774 to prevent these vices (see page 10, Chapter
I). The particular focus of their petition was aimed at

"theatrical entertainments," though there had not been

105

regular playing in the city for two years and no playing
at all in the fall of 1793.)43

This petition seems to have been part of a campaign
to prevent the opening Of the theatre in Chesnut Street or
any other theatre in the City. There seems to have been
some thought that a hint could be included in these
petitions that the recent plague might have been visited
on the city by a wrathful god desirous of punishing the
citizens for their indulgence in unhealthy and sinful
diversions. Again on December nineteenth a petition was
submitted to these legislative houses. This address was
signed by representatives of various religious denomi-
nations "united by the common bond of Christianity." The
prefatory remarks introduce the notion of some unusual
causes relating to the plague, specifically, "having just
escaped from a calamity the most terrible, and rendered
exceedingly distressing by its peculiar circumstances,
etc." [My underline] After praising the representatives
of the republic for wisdom shown in so many ways, the
petitioners bore in on their target.

Whilst we request your public influence and exer-

tions against the several species of vice, herein

reprobated, permit us to remonstrate, also, with
all due respect, against the existing law which

 

“3"The Address and Petition of the People called
Quakers to the Senate and House of Representatives of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," December 6, 1793.
The original copy of this petition is in the Manuscript
Collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

106
authorizes theatrical exhibitions, and to petition
for its repeal.
In concluding, they could not do otherwise than to regard
the theatre
. . . as a public nuisance, and hope, that those
now erected in this city and vicinity, will be
totally abolished; the proprietors of the build-
ings be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses
incurred in erecting them, and those places be
converted into a public blessing, by being
appropriated as asylumfi for the distressed, the
widow, and the orphan. 4
A letter of December twenty—third to the Monthly meeting
of Friends of Philadelphia from a committee of three
Friends whose task it had been to "use Endeavors for the
discouragement of Stage Plays" indicates they were active
in supporting the plan to address the legislature. They
may, in fact, have originated this idea. They were spurred
to their task "more especially as Many of Us have partaken
deeply of the Cup of Affliction, during the late awful
Visitation.”5 There is reason here to suggest some per-
sons were relating the plague to the theatre. Though

Bernard was referring to a period later in the decade,

his observation supports this suggestion.

 

“D"The Address and Petition of several INHABITANTS
of the City of Philadelphia, and its Liberties to the
SENATE and House of REPRESENTATIVES of the Commonwealth
of PENNSYLVANIA," December 19, 1793. The original of this
document is in the Manuscript Collection of the Historical
Society Of Pennsylvania.

uSThis excerpt is from a letter to the Monthly Meet-
ing of Friends of Philadelphia and the original of it is
in the Friend's Archives, Philadelphia.

107

The Quakers and others, observing our reappearance
on the heels of the calamity, discovered the re-
lation between us of cause and effect, and pro—
claimed that we moved in a perpetual circle,
reproducing each other: the fevers, the actors--

the actors, the fever!

The battle for the legislative approval of public

entertainments had been waged and won

in the 1780's. The

congressmen were not to open this issue to another round

of petitions and debates for and against the staging of

plays despite the report of the clerk
Friend's Meeting, "that the petitions
received both by the Senate and House
Wignell and Reinagle had many friends
strength. Some of these friends were

to help as they were investors in the

of the Philadelphia
had been favorably
of Representatives."
in positions of
anxious and willing

theatre and who would

endeavor to prevent the government reverting to its earlier

stand on this matter. A letter from Wignell to one of the

legislators indicates that someone had appointed a committee

to care for the manager's interests in this latest exchange.

Dear Sir,

Enclosed is a general and sincere tribute of
acknowledgement, to the gentlemen who compose the
Committee appointed to watch over our interests, in
the Legislature, during the vindictive and oppres-
sive attack on our properties and livelihood.

Permit me, Sir, to trespass on your kindness
by requesting you to forward it to Mr. Evans, with

whose abode we are unaquainted,

and at the same

time, to offer our particular Thanks to you, for
this new mark of friendly attachment. . . .

By the date of Mr. Evans' Letter, it appears
we should have received it by Friday's Post instead

 

u6Bernard, op. cit., p. 261.

108

of this Evening's--but the business of the office
at Baltimore does not seem regularly conducted. We
found it at our lodgings on our return from the
Theatre: fatigued with the labour of the day and
Evening, you will kindly excuse this hasty scrawl,
which will I hope serve to assure you of the very
nature of the grateful sentiments entertained by
Mr. Reinagle and myself, for all your kindness—-
Your most obliged
and faithful-humble servants
Thomas Wignell

Annapolis Tuesday morning two o'clock
December 30th 179347

With this hurdle now cleared, Wignell and Reinagle
were ready to approach the long-delayed opening of the New
Theatre with the hope and expectation that they would enjoy
the pleasure of their auditors and accompanying financial
success. The long and very difficult period leading up to
1794 had been frought with frustration and delay. One
result of these postponements was a beginning marred by a
large financial debt. Many secondary sources use William

Wood's Personal Recollections of the Stage as definitive

 

evidence that suggested the debt was approximately twenty
thousand dollars. They refer to the quote which reads,
"so complete was his establishment on the arrival of his
first company in 1793, that before the Philadelphia house
could be Opened a debt of 20,000 dollars nearly had been
incurred." Few refer to or estimate the meaning of the

sentences that immediately succeed this quote,

 

u7The original of this letter is in the Manuscript
Collection of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

109

. . . of course this heavy burden was increased by
those visitations of pestilence. The frightful
state of the city in 1793 . . . compelled him to
quarter his large force in different villages of
Jersey, where a monstrous gebt was hourly accumu-
lating in salaries alone."

The fact is that estimates made on this evidence and
which included the twenty thousand Wood mentions would
have resulted in the most conservative statistics. The
Manuscript Collection Of the Historical Society of Pennsyl-
vania provides a more realistic view of the theatre's debt
at its opening. A financial statement for the theatre
accompanying a resolution passed by the subscribers on
June 25, 1795 is among the holdings in that Collection.
This resolution was unanimously adopted to relieve the
managers from the heavy burden of existing debts by the
sale of an additional subscription for a loan. More will
be said of this resolution later, but what is of interest
here was an abstract attached to the resolution that indi-
cated disbursements for the theatre in Chesnut Street.
Unfortunately, these disbursements were not itemized.

Even without detailed information we know that:

The amount of monies paid, and debts contracted for,

the purchase money of the Lot for erecting the

building; for providing scenery, machinery, and

other apparatus; for the charge of the Performers,
while the opening of the Theatre was unfortunately
suspended, in consequence of the yellow fever; for

the expence of conveying the Company to and from
Maryland, and for other necessary disbursements

l‘8Wood, op. cit., p. 43.

 

110

preparatory to the production of an income from

the Theatre,“9
was figured at one hundred thousand dollars.

Thomas Wignell and Alexander Reinagle, at last
entering into their managerial roles at the Chesnut
Street Theatre were faced with enormous responsibilities
that were quite apart from artistic and aesthetic con-
siderations. After a view of their theatre we will
return to a consideration of how they dealt with these

responsibilities.

 

ugSee Appendix C.

CHAPTER IV

THE NEW THEATRE, ITS PERFORMING COMPANY,

AND OPENING IN 1794

The first theatrical performance in the Chesnut
Street Theatre was viewed by the public February 17, 1794.
First nighters approached an unmarked building that could
have been a church or served some other function. St.
Mery noted that its brick facade had nothing on it "to
indicate that it is a public building." He went as far
as to describe the entrance as "shabby" and commented that
it differed in no way "from that of an ordinary house."1
The decorative portions above the entrance depicted in
the certificate drawing on page 72 had not been completed
in time for the opening. The result was a rather plain
structure as approached from any aspect. Later the two
niches in the upper face were the locations of figures
of Tragedy and Comedy executed by William Rush, the well-
known sculptor of ship's insignia. Figure 4 on page 113

shows a temporary structure attached to the front of the

 

lMoreau de St. Mery, American Journey, 1793-98
(Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1947), p. 345.

 

lll

112

building and covered to protect patrons before and after
performances. No mention is made of this structure in
descriptions of the building published in 1793, 1794, or
1795.2 However, its addition must have produced a canopy
welcome to audiences. Though the lobbies were considered
spacious, they would have been hard put to accommodate
several hundred or a thousand persons socializing before
a performance or at intermission and the impermanent
entryway Birch showed would have allowed the overflow to
be out of the weather.

The building depicted by Birch does not show the
wings on either side of the building that are pictured on
the certificates. It must be pointed out that the west
wing, if there had been one in the early years of the
theatre's existence, would have been on the farther side
of the theatre in the Birch View and somewhat obscured by
the cover in front of the theatre. The thought that the
west wing might have been recessed seemed a remote and
doubtful possibility. However, a later view of the
theatre, shown in page 114 with its neo-classic facade,
indicated that the wings were set back from the rest of

the building. Unfortunately, the Birch drawing shows

 

2Ezekial Forman, "Letter to John c. Rockhill,"
The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and_Biography, X
(1886), 182-187; Henry Wansey, Journal of an Excursion
to the United States of North America (London: n.p.,
1795), 290 pp.; St. Mery, and newspapers.

 

 

 

 

113

 

Figure 4.-—Birch View of the Chesnut Street Theater, 1800.

114

’Myvmmv

p-I

 

Figure 5.——Facade of the Chesnut Street Theatre designed by Benjamin Latrobe, 1805.

115

neither wing and we do not know exactly when they were con-
structed. Indeed, were they present in 1800 and not shown
in the drawing? This is important because, in 1805, the
theatre had two wings that ran the length of the building.
On page 116 an 1806 ground plan by Strickland shows the
wings of the building indicating the use of the west wing
for important functional purposes. In that wing were the
gallery stairs, a scenery storage room, a green room

directly off stage right, a staircase to the floor below

 

stage, a large room unidentified as to use but containing

a fireplace, and a smaller room with a passage out of the
theatre to an alley. In 1794, this exit would have led to
an open field. Practical men of the theatre would hope
this wing was a part of the original theatre because it
contained so many desirable features. However, the absence
in the Birch View of the east wing cannot be ignored. It
seems unlikely that the west wing was built with the rest
of the central part of the theatre and the east wing later
when the adjacent store and the stores on Sixth Street were
added. The significance for audiences in 1794 of the ab—
sence of both wings would have been that all customers
would have entered the doors in the front of the building,
whether destined for the pit, box or gallery. Gallery folk
would have had to mingle with the customers who paid for
the higher price seats, at least in the lobby and corridors,

and on the stairs. The absence of the wings would deprive

.
C

.
..

p
I
O
J
u
o
..
'-
..

.v ‘
"Lr"...~£1 MM 3:1 .-

91‘»! '(V
3

EH

 

 

 

 

116

 

Figure 6.-Ground plan for the Chesnut Street Theatre, 1806.

117

the audience Of a green room or green rooms where they
might socialize with the performers, and the performers

of a comfortable place to await entrances or lounge before
and after performances. As nothing is known of the build-

ing's basement, it is difficult to assess the space avail-

 

able there for use as dressing space or green room area. T;
The audience approached the front of the theatre

to gain the different parts of the house. The impression

is gained from the Birch View that refreshments could be 7

purchased in the street before entering. The number of
doors in the front of the building is fairly certain from
the certificate drawing and the ground plan. It seems
almost sure that there were three, the other two depres-
sions in the certificate drawing were probably decorations
as shown in Figure 3. The presence in the ground plan of
steps to three of the openings supports the argument for
three entrances. Tradition may be added to this brief.
If the three access routes on the ground plan that show
steps to them were the actual passages, it was decided
to vary the placement of these from the certificate plan,
for, in that plan, the two depressions for decoration are
between the three doors and not outside them.

As one faced the building, the left door led to
the pit. There must have been some passageway through the
bowels of the building that led from that door directly

to the benches in the pit. This type of an entryway seems

118

a strong possibility based on British theatre architecture
3

of the eighteenth century. "to the boxes you ascend in
front, by a flight Of marble steps, enter the lobby and
pass to the corridors, which communicate with all the
boxes."Ll

St. Mery wrote, "The corridors are roomy and com—
fortable."5 This area in the theatre had been fairly well
completed a year earlier. At that time, the observer for
The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser noted
that "the entrances are so well contrived, and the lobbies
so spacious, that there can be no possibility of the least
lconfusion or disturbance, among the audience, going to the

6 At the time Of the Offi-

different parts Of the House."
cial Opening in 1794 the bars on either side Of the lobby
"pertaining to the boxes" and designed to provide "wine
and other refreshments" were probably functioning.7 It

was undoubtedly from these bars that "wine and porter" were

carried to the pit and sold during intermissions. One

 

3See Richard Southern, The Georgian Playhouse

“Mease, Op. cit., p. 330.

58t. Mery, Op. cit., p. 329.

6February 4, 1793.

7Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, February 4, 1793.

T'"]

 

119

visitor noted another diversion: "A shocking custom Ob—
tains here of smoking tobacco in the house, which at times
is carried to such an excess, that those to whom it is
disagreeable are under the necessity of going away."8
Fortunately for those who sat in the box seats, there
were small "sash windows" in the upper walls that Opened
on the corridor. St. Mery thought these might be useful
as air could enter the boxes without Opening the doors.9
These windows were probably more important as vents
through which smoke could escape the boxes. .
Refreshments included ice cream. Made, in 1794, by
Messieur Mercier, a Frenchman, this delight at the theatre
was found by St. Mery to be "dear" in price but, mediocre,
in fact, "the most mediocre of all."10 Other sweets sold
are not enumerated but there were most certainly a number
of these. In another part of his diary, the very helpful
St. Mery comments again on the price of "refreshments, of
which there is a store in a pretty little shOp in the

lobby."11

This commentary allows for the possibility
that the bars for wine and other drinks were concessions

separate from the "store." Mercier may have hawked his

 

8Isaac Weld, Travels Through the States of North
America (London: John Stockdale, 1800), p. 23.

9

 

St. Mery, Op. cit., p. 346°

10 11

Ibid., p. 323. Ibid., p. 347.

120

ice cream from this shop. If tobacco was sold, this may
have been the audience's source for it, although it is
uncertain whether or not tobacco was sold in the house
anywhere.

The auditorium and stage were physically related as
may be Observed in the ground plan or the picture on page
121, the latter made from a picture of the interior pub-

lished in the Spring Of 1794.12

This architectural style
which includes boxes that bordered the apron and stage
doors right and left was common in the eighteenth century
and can be traced to the Restoration theatres. Stage
doors appeared in many nineteenth century theatres also,
two examples being the rebuilding Of the Covent Garden
Theatre, London, in 1809 and the Park Street Theatre, New
York, Opened in 1821 as the successor to the first Park
Street Theatre. Nearest the stage, the boxes on either
side faced each other across the apron of the stage. St.
Mery thought this "fronst" stage, or that part projecting
into the auditorium had "wings that represent portions of
facades Of beautiful houses, but they project tOO far onto
the stage and hide the rear of the stage, as well as the

row of side wings, from spectators in boxes nearest the

stage."13 The next boxes away from the stage faced half

 

12New York Magazine or LiteraryiRepository, V, NO.
4 (April, 1794), 195. Mr. L. Lewis Of Philadelphia seems
to have been the artist who, with the help of a New York

 

Engraver named Ralph, executed the original of this picture.

l3St. Mery, op. cit., p. 346.

121

 

 

Figure 7.-—View of the auditorium and stage from the New York Magazine, 1794.

122

on the orchestra and half on the pit. In total, there
were fifteen boxes on the level of the lobby and stage.
Another fifteen boxes were immediately above these.
Despite St. Mery's description of the box arrangement,
that is, "three tiers Of boxes are pleasingly arranged

in a semi-ellipse . . . there are fifteen boxes in each
tier," several bits of evidence contradict his description
of the third tier of boxes.lu Doubts about St. Mery's
description were caused by the fact that he did not refer
to a gallery location. He wrote of three tiers Of boxes in
the configuration of a horseshoe. If, in addition to the
boxes he described, there was a gallery, it would have to
have been either behind the boxes on the third level or

by itself on a fourth tier. The size of the building makes
this second alternative unlikely. Left with the first Of
these choices, one might assume the gallery "gods" were
placed just to the rear of the third tier of boxes. How—
ever, the boxes were enclosed and would prevent spectators
behind them from seeing unless they had no back walls at
that level. All this was made clear by the discovery of

a letter from Mr. Ezekial Forman to a friend, Mr. John C.

Rockhill, and dated March 25, 1793.15 Mr. Forman,

 

luIbid.

15Forman, Op. cit., p. 183, Forman's letter is
dated 1793, but the contents refer to the year 1794. He
refers to the opening "on Monday evening the 17th Of
February," the day Of the month Of the 1794 Opening. NO
performance was presented February 17, 1793.

 

123

describing the theatre to his friends, explained that,
There are three rows Of the Boxes, two of which
extend from the stage quite round the House and
that part of them fronting the Stage is immedi-
ately underneath the Gallery, while the third
and upper row extends only half way round on
each side till it meets with the Gallery which
is separated from it by a partition and iron
banister with sharp pointed spikes. . . .
The evidence here leads to the conclusion that there
were something less than the forty-five boxes St. Mery
tallied. Another source describes "a semi-circle having
two rows Of boxes extending from side to side, with
another row above these, and on a line with the gallery

in front."16

The answer to the question, "How many

boxes were there?" is provided by a close look at the

view Of the theatre's interior (page 121). On each of

the first two tiers Of boxes we see a continuous row of
boxes until the view is cut off at either side. On the
upper tier there are four boxes on each side separated

by partitions that correspond to the ones Forman describes.
The decoration of that tier changes at those points to be-
come a balustrade in front Of the gallery. Consequently,
the number of boxes was thirty—eight, seven less than the
figure St. Mery used.

The boxes facing the stage were larger than those on

the sides. In these boxes there were seven rows Of benches

 

16This untitled description Of the New Theatre was

written March 12, 1794 and published in The New York Maga-
zine for April, 1794. See footnote 12 in this chapter.

 

124

raked tO provide good viewing for audiences. The benches
nearest the pit were arranged at a height to permit
spectators there to see over the playgoers in the pit
should these members Of the audience rise to protest or
applaud. As each box in that part of the house is said

to have been capable Of holding thirty—five persons, each
bench must have been designed to accommodate five per-
sons. The side boxes, twenty—eight in number, had two
rows Of benches, each bench capable of holding four
persons.17 The side boxes were unquestionably more pri-
vate. The figure on page 121 shows low walls separating
these boxes. Small columns, aiding in structural support,
separated the boxes at their nearest points to the orchestra."
They were "fluted Corinthian columns, highly gilt, with a
crimson ribband twisted from the base to the capital."18
These may have interfered with the View at times, but were
relatively unobtrusive. One exception to a clear view of
the stage confronted audience members sitting on the
benches furthest from the stage in the second tier Of
boxes at the rear of the auditorium. Apparently the over-
hang from a steeply raked gallery prevented people in that

position from seeing the backdrop furthest upstage.19

 

l7St. Mery, Op. cit.

18Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, op. cit.

 

19St. Mery, Op. cit.

125

This would mean they also saw none Of the drops hanging
over the stage or the decoration above the proscenium
arch. This same overhang would have prevented patrons

from a View Of the dome over the pit.20

NO picture Of
this dome exists, but this architectural feature was
extremely popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
turies. Usually, these domes were decorated with paint-
ings. As would be expected, the view Of scenery from
box seats nearest the stage was skewed and the pro-
scenium doors and pillars projecting onto the stage pre-
vented spectators in those seats from an appreciation of
the perspective. These same spectators would also have
found it impossible to see the last drop upstage "as
well as the row of side wings" on the same side Of the
stage where they sat. A close examination of the ground
plan discloses what may have been a feeble attempt to
remedy the undesirability of these boxes as viewing
stations. There is a convex line along the front Of the
stage box. Perhaps this line, converted into an archi-
tectural feature, allowed the inhabitants to edge their
benches forward and improve their view slightly.

It was customary for spectators to go to plays to
see other citizens and to be seen. In his discussion of

sight lines, St. Mery points out that, from certain places

 

2OSeilhamer, Op. cit., III, p. 146.

126

in the theatre, "It is hard to recognize persons seated
at the rear Of the boxes which have seven rows Of benches."21
The boxes were papered with red paper which St. Mery

"22 His distaste for

found to be "in extremely bad taste.
this feature may have been increased by gilt trim around
the boxes. Another Observer thought the shade of red to
23

be a "pale rose—color." This same Observer did not feel
strongly enough about the color to suggest that it gave
Offense. The benches in the boxes were backless and not
cushioned. For important occasions, special arrangements
were effected. When Washington visited the theatre,
cushions were provided on the benches and the inside Of
the front Of the box.214 Not until the Park Theatre Opened
in January of 1798 did a theatre in America have cushioned
seats in both boxes and pit.

The pit area on Chesnut Street, providing some Of
the very best seats in the house, was well planned for the
viewers who chose to pay the more economical price and

still be in the center of activity. In this area, there

were thirteen rows Of backless benches set as in an

 

amphitheatre.25
21 .
St. Mery, Op. Olt., pp. 346-347.
22Ibid.

23Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, Op. cit.

2uDurang, Op. cit., XIII.

25St. Mery, op. cit.

127

The ascent from the front to the back parts of both

Pit and Gallery (but more particularly the latter)

was very steep, which tho' it may appear a little

inconvenient at the first entering of them still
proved of great advantage to the persons in the
hinder parts, as it rendered their view of the
stage %nobstructed by those sitting in front of
them.2
Because the stage also was raked, those who sat in the
pit, even near the orchestra, had excellent opportunity
to enjoy the productions. As they looked about, they
could view more of the decorations than persons in the
boxes.

The basic decorating color was grey. There were
"gilded scrolls and carvings" and the highest tier of
boxes had "small gilded balustrades which are quite ele-
gant." Each bench in the pit was long enough to seat
approximately thirty persons.27

The seating arrangement in the gallery can only be
estimated. Because of its width, it must be assumed that
there was more than one aisle, perhaps a center aisle and
two outside aisles. There may have been an aisle that
crossed the gallery dividing it from front to back. An
iron railing Of two bars was provided so that there was

"very little risque of falling into the Pi My estimate

 

26Forman, Op. cit.

27St. Mery, Op. cit.

28Forman, Op. cit.

128

is that the lower gallery could hold approximately two
hundred forty-five persons and the upper gallery three
hundred eighteen. As there seems to be no record Of a
view of the auditorium from the stage, the drawing on
page 129 is Offered. Particular note is made Of the
gallery location and arrangement.

The total seating capacity was calculated by St.
Mery to be twelve hundred. St. Mery's figure includes
the pit and boxes which he figured to hold approximately
eleven hundred sixty-five persons. Other estimates Of
that day set the figure at two thousand.29 The figure
of two thousand is not broken down. In Reese James'

history of the Philadelphia stage, Cradle Of Culture, he

 

very flatly states that the theatre sat eleven hundred
fifty-five. Unfortunately, he fails to document this

calculation.30

Using St. Mery's estimate for the pit, a
personal calculation for the seats in the side and center
boxes, and allowing for his omission Of the gallery but
substituting an estimate for that, the seating capacity
was probably near fifteen hundred forty—seven. That
figure breaks down to three hundred ninety in the pit,
five hundred ninety-four in boxes and five hundred sixty-

three in the gallery, an estimate somewhere between James',

St. Mery's, and the others.

 

29Mease, Op. cit., p. 331.

3°Reese James, Cradle Of Culture 1800-1810 (Philadel-
phia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 1957), p. 18.

129

.pozpsm on» an Omcflwmefi mm ESHLOpfiosm mo nopoxmll.w opzmflm

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.A ...., ............u... Beggar: : ,_ seizes:

, .U'.‘ til 18"}.
‘l.-. new...» 1‘ 1W . r ... .4. ,.
.2 O. n

V.

 

 

    

 

. .‘li
. .

 

 

 

45o YpIO-fia—t é”.“’""- . ’ .. . . I . 1 nl l .

. ..-. :.. .lt. p: .. .12... iffy!!!» ,gi’nsbooti 5.15:3..7 »

130

From most seats in the house, and very clearly from
any point in the pit, the decoration around the proscenium
would have been available to view. The two stage boxes on
the first tier adjoined stage doors that stood between the
boxes and the pillars framing the proscenium. Directly
above these doors and next to the stage boxes on the
second tier were small balconies, fronted by balustrades.
The pillars representing the sides Of the proscenium arch
supported a slightly concave arch leading up from the
sides toward the center where an emblematic painting was
in view. There were two figures in the painting,

. . . one representing the Genius of Tragedy who

sits in a mourning mellancholly [sic] attitude,

and the other that Of Genius Of Comedy who stands

a little to the left of where the other 21358555.

in her hand she holds a scarf on which these words

are inscribed in large legible characters "The

Eagle suffers little Birds to sing."3l
Over the two figures hovered an American Eagle with extended
wings. This last touch of patriotism would seem to have
been a public expression Of thanks to the legislators who
had rejected the Quaker's attempts to prevent the Opening
Of the theatre. Henry Wansey, in the diary Of his travels
in America, pointed out in referring to this quotation
from Shakespeare its applicability, as the State House was

so close to the theatre that the legislators were ". . .

Often performing at the same time. Yet the Eagle . . . is

 

31Forman, op. cit., p. 184.

131

in no ways interrupted by the chattering of these mock
birds with their mimic songs."32 By 1811, this patriotic
tribute had given way to "For useful Mirth, and Salutary
Woe."33
The orchestra pit provided ample space for as many
as thirty musicians. The orchestra Reinagle conducted in
1794 was made up of only twenty members. With this number
of performers, the pit was commodious, if not luxurious.
The stage of the New Theatre was more than half the
length of the entire building. One length quoted is

seventy—one feet.3u

The scale on the ground plan is in-
exact, but even a rough measurement using that scale
approximates seventy feet plus. Another source places

the depth of the stage at seventy—four feet.35 The first
fifteen feet of the slightly raked stage were in front Of
the curtain line, leaving nearly sixty feet for the develop-
ment of perspective settings and the display of machinery
for sea fights, fires, and the myriad effects so popular

in the late eighteenth and the entire nineteenth centuries.

The width Of the proscenium is not referred to by the

 

32Wansey, Op. cit., June 5, 1794.

33Mease, Op. cit.

3“Scharf and Westcott, op. cit., p. 971.

35Casper Souder, Jr., The History Of Chesnut Street,L
Philadelphia (Philadelphia: King and Baird, 1860): p.
257.

 

 

132

authorities used here, but a figure very faintly printed
on the ground plan is "33" [my quotes]. This number Of
feet corresponds to the scale footage and would be close
to the actual measurement, based on a comparison with the
published figure Of thirty-six feet for the width Of the
forestage between the boxes.

The New York Magazine for April, 1794 provided a
picture of the stage from the "Duke's seat," i.e., the
seat in the auditorium from where the perspective would
be most perfect (p. 121). This picture of the stage shows
five wing flats and a back drop. The distance between
the proscenium and the back drop would be difficult to
gauge in the set shown. If there were some way of knowing
the distance from that back drop to the back wall Of the
stage, an estimate of the depth used for this setting
might be made with considerable accuracy. The space be-
hind that drop would be essential for crossovers for
the actors and storage Of scenic effects, though the Off-
stage areas right and left were considerable. NO grooves
appear on the ground plan but the wing and drop system
suggested by the photograph and the contemporary practice
in scene changing cause one to believe that there were
probably five sets of grooves with perhaps four grooves
in a set. St. Mery thought the scenery "shifted easily

h."36

enoug Milbourne was enough Of a technician to plan

 

368t. Mery, Op. cit.

133

his sets to insure good sight lines and prevent, as much
as possible, his audiences seeing into the wings. This
would have been no easy task in a house where the boxes
came so close to the proscenium. The quality of the
scenery at the Chesnut Street Theatre was thought to be
good for that day. "The decorations are colorful and
skillfully painted."37 Wansey found the "scenery of the
stage excellent, particularly a view on the Skuylkill,
about two miles from the city. The greatest part of the
scenes, however, belonged once to Lord Barrymore's Theatre

"38

at Wargrave. It was true that some of the scenery had

been imported intact, but it seems doubtful that the
"greatest part" was imported except in earliest days.
Forman, who may not have been informed enough to compare
the Chesnut Street to the Covent Garden as Wansey did, was
generous in praise Of the sets:

. . . the Scenery and decorations may be justly
said to partake Of both of the Beautiful and
sublime, especially those used for some particular
pIays almost surpass description-—Of which those
used in a new Opera lately introduced here called
"Robin Hood or Sherwood Forest" very much par-
takes.39

 

The room or rooms off the stage that were existent

in 1794 must be spoken of with the understanding that

 

37Ibid., p. 347.

38Wansey, Op. cit.

39Forman, Op. cit., pp. 183-184.

134

there may have been none of these or all those shown in
the ground plan. The following from Durang is inform-
ative.

The house was very comfortable in every particular

for the actors. The dressing rooms were numerous

in the wings. Three or four persons only dressed

together. There were two green rooms, but not with

a view Of making the salaried distinction, that then

existed in London. One green room was used for

musical rehearsals, dancing practices, &c., and

it was a place where the juvenile members of the

corps might indulge their freaks unrestrainedly.

The principal green room was adjacent to the

prompt side, in the west wing. In this apartment

the perfect etiquette of the polished drawing-room

was always preserved.
The frustrating thing about this description is that Durang
does not identify the specific time when the theatre was
equipped in this way. Certainly, the ground plan shows
areas which would provide the spaces Durang describes.
Note particularly the green room stage right and the scene
shop, near that green room. The second green room and
dressing rooms, of which it is said there were a "grateful
number,"ul may have been in the basement Of the theatre,
though Mease assigns these to the wings, not providing us
with anything more specific than that. If Seilhamer's
information was correct, the second green room was in the

east wing.“2 It would be that room, not indicated on the

 

uoDurang, Op. cit., XIX.

ulDunlap's American Daily Advertiser, February 4,

 

1794.

uZSeilhamer, Op. cit.

135

ground plan, where rehearsals were conducted. If these
rooms existed in 1794, the theatre was well equipped. In
1805, the wings were one hundred forty-eight feet long by
fourteen feet wide, and four stories high on the west
side, three stories on the east. The west wing, if it
existed, was not that long in 1794 as the building was

set back from the street and did not have the elaborate
entry constructed after 1800. If, however, this wing

had existed, even in an abbreviated form, it would have
proved immensely useful. The lower story in the west wing
was divided into three rooms (see ground plan). Two of
the rooms were finished with "Plain shirting," plastered,
and had floors with narrow boards. An investigation into
the meaning of the word "shirting" resulted in the explan-
ation that there is no mystery. This material was the
same as that used for making shirts. The second floor in
the west wing was divided into "apartments" with wooden
unplastered partitions. The use Of the "apartments" in
describing the theatre wing might lead to the supposition
that the word was merely meant to indicate the spaces were
separated by walls, as Durang used it in the quote above.
Not necessarily so in this instance. There is evidence
that at least one performer had his address at the theatre
and, if one, why not several people. The east wing was

Of the same dimensions as the west, but three stories high

instead Of four. The story nearest the street level was

136

unfinished and used to store lumber. The second and third
stories were partitioned into rooms. An Open, rough stairs
led up to these unfinished rooms. This description of the
wings comes from Justus' survey (see Appendix A).

The auditorium lighting was provided by small "four-
branched chandeliers placed on every second box," beginning
at the stage. This means there were seven chandeliers
hanging from at least one tier Of boxes. If there were
chandeliers hanging on "every second box" on each tier,
the total number might be twenty-one. Supported by gilded
iron hangers in the shape of the letter "S," twenty-one of
these light sources probably kept the general illumination
of the auditorium at a level that would provide ample light
for St. Mery's contemporaries to study each other as well
as the play. Dunlap found the "numerous chandeliers" com-
bined with "festoons of curtains . . . gave a brilliant
effect to the whole."u3 The stage was lighted by Oil
lamps that could be dimmed to create some sense Of mood
for night scenes and other scenes requiring subdued light.
The wings were said to have "illuminated lamps," though
the difference between an oil lamp and an "illuminated
lamp" is not made clear.uu Perhaps the latter bore

Candles. The wing lamps were probably dimmed by revolving

 

u3Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 116.

uuSt. Mery, Op. cit., p. 346.

137

metal hoods that swung out and around them. Both Oil lamps

and candles were used to light theatres in the eighteenth

century. There were footlights in the trough just above

the orchestra on the apron (see page 121). These, too,

were undoubtedly capable of being dimmed by hoods or

possibly by lowering the entire trough beneath the stage.
Little reference is made tO the acoustics, though

St. Mery found them "adequate."45 When Reinagle had con-

ducted the concerts in 1793, the reviewer expressed satis-

faction with the music, finding "it has equally charmed

the ear of our citizens, by its sweet echo, proceeding

from the most perfect vocal and instrumental abilities.“6

Modern acoustical engineers might be dissatisfied with this

comment, concerned as they are with preventing echoes.

The reviewer seems to have chOsen his descriptive term,

not for use in the literal sense, but as a term Of compli—

ment. Most of the singing would have been performed down—

stage of the arch and from that position few seats would

be further than sixty-five feet from the performance. The

effect of this proximity would be to eliminate virtually

any possibility of an echo. The critic Of The Federal

 

Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser judged the

violin performance "exquisite" and thought the harp gave

 

uSIbid.

46
1793°

Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser, February 4,

138

"47

"infinite pleasure. The Opening performance in 1794
received a generally complimentary review, particularly
the singing. The kettle drummer seems to have Offended,
but that may have been the fault of enthusiasm and not
acoustics.“8

Mr. John Inigo Richards was the Englishman credited
with the architectural plans for the Chesnut Street
Theatre. Conveniently, this scene painter, with the
historic middle name, was married to the sister of
Wignell and active in the London theatre in the 1790's.
What architectural design experience he possessed is un-
known. The Chesnut Street Theatre was thought to have
been a perfect copy of the Theatre Royale in Bath, England.“9
Had this been the case, Richards would have received credit
for someone else's design, probably a Mr. Palmer, who had
been entrusted with the task of remodelling the Bath Theatre
in 1782. The current Director of the Bath Municipal Librar—
ies and Victoria Art Gallery, Mr. Peter Pagan, has provided

this researcher with two photographs Of drawings Of the

interior and exterior of the late eighteenth century theatre

 

u7Ibid.

uaThe General Advertiser, February 19, 1794.

 

ugDurang in Chapter XIX of his history was an inter-
mediate in carrying forward this impression. Jackson,
Op. cit., p. 422; Hewitt, O . cit., p. 39; and Talbot
Hamlin, Benjamin Henry Latrobe (New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1955), p. 189, may have taken their infor—
mation from Durang.

 

139

at Bath (see pages 140 and 141). The exterior Offers no
comparison to the New Theatre in Philadelphia. Richards
is somewhat redeemed here as he either designed a com—
pletely different and new building or copied from some
other structure. The interior Of the Bath Theatre is
quite another matter and extremely interesting when com—
pared with the Chesnut Street Theatre. There are minor
differences and the theatre at Bath appears to be more
simple in decoration, but numerous similarities appear.

The boxes on the sides Of the auditorium are like
those at Philadelphia. They appear to have two rows of
benches in each box and there are three tiers of boxes.

The boxes, as in the case of the Chesnut Street, are

divided and supported at the rail by plain pipes, a feature
only slightly unlike the wrapped supports. The front box

on the audience's left, and in the first tier, protrudes
slightly, as does the stage box shown in the same position
on the ground plan for the later theatre. The audience
members in the pit appear to be standing. It is probable
there were benches, unused at the moment the picture was
sketched. The orchestra pit at Bath does not follow the grace-
ful line Of the Philadelphia theatre, causing one to believe
that the musicians entered and exited from under the stage
rather than at each side of the pit. An estimate Of the
number Of musicians pictured at Bath approximates the

number of Reinagle's charges. The proscenium doors in the

140

am: .

ossamcm .eocm

.oamzom opumocB map mo hoaaouxMIl.m opswfim

ovate. it.“ outs-u... 1.. . 1.

 

 

141

 

.emsa .ocsawsm .
Spam .o ma
H Om daemons one mo pOHMOchII.oH mpsw
ah

, -.
‘5“.
\1-7 o

:.;‘

.D u

.

.u
.. ..
c .

O

.

e

. . a
o .
... I . .
I 01... ,. a 10”.. .
. .u. .ru .
. .tr 9'

142

earlier theatre are in perfect line with the side boxes
and no pillars seem to join them at the proscenium line.
In Philadelphia, the slight angle Of the doors coupled
with the pillars was a definite improvement and aid in
masking the backstage area. Also, this slight angle Of
the doors and the small balconies above them might make
the balconies functional during appropriate scenes. The
stage is raked in both theatres and pictures Of each show
five sets of wing flats between the proscenium and the
backdrop. The frontispiece over the stage that decorated
the Chesnut Street would also seem an advantage over an
Opening Of the height and style of the Bath Theatre.
The conclusion to be drawn here is that most probably the
suggestion that the Bath Theatre was the model for the
Chesnut Street Theatre is partially true, as pertains to
the interior of the auditorium. The facade and entrances
to the two buildings are dramatically different and the
second theatre was certainly not styled after the first
when the frontages Of the two structures are compared.
While the construction was in progress Wignell was
in pursuit Of a company Of performers. His extensive
travels and recruiting in England were prompted by the
necessity to contract talent that was versatile and could
meet the needs Of a theatre of that day. Unlike John
Henry who was hiring a few actors to fill out his company,

Wignell had to organize almost a complete company. The

143

demands made on performers in England were similar to
those the Philadelphia theatre would make. While a
leading man or woman might excel in either comedy or
tragedy, he or she might be expected to appear in both
dramatic styles. Additionally, skills would be de-
sirable that would make for success in farces and after-
pieces. Many roles included singing. The ideal per—
former sought after combined these abilities. The
Chesnut Street Theatre, strongly influenced by Reinagle
and the musical tradition Of Philadelphia, had plans to
assign Opera a prominent part in its repertoire.SO
Added to performers in Opera and theatre were ancillary
personnel, dancers and musicians.

Durang felt Wignell and Henry were both men of
"address and tact in theatrical diplomacy, skillful in
maneuvering their recruiting service, and both animated

by rivalry."51

Before Wignell was ready to leave for

the United States, a third employer, Charles Stuart
Powell, recruiting for the Federal Street Theatre in
Boston, arrived in England to Obtain performers for that
theatre. Interestingly enough, the Federal Street Theatre
Opened in advance Of the Chesnut Street, welcoming cus-

tomers on February 3, 1794. Boston had not experienced

the plague.

 

50Dunlap, Op. Cit.

51Durang, Op. cit., Chapter XIV.

144

The demand in America for talent provided oppor-
tunities for performers to project themselves into promi-
nent positions in companies that did not experience the
competition the English companies knew. This is not to
criticize the actors who decided to leave London for the
provincial theatres. However, young aspirants or those
whose specialties were well covered in the established
and preferred companies, found a new avenue for their
talents was Opened. One's judgment of their relative
merits must be gleaned from their contemporaries' comments
about them, experience they had accumulated before leaving
England, and their continued or interrupted popularity in
America.

Dunlap, who had spent time in observing the British
Theatre, noted with some sarcasm a possible side effect of
all this recruiting. It "seems to have conveyed the intelli-
gence to the players of England that a continent existed
over seas, called America, where some of the people are
white, spoke English and went to see plays. . ."52

Repeating a description of Wignell's entire company
as it stood at the Opening of the theatre would be redundant
to the work of Dunlap, Durang, Wood, Bernard, and others.

Rather, it may be useful to provide one or two representative

 

52Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 110.

145

descriptions, and some general characteristics of the
company.53

From reading Dunlap and Durang one could gain the
impression that the female performer most prominent in the
company was Mrs. Oldmixon. The lengthy description penned
by each, Durang's Obviously a steal from Dunlap, focus on
her background and her marriage to Sir John Oldmixon, who
had been something Of a wag in Bath, England. Her impor-
tance as a performer may be summarized. While young, she
was a first comic singer, playing comic girls and chamber-
maids at the Haymarket and Drury Lane Theatres in London.

She continued to play comic roles, but her greatest asset

seems to have been in pastiches and other musical fare,

 

where she appeared as the best vocalist yet in America.514

Despite the assignment Of so much importance to this lady
by Messrs. Dunlap and Durang, she did not play until May
14, 1794, approximately three months after the theatre had
Opened. The roles she played were in pOpular Operas and

plays, though her name seems not to have appeared in plays

 

53For extensive portrayals Of the individual members,
readers are referred to chapters twenty through twenty-two
Of Durang's The Philadelphia Stage'Fromthe‘Year‘l749 to the
Year 1855 and chapter ten Of—Dunlap's History OTIthe‘Ameri—
can Theatre. These two works provide background‘infor—
mation, anecdotal commentary on performers and their per—
sonal lives, and references to roles in which they excelled.

 

 

 

 

5”Oral S. Coad and Edwin Mims, Jr., The American
Stage, Vol. XIV Of The American Pa eant (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1929), p. 3 .

146

that have been considered classics of the theatre. She
played an average Of two nights or less a week in the two
months that closed the season on July 18, 1794. She also
played more Often in interludes or afterpieces than in the
major attractions. She was accorded a benefit July 7,

1794, when she appeared in The Spanish Barber by George

 

Colman, Jr.

A lady receiving far less notice from Dunlap but who
worked more regularly in important parts was Mrs. Whitlock.
Dunlap rather briefly wrote Of her,

Mrs. Whitlock was one of the many children Of Roger
Kemble, and Of course sister to Mrs. Siddons, John
Kemble, Stephen Kemble, Charles Kemble, and all the
rest of this celebrated and fortunate family. . . .
Mrs. Whitlock had been the support and ornament of
the company of Whitlock and Munden, and had played

at Bath and in London before the engagement which
brought her to Philadelphia in 1793. She was what
may truly be called a fine looking woman, with some
Of the Siddons and Kemble physiognomy, but fairer

Of complexion, and not so towering in stature. Her
eye and voice were powerful, and reminded the spec-
tator and hearer Of her sister, sometimes raising
expectations which were not fully realized, of seeing
a second Siddons. She was Of great value in her pro-
fession, and out Of it an honour to her family. . .

Durang was more detailed and devoted more Of his
evaluation to the impressions the lady made in the theatre.
Of Mrs. Whitlock, he wrote,

She possessed the family talent, but not the full
weight Of its genius, yet she amply sustained the
family crest in all its prestine pride and peculiar
grace . . . she had all the imperial bearing and
intellectual impress, with which nature in her

 

55Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 123.

147

special humor adorned their figures and their fea-
tures . . . Mrs. Whitlock was a most able actress,
but did not possess powerful passion . . . Her
countenance was expressive, her voice good, yet
deficient in power Of intonation. It was said by
critics of judgment that she could not soar to the
highest flights Of genius, but she could make an
impression that was never lost on her audience.

Her acting did not go beyond the boundary of nature,
yet she reached its most lofty points through im-
pressive elocution, appropriate action and clear
conception. I heard a very excellent actor once

say that "she could not make a good part great,

but that she often made a bad one tell"——a singular
talent to possess. Her forte was tragedy in its
most perfect form. . . . She was deficient in pathos,
yet powerful in her appeals. . . . I can only say
that, with very few exceptions, I never saw stronger
flashes Of genius exhibited than this actress dis-
played. . . . It has also been said that had Mrs.
Whitlock been so fortunate as to have had a hearing
in London, before Mrs. Siddons, that she would have
been the fixed star. This, I think, a very doubtful
conclusion. . . 56

Mrs. Whitlock was called to give evidence of her power or
the lack of it on a regular and demanding basis. Unlike
Mrs. Oldmixon, she played consistently from the second
night Of the first season of the company. She might have
performed the Opening night, but an Opera was staged that
night. In the cast lists for the month of March, 1794,
her name appears eleven times. She played Lady Macbeth
on April seventh and twelfth, also Portia on June thir—
teenth, two nights after she had performed twice on her

benefit night.57

 

56Durang, op. cit., Chapter XXI.

57Pollock includes a Day Book for the eighteenth
century theatre in his work on Philadelphia. This Book
within a book is devoted to a reproduction of all known
cast lists and performances in the city during the entire
century.

148

Of the male contingent, Fennell, Moreton, and Harwood

claim attention over their fellow players. All had aimed

for careers other than in the theatre. Fennell and Harwood

had studied law, Moreton worked in a bank before his con—
version. In compiling information for his history, Dunlap
had depended on William Wood for material about Moreton.
Wood, in turn, had known the following about Moreton from
Wignell,

. . . John Pollard, Moreton being an assumed name,
was born in America, somewhere in the neighborhood
of Niagara Falls. He was early in life taken to
England, and from thence to India. . . . Wignell

. . . engaged him as a member Of his company in
1793. His first thirty or forty appearances, I
have been assured by Mr. Wignell and others, were
anything but promising; but his early good breeding
and close study soon made him the first of high
comedians, either native or imported. I declare

I think him in the easy (not spirited) comedy the
best, except Lewis, I ever saw.

Dunlap remembered Moreton, the principal high comedian of
the company, as

. . . the most elegant gentleman performer that

our long acquaintance with the London and American
theatres has made known to us. Tall, slender,
straight-limbed, and perfectly at ease, his regular
features, light complexion, and blue eyes, with the
perfect air and manner of a finished gentleman,
united to the talent, vivacity, and mind which must
combine to make a real actor, gave the spectator a
combination rarely seen on any stage.

Moreton played often and consistently during a short

career. He was not, however, of strong health and died

 

58Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 119.

591bid., p. 118.

 

149

only five years after coming to the Chesnut Street Theatre
company. Wood saw his last performance as Lothario in
The Fair Penitent.

He was obliged to lie long on the stage after

falling; the night being severe, he was taken into

the green-room in a very exhausted state. He never

played again. He died of consumption. . . I

spent an hour with him on Friday, when he talked

confidently of pla%ing soon. Calling on Monday,

he was dead. .

Moreton was found by Fennell to be a most engaging
personality. Fennell praised his warmth and general tempera-
ment and they became fast friends soon after their acquaint-
ance was made. Fennell, very popular from the time Of his
arrival, was a source Of encouragement to Moreton. Fennell
wrote that Moreton had, "many times . . . after imagined
disapprobation, thrown himself on my knees, and, in most
feeling terms, expressed his fear Of being unsuccessful in

his profession."61

A signally interesting comment about
Moreton is that he was a native American who served his
apprenticeship on the American stage in prominent roles.
The rage for English players would have caused Wignell to
play down the fact that the man was American. Having been
hired in England, he would not have been considered an
American by the management or the audiences. How finished

a performer he was at his demise is uncertain, for Dunlap

also says of Moreton that he had "died before he could

 

6Olbid., p. 119.

61Fennell, Op. cit., p. 337.

150

have attained the skill his talents would have certainly
achieved."62 Bernard, who could only have known Moreton
in the last year Of his life, found him

. . . a young native actor, of singular promise,

who had also the advantage of great personal

requisites. He was the ideal Of a lover, having

a natural elegance, as well as great tenderness.

. . . His forte lay in sentiment rather than

tragedy, rendering his Belcour and Harry Daunton

quite marvels of acting. But he could rise above

these; and his Rogeo and Jaffier were the very

best I have seen. 3

Some performers were less fortunate than Moreton and
Fennell. Chalmers was to have been the leading gentleman
comedian and to perform in tragedies on occasion. Accord—
ing to Dunlap, "he was soon superseded by Moreton in the
first, and immediately by Fennell in the second branch of
acting."614 Chalmers did play some prominent roles in the
first season and, with Fennell diverted by one of his pro-
jects during the second season, Chalmers played in important
roles until the summer of 1795. These parts included
Hamlet, Macbeth, Shylock, Charles Surface and others.
Chalmers had been a popular Harlequin in England and,
when his fortunes wained in Philadelphia, he tried his
luck in New York and Boston. He worked at times, then

returned to England in 1805.65

 

62Dunlap, Op. cit.

63Bernard, Op. cit., p. 268.

6“Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 123.

65Durang, Op. cit.

,1

151

Others in the company and the characters they played
included Marshall (fops, Frenchmen, principal Operatic
tenor), Harwood (comic), Whitlock (fathers, mostly in
tragedy), Green (second young leads), Darley (Operatic
tenor), Darley, Jr. (a tenor also), Francis (choreo-
grapher, director of pantomines, dancer, Older character
men), Bates (low comedian who spelled Wignell), Blisset
(small parts), Warrell (minor vocal roles), Warrell's son

(corps de ballet), Mrs. Francis (dancer, pantomimist),

 

Mrs. Marshall (SOpranO, "country girls"), Miss Broadhurst
(second lead in Opera, comic, played one season only),
and Mrs. Warrell (Operatic singer).

The colorful Fennell should not be left with so
little mention. Like Harwood, he was a young man when he
came to America. Well educated, he spent his life divided
between two endeavors. The first, for which he had great
natural talent, was the stage; the second, for which he
had no talent, was the pursuit of wealth. His considerable
and persistent efforts to reach the goal Of his second
endeavor led to great disappointment again and again and,
in the end, abject poverty. He went through several
sizable investments Of his own and others. Numerous times
he returned to the stage where he was always welcome. His
schemes to make money usually centered around the manu-
facture of salt. In the late 1790's, he wrote in his

memoirs that, "I have engaged with Mr. Wignell to attend

152

his company at New York and Philadelphia for the following

season, for the purpose Of making money for the increase

66

of the (salt) works." He

. . successively became saltmaker, bridge—builder,
schoolmaster, and lecturer, going back, on the
failure of each, to the stage as the only true
friend who would give him a dinner. As an actor,
he certainly laid small claim to genius, being
rather what is known as an excellent reader; but
he had great cultivation; and in particular
characters, where his coldness and person were
equally needed, such as Brutus . . . he could
exhibit great forcg and tower at moments into
positive grandeur. 7 '

What makes the events surrounding the life Of this man so
unfortunate is that he was probably the most talented
member of the entire company Wignell engaged and his ven-
tures outside the theatre were motivated by a perfectly
reasonable ambition to improve his station and a desire
to make a more comfortable life for his family. Fennell's
memoir is void of bitterness and rancor. Having sought
continually to achieve success through a series Of schemes
that went wrong, he was "emptied . . . Of all possessions
but faith."68
Reinagle's charges in the pit area were a well

ordered, if motley group. They were motley as to origin

and training, definitely not in the social sense.

 

66Fennell, Op. cit., p. 358.

67Bernard, Op. cit., p. 267.

68Ibid.

153

Reinagle was extremely well thought of in social circles
and ran a very respectable organization. We have the
impression that few of the company who debarked with
Wignell were musicians. Rather, it seems clear that
Reinagle assembled his musicians from the ranks Of those
who performed for him in the City Concerts and through
other local recruiting.

The musical tradition in Philadelphia had been
influenced in major part by the German musicians of that
city. The Germans claim Reinagle, referring to him as
"the greatest German American musician" of the eighteenth
century.69 Despite this claim of the Germans of that
fair city, Reinagle, like Benjamin Carr and George
Gillingham, came to America from England. Gillingham
was the conductor and, one must judge, the concert master
at the Chesnut Street. He had been a celebrated violinist

70

in London. When his other commitments permitted, Rein-
agle conducted from his position at the harpsichord. This
may have been an infrequent experience for, in addition to
performing and conducting, Reinagle arranged the music and
adapted musical works, and composed "Operas" and panto-
mimes. The word ppgrg is qualified because most of these
works were simply plays with incidental music and vocal

numbers interspersed at suitable intervals.71

 

69
70
71

Dummond, Op. cit., p. 303.
Scharf and Westcott, Op. cit., II, p. 1076.

Chase, Op. cit., p. 114.

 

154

As has been mentioned before, there were approxi-
mately twenty musicians in the orchestra. Despite the
number Of German performers in the city, "most Of the

musicians of the orchestra are Frenchmen, enabled to

 

exist by this means."72 These men were political

refugees who had escaped the French Revolution, as F‘
St. Mery had. Some were musical performers by trade,

others had experienced genteel training as youths, a

training that included musicianship. "Indeed, tradition rm

has it that pseudo—marquises and counts back of the foot-
lights were accompanied by real marquises and counts in
the orchestra."73 Henry Capron was an exception. He

had been in America since the middle of the 1780's and
made his home in Newark. Today the man might be able to
commute, but in the 1790's he would have had to maintain
a lodging in Philadelphia while playing with the company
there. Reinagle had enough good performers from which to
choose that he need not have singled out the French unless
they pleased him. Especially if, as St. Mery said, men
could exist on the salaries paid them. The word "exist"
may have some significance, though, as some refugees were
forced to live on very meager incomes. Durang points out
'that some of these men gained reputations as concert

soloists in addition to their orchestral turns.7u

 

72St. Mery, Op. cit., p. 348.
73

74

Sonneck, op. cit., p. 117.

Durang, Op. cit., XIX.

155

The impact that Reinagle made when he was at the
podium is suggested by Durang's romantic account of such
an occasion.

Who that once saw Old manager Reinagle in his
Official capacity, could ever forget his dignified
personne. He presided at his piano forte looking
the very personification of the patriarch Of music
--investing the science of harmonious sounds, as
well as the dramatic school, with a moral influence,
reflecting and adorning its salutary uses with high
respectability and polished manners. His appearance
was Of the reverend and impressive kind, which at
once inspired the universal respect of the audience.
Such was Reinagle's imposing appearance, that it
awed the disorderly Of the galleries, or the fop of
annoying propensities, and impertinent criticism

Of the box lobby, into decorum. NO vulgar, noisy
emanations, were heard from the pit of that day;
that portion of the theatre was then the resort

of the well-informed critic. . . . It was truly
inspiring to behold the polished Reinagle saluting
from his seat (before the grand square piano_fprte
in the orchestra) the highest respectability Of the
city, as it entered the boxes to take seats. It
was a scene before the curtain that suggested a
picture of the master of private ceremonies re-
ceiving his invited guests at the fashionable
drawing room.

 

Some mention has been made of specific persons who
were performers at the Chesnut Street Theatre. A few
reactions to the general quality of the company are in-
cluded here to add dimension to the assessment Of its
worth. A critical comment by St. Mery is Offered first
as the most unfavorable remark found.

The companies which play there are road companies,

and also play in Baltimore. . . . The actors are
Of a bearable mediocrity from the English point

 

75Ibid.

156

Of view. . . . The actors are well enough dressed.

. . . There are dancers whom Nicolet would have

been able to claim.76
The company was on home ground in Philadelphia. They were
not, primarily, a road company, though they did go on the
road, because no city at that time could sustain a theatre
year round. Philadelphia does not do that even now. We
can only assume that St. Mery's reference to "the English
point of view," must mean he had spoken with some English-
men about the quality of the performers. His own View
would have been French.

Favorable reactions are numerous. Forman wrote to
his friend, "The new Company certainly contains the best,
the ablest and the most masterly perfect and accomplished
set of performers taking them as a body that have ever
appeared before in any part of America."77 Dunlap felt

Wignell engaged and safely landed in America a

company more complete and more replete with every

species Of talent for the establishment of a

theatre than could have been contemplated by the

most sanguine of friends. Everything was to be

splendid, every thing was to be new, with the
exception Of himself and Mr. and Mrs. Morris,

the only sharers who had seceded with him . . .

a force that defied Opposition.78
When they arrived "Shakespeare for the first time in America

came into his own."79 The credence for objectivity that one

 

76St
77
78

79Joseph N. Ireland, Records of the New York Stage
(New York: B. Blom, 1966), I, p. 164.

. Mery, Op. cit., p. 347.

Forman, op. cit.
Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 93.

157

can give to a performer in the company is left to the
reader's discretion. However, Fennell, in his Apology,
refers to the company "than which the London stage could

"80

boast no better. Pollock believes the company to have

been "chosen so that it would be strong in all its depart-

"81 In short, the quality of acting in America

ments.
was undoubtedly improved by the introduction Of this
company. Their credentials far surpass those of Hallam's
company that had come forty years before. Henry's more
recent acquisitions had included the brilliant Hodgkinson,
but the general level of his company was below that Of the
Philadelphia troupe. Some of the members of Wignell's
company had sound experience in provincial theatre. A
few had known success in London. The company was probably
on a par with or better than most provincial theatres in
England and equal to most minor companies playing in the
suburbs of London.

The orchestra was thought to be "equally superior in

82

power and talent with the other departments" and

"superior to what any other theatre in America ever did

 

80Fennell, Op. cit., p. 366.

81Pollock, op. cit., p. 56.

82Dunlap, Op. cit., p. 116.

158

possess."83 Musical historians support the argument that
Reinagle set a high standard of performance for his
musicians.

Thus was the company gathered to play in the theatre

described at its Official Opening as a "home for drama

 

in America." The date chosen to display both talent and r~
decor was February 17, 1794. The Opening night was to be

a combination Of celebration and performance. Wignell,

home from the wars, was to recite a prologue. This would r

be followed by The Castle of Andalusia with music by Samuel

 

Arnold and book by John O'Keefe and Who's the Dupe?, an

 

afterpiece already familiar to the Philadelphia playgoers.
It may be remembered that the opera by O'Keefe had been
presented as the first production at Annapolis the previous
fall. This work was first seen in Philadelphia November 5,

1788. Who's the Dupe?, written by Mrs. Cowley, was first

 

played in Philadelphia January 22, 1790.
The versatility Of the company referred to earlier
was exhibited on this occasion. Harwood composed the pro-

logue, appeared as a bandit in The Castle, and in the

 

principal role Of Gradus in Who's the Dupe?. The follow—

 

ing is Harwood's prologue.

Past is my toil and fled each anxious pain
Since I behold my friends, my home again;
How oft, when far away my fancy rov'd,

 

83Forman, Op. cit.

159

Lur'd to this spot by every scene I lov'd,
Here on these boards I trod in waking dream,
And if I talk'd, this spot was still by theme.
I painted oft, in colours just and true,
This glorius scene, so grateful to my view;
My pulse would quicken and my bosom glow;
But the true joy I never felt till now.
Hard was our fate to be condemn'd to roam--
Tho' sweet our exile, from our destin'd home;
Warm are our thanks to you who dar'd to brave
Our foes' worst shafts, the drooping muse to save--
Before whose phalanx superstition fled,
And fell fanaticism bow'd her head.
But I forget-—
I come to plead for others, to engage
Your gen'rous care, to aid a rising stage;
I come to ask, and for a num'rous band
Whom I have brought from a far distant land,
Who have to me their future fate consign'd—-
Friends, parents, country, all they left behind:
Grant but this boon, no sign of sad regret
Shall reach the distant shore, no tears shall wet
This happy land of promise and increase,
Save the glad tears of gratitude and peace.
I see, I read in each approving smile,
A kind assent--I have not lost my toil:
For them accept my thanks--Fancy alone,
In richest efforts, can conceive my own.
Nor let the critic, with fastidious eye
And penetrating search, our faults descry,
While yet the muse aspires on infant wing--
'The Eagle suffers little birds to sing;'
The trembling novice, ere matur'd by time,
Must fall far short of judgment's happy prime;
Dispell'd the doubts and dangers he has fear'd,
You may admire the genius you have rear'd;
Great be your favor grown, the rising age
Shall bless the efforts Of a moral stage:
The stage in purity, the stage refin'd,

Cleared Of its dross, may charm, instruct mankind.
Freedom new force from scenes heroic gains,
The stage impedes not, but its cause maintains;

Virtue may here its brightest lesson learn
And scouted vice its ugliness discern;

Our precepts, well directed, reach the heart,
And to act well shall be a gen'ral part.84

 

8“General Advertiser, February 19, 1794.

 

 

160

Casts for the evening were:
The Castle of Andalusia

Don SCipiO........Mr. Finch Phillipo....Mr. Darley, Jun.
Don Caesar.......Mr. Darley Banditti...Messrs., Harwood,
Don Fernando...Mr. Marshall Francis, Cleveland,
Don Juan.........Mr. Morris Warrell, Blisset, etc.
Don Alphonso....Mr. Moreton Victoria........Mrs. Warrell
Pedrillo..........Mr. Bates Lorenza........Mrs. Marshall
Spado...........Mr. Wignell Isabella..........Mrs. Bates
Sanguino..........Mr. Green Catalina.....Miss Broadhurst

Who's the Dupe?

 

Doiley...........Mr. Morris Gradus...........Mr. Harwood
Sandford........Mr. Moreton Miss Doiley.....Miss Francis
Granger.......Mr. Cleveland Charlotte........Mrs. Rowson
In addition to Harwood, Morris, Moreton and Cleveland
appeared in both pieces. Of the actors, only Wignell and
Harwood received mention in the newspapers. The reviewer
for the General Advertiser found Harwood's Gradus to have
been performed with "great truth and propriety." Wignell
was described as the "most busy character in the Opera . .
it is unnecessary to add that he did justice to it;--
the public know his talents, and the brilliancy and number
of the audience shew that his friends have not forgotten
him."85

The character Wignell portrayed had the unlikely
name of Spado. The author assigned Spado one song and the
part might be described as a poor man's Mosca. A good

part Of the humor was in the form of puns and the book

;provided almost all of the action. The songs intruded and

 

85Ibid.

 

161

failed to flow out of the situation with naturalness.
This Opera was divided into three acts and had scenes in
a cave, a forest, before a castle, and several settings
inside the castle.

This review in the General Advertiser was sympathetic,

 

but reserved. It reminds one of the comments about Mrs.
Whitlock. The reader is left with the feeling that much
was hoped for, some delivered, but what had been delivered
did not match the expectation of the critic. The first
four sentences provide the tenor Of a surprisingly brief
review.

The Theatre on Monday evening opened with a repre-
sentation of the Castle Of Andalusia and Who's the
Dupe? to a crowded audience. The performance was
preceded by an address from one Of the Managers, a
copy of which we have been favoured with. The
whole went Off with considerable eclat, and the
sanguine expectations of friends of the drama, were
in no particular disappointed. It would be pre—
sumptuous, upon so slight a theatrical acquaintance
with the abilities Of the performers, as one repre-
sentative can give, to pass judgment upon their
respective merits. . . .

Of the singers, Darley, Mrs. Warrell, Mrs. Marshall and
Miss Broadhurst drew mentions of complimentary nature.

A somewhat surprising occurrence seems to have been
repeated at different times during the evening. "The
favorite Ca ira was the first air played. The orchestra
by attending to the call for it, and by a voluntary
repetition of it in the course of the evening, shewed that

"86

they did not forget their audience was America. It is

 

86Ibid.

162

hoped that the occasion for the introduction of this
Obviously popular tune happened during an intermission
between the acts of the opera. The repeating of it could
have occurred during like intervals or between the per-

formances.
The initial season of the company ran from February f

17 through July 18. The majority of performances were

devoted to comedy and opera. The evenings of performance

were Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays plus occasional

 

Saturdays. The doors to the theatre were opened at five
O'clock, performances began at six and usually ran to

near midnight.87 The season was successful by almost any

standard.

The managers of the company were to hold sway for
many years over theatre in the middle Atlantic states. The
Old American Company gave up coming to Philadelphia, Balti-
more and Annapolis. By the time Of the Opening, Wignell
and Reinagle, encouraged by the effort in Philadelphia
and with some of the same backers, were constructing a
theatre in Baltimore. Following the first season at
Philadelphia, their company moved to play in that house
during the summer and fall months.

There were a number of significant developments
related to the Opening of the Chesnut Street Theatre. The

rnnnbers of seasons and performances played in America were

 

87Forman, Op. cit., pp. 182-183.

163

immediately increased. The quality Of playing improved.
Musical theatre, particularly opera, experienced an
important step forward. Philadelphia gained prestige as
a cultural center during its tenure as capital of the
nation and afterwards, too. The city finally had an
attractive centrally located place to house concerts and
other events. Employment was provided for many Phila-
delphians as musicians, vendors, stage hands, ticket

takers and in the other tasks essential to the mainte-

 

nance and Operation Of a business establishment. Wignell's
break with the Old American Company had signalled the end
Of the old system of actor's shareholding in performing
companies. From that time on, actors were salaried. This
was an improvement for some, though it encouraged the star
system which resulted ever after in enormous discrepancies
in performers' salaries. Another unfortunate effect was
to delay further the development of native talent for the
stage. Sadly enough, imported products in the theatre

are still looked to with greater respect than American

plays, performers, and productions.

CHAPTER V

FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF WIGNELL AND THE
CHESNUT STREET THEATRE COMPANY

Wignell left no diary or day—book that might help us
to know more about his personal life or assess with any
degree of accuracy his private thoughts on solutions to
problems faced in managing the Chesnut Street Theatre.
Left without an autobiographical account, one must turn to
the writings of men who worked with and for him. William
Wood and John Bernard are Of particular help in their
recollections. The journal William Warren maintained from
the time he joined Wignell in 1796 provides very specific
figures regarding the plays performed and the box Office
receipts for each, plus personal notations about the com-
pany's members and activities. Fennell's account Of his
life provides some commentary about the actor-manager. In
addition tO these sources, newspaper information regarding
‘bills to be presented, changes in casts, the movement of
prwxninent performers, and the untimely deaths Of some Of

true actors, provides insights into Wignell's responses to

<difficulties.

164

165

Theatre, like other businesses, encounters perennial
and "one time only" predicaments. Those in the first of
these two categories, once they have been experienced, can
be anticipated and met with a degree of competence and
preparation season after season. They demand continuous
planning to meet their repetition or, at least, to avoid
catastrophic results as a consequence Of their return.

Some predicaments are of a more immediate sort,
short lived, and solved in brief spans of time. A seasonal
business, like theatre, subject to the vagaries of nature
and man, produces this sort Of predicament Often. Exi—
gencies in the theatre and the pressures and challenges
accompanying them are frequently escalated by the inter-
jection of that unpredictable factor, the audience. A
situation that appears firm and healthy can be unsettled
and frought with solicitude in an evening's performance
or the next day's reaction.

There are large gaps in the early records Of the
Chesnut Street Theatre. Instead, a treatment of selected
situations and problems will be undertaken here. The focus
will be directed toward the three major problems; Of
finances, performers, and audiences. While nO pretence
is made that these three problems were the only ones
creating difficulties, a consideration Of them draws
attention to a number of others. The present chapter

csoncentrates on financial problems while in Chapter VI

166

actor-manager and audience—manager relationships will be
surveyed.

The financial problems faced by Wignell and Reinagle
were constant throughout their managerial careers, the
relative magnitude of the crises being the only inconstant
element in this area of their work. The difficult post-
ponement of the Theatre's Opening has been related. Despite
the hardships attending the period of the planning and
building of the theatre and its first two seasons, the close
of the second season found its supporters in an optimistic
mood. A meeting was held at the City Tavern in Philadel-
phia on June 25, 1795, to account for the finances to that
time and to plan for the future of the New Theatre.

A recounting of that meeting's decisions and ab—
stracts summarizing the Theatre's condition are reproduced
in Appendix C. To supplement the two previous subscrip—
tions, the first in 1791 for eighteen thousand dollars
and the second in 1792 for an additional twelve thousand
dollars, a third subscription was proposed and agreed upon.
'The amount to be available for subscription was forty—
three thousand six hundred dollars. The purpose for the
second subscription was the necessity to provide ”relief
of the Managers, in paying their existing debts, due on
account of the Theatre."1 Under designation NO. III in

the summary of the meeting, the specific debts to be paid

 

1Minutes Of a Meeting Of the Subscribers to the New
Theatre, June 25, 1795.

167

with the new subscription are enumerated: (l) debts due
"tradesmen," for work performed and articles furnished
the theatre, e.g., properties, lumber, plaster, bricks,
decorative materials, eleven thousand eight hundred and
twenty—nine dollars, (2) money owed on personal notes
people had been able to make with banks to underwrite the
original construction, nineteen thousand five hundred
dollars, (3) to repay cash borrowed from individuals,
eight thousand four hundred twenty—six dollars, and (4)
remaining debts in England, probably for scenery and
transportation, three thousand eight hundred and forty-
five dollars. The security Offered for the new sub-
scription was provided by placing a mortgage on the
company's theatres in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

A further examination Of the minutes shows the
indebtedness at the time the theatre opened, the income of
the theatre, and the theatre's indebtedness to Wignell and
Reinagle. The two managers appear to have invested four
thousand dollars in cash. This apparently was not deemed
a "pressing" debt, as it was not included in those debts
to be paid out of the 1795 subscription.

One figure given that provided reason for optimism
imas the twenty—five thousand dollar income from the
tflleatre at Philadelphia for the seasons Of 1794 and 1795.
It; is not made clear whether or not this twenty-five

truousand dollars was money above the cost Of Operation

168

and against which the investors interest could be drawn.
It is reasonable to assume that Operational costs would
be included in this sum. In any case, it was an indicator
of the ability of the Operation to be revenue producing.

It is strange that no profit-loss statement is shown for

 

the theatre at Baltimore, though a season had been played F7
there in the fall Of 1794 and a subscription of six thou—

sand four hundred dollars had been sold to provide for

the necessities of that theatre.2 The 1795 shares were r'

made available and quickly sold. This response to an ex-
panded speculation indicates confidence in the growth
potential of the theatre and its subsidiary interests.

Had the risk connected with this investment increased in

a significant way, it would have been difficult to engage
both new and Old patrons. As it will be noted in a study
of the Minutes of the Meeting, a prefatory paragraph states
that original subscribers were to be given Opportunity to
subscribe to the new shares before they were placed on the

open market. The health of the infant was deemed good and

growth satisfactory.

 

2On August 19, 1794, shortly before the opening of
‘the Holliday Street Theatre, the following appeared in a
IBaltimore newspaper: "Persons desirous of becoming sub-
scribers to the New Theatre Of Messrs. Wignell and Rein—
agltg are respectfully informed that there are five shares
Luqappropriated of One Hundred Dollars each. Subscribers
in: draw interest at six per cent, till the money is re—
;Miid, and be entitled to a free ticket for the first season
kar each share. Application to be speedily made to
Truorowgood Smith and Robert Gilmore."

169

Despite the Optimism indicated by the meeting in
June Of 1795, a major philosophical decision that had been
arrived at early in the Chesnut Street's planning was to
plague the management and cause Wignell to repent having

agreed to this decision. The decision was that which

 

placed opera in such a favorable position in the reper- I“
toire. The conditions that brought about that decision
aid in an understanding of the Theatre's problems.

The pattern to be followed at the Chesnut Street '9

was like so many others in early American life, that Of
the established British tradition. This scheme was to
include dramatic productions of both plays and Operas.

A more modest beginning might have been profitably con-
sidered, but the relative interests of the managers-tO-be
militated against a move that might have resulted in the
introduction of plays first and Opera later.

From 1786 on, Reinagle had come to have a strong
position Of respect as a member of the Philadelphia com—
Inunity. The enthusiasm with which certain people of the
city had embraced Reinagle and his musical performances
gave to that partner a more influential role in the
leanning of the theatre. This designation of "certain
gmeople Of the city" is chosen deliberately. It refers
tc> those who had been in a position tO invite the composer-
(nonductor-performer to their chamber sessions or soirees,

cu? who could afford to have this maestro serve as mentor

170

to their children. They would not be typical Of the
populace. Also, these same people and others who sup-
ported the City Concerts which he planned and helped to
perform were, in large part, aristocratic. One cannot
fault Reinagle for these contacts. In fact, he deserves
praise for their cultivation as they made the theatre
possible.

Wignell was well thought of as a performer but his
work in traveling with the Old American Company and
Philadelphia's Opposition to the theatre had kept him
from the city months at a time before the legal persmission
to play was established in 1789. Even after that, he was
out of the city a good deal until his alliance with Rein-
agle in 1791. The Obvious result was that Wignell may
have been more popular with the hoi poloi, but it is
doubtful that persons who could afford subscriptions of
three hundred dollars each would have been eager to invest
in a theatre proposed by an actor who would debark immedi-
ately for England with a sizable part Of their investment.

As the planning progressed, Reinagle's friendships
with important persons and their financial interest in
the theatre, his position as the local representative of
the venture during its physical and financial formulation,
and Wignell's long and criticized absence during which
an enormous debt accumulated, combined to put the central

figure in this drama in a less favorable position than his

 

 

 

171

co-manager. There is no intention here to suggest differ-

ences between these men over the planning of the theatre.
Theeflmemnaof any mention Of difficulties between them

mustleadtx>the assumption that they were unusually

wellnnflted partners. The diligence with which Wignell

balancaitmm company in stocking it with singers and
danmansattests his commitment to the decision referred
to here.

The fact that an Opera was chosen for first per—

formances in Annapolis and in Philadelphia convinces the

Observer Of the premier position this medium was to be
Wignell was

"3

accorded. Dunlap's comment was that ".
led to rest his hopes on the Operatic department.
Despite the Opera historian Sonneck's enthusiasm for
Wignell and Reinagle's decision because "posterity is
less interested in Wignell and Reinagle's financial
affairs than in their artistic efforts," a picture of
the management problems Of the theatre must include an
estimate of what this commitment to opera was to mean.
Tflne immediate effect Of entrusting one's hopes for
theatrical success in the production Of musical enter-

tainment in addition to plays was to necessitate the

engagement of a larger performing company.

 

3Dunlap , Op. cit.

“Sonneck, Op. cit., p. 105.

'“m1

-.-." $1M‘J"‘ -.-

 

172

Thenmsical part of the entertainment being now
mameso prominent, greatly swelled the expendi—
turmm These included the enormous charge of a
pmfiect orchestra. . . . Then again the skeleton
Offichorus, to be constantly kept and filled up
asvmnted. . . . A full ballet corps under the
chiection of Byrne. . . . The musical instruments
(then the property of the manager,)

of all kinds,
including two grand pianos and a noble organ.

The orchestra music, (afterwards destroyed

by fire,) was obtained at an expense Of nearly
added largely to the

two thousand dollars . .

O O 0

 

costs of Operation.
this listing, the star vocalists were among the highest

The managers must be admired

Though they were not mentioned in

paid members of the company.

for their determination to provide performances of artistic

merit. The suggestion that such a commitment to musical

drama was an error in judgment is true only when consider-

ing their success financially.
The overhead necessary to sustain such a company,

combined with the debt incurred before the theatre Opened

for consecutive seasons of playing, put the managers in a

situatitnl<3f financial stress at the outset. Despite this

fact, tfluxy had been singularly successful in their appeals
for backing or the investors in the Chesnut Street Theatre

would not have extended their support of that theatre as
welfil as gnmovided twenty thousand dollars to pay for an

additional theatre to be located in Baltimore and avail-
Such support

able for playing in the summer of 1794.
While the

indicates the confidence the managers enjoyed.

 

5Wmei, op. cit., pp. 92-93.

173

mumorhns were undoubtedly aware of the pOpulation in-
(neasezhithe new states and the general expansion in the
ecmkmw mkiin construction, very few were experienced in

invesmmnms in the field of entertainment and, thus, must

havelxflied heavily on the experience and advice of the

managers.
During his nine years as a manager, it must have

 

been painful to Wignell to compare the receipts and

realize the difference in the public reception Of the

production of plays and Operas. In the last years of his

life he reflected on this problem and spoke with William

Wood, his assistant in the management at that time.

Wignell had come to the strong feeling that no theatre

could successfully produce Opera, comedy, and tragedy.

His Opinion was that a theatre should be given over

exclusively to music and dance. He might have expressed

this view in another way, i.e., that a theatre was more

apt to experience success should it confine itself to

drama.
'TO show hOW badly the union of the two entertain-
Inents affected the manager, Mr. Wignell used to refer
in later times the advocates of the junction to his
bcmflc of receipts, which presented such contrasts as
'Hmdve in a Village," "Robin Hood," or "Artaxerxes,"
(all.1nusical dramas,) performed to an audience of
CNN; hundred to one hundred and fifty dollars;

whijxa the "Revenge," "Romeo and Juliet," "Alexander,"
or'ealmost any other tragedy, seldom fell below a
receipt of from five hundred to seven hundred

dollars.7

6lbid., p. 94. 7Ibid., p. 93.

174

EMpmnters of the musical drama countered that the
gromsremflpts were Often greater than those for plays.

Tonflfich,hmod, Wignell's successor replied,

. .. this is a matter Of balance of receipts and
expmkutures; and our books have constantly proved
arm the extra expenditure for a large chorus force,

In

mflfltional performers, and band, added to the
emnmwus demands of principal singers, render a

Inpfit scarcely within probability.

 

WOOdlMMm on to mention that time in preparation for an
Opera,tfim more limited run, and the daily occupation Of ’
the stage (by equipment and properties) all inveighed '
against a happy union Of these forms Of presentation in

the same theatre.
Wood closed his comment on the Opera-play controversy

by confirming Wignell's experience regarding single per—

formances. He recalled listening to fine Operas well sung
to a house of forty dollars.
receipt book would prove that the productions of four

Lastly, he wrote that his

.plays realized more profit than all the operas he had
8

"produced during twenty—five years."
Cknrtemporary experience supports this judgment,

Thenwe is rm; longer any expectation that Opera will be

self—sustaining financially and subsidies are an expected

and needed pillar to Opera production.
hhunerles factors prevented steady progress towards

a <30rrtirn1ed1 expansion and successful Operation Of the

theatre. One unpredictable block that stood in the way

81bid., pp. 94-95.

175

ofgflayhmgand, accordingly, of revenue was the plague.
IWfile‘mkne seem to have been isolated instances of this

horrdrkmflbre 1792, that year inaugurated a period when

the whfits Of yellow fever proved costly to life and
Philadelphia lost over five

I I‘nil

business on a large scale.
thoumnuiinhabitants to this scourge in 1793. Attacks
were savage in 1793, 1794, 1796, 1797 and 1798. The 3

a

movement Of the capital of the country to the banks of

 

the Potomac in 1800 was attributed, in part, to these
tragedies.9 St. Mery wrote, "until 1800 it [Philadelphia]

was the seat Of the federal government Of the United States,

an honor which it lost because of its repeated and dis-

astrous epidemics. ."10 The first sign of yellow
fever led to the Closing Of places of public meeting.
Those who could afford to, left for residences out of

town or to join relatives elsewhere in the country. On

a particular congregation Of a religious sect

occasion,
or an alehouse or

might decide to meet despite the ban,
:restaurant might not be bothered by the health Officials

shcnfihi its proprietor continue to Operate his establish—

always an early target should the

ment.11 The theatres,

9Riley, op.cnt.

'lOSt. IWery, Op. cit., pp. 257-258.

llJiLlius F. Sachse, The Rellgious and Social Condi
timnns <3f IHliladelphia During_the First Decade Under the
Federal Constitution (Philadelphia: n.p., n.d.), p. 13.

176

Iflagueemmear, were summarily Closed. While this prevented

:hmome,it gave safety to the players as well as the towns-

.m:such times, Reinagle and Wignell turned their

peOple.
afltenthmufirst to Baltimore, where they maintained their

secmmitheatre. an escape to that city was not

However,
alwayszasatisfactory solution as Baltimore was equally

 

"subject1x>the scourge of yellow fever," where it "in—
12

flicted frightful ravages almost every year since 1793."

St. Mery would appear to have written this in 1798.
Few families who remained in the Cities were not
brought close to this menace. Both St. Mery and his son
were stricken. Though St. Mery pére was gravely ill with
this disease, he denied that he was its victim as he was

a "creole," a group superstitiously thought to be exempt

According to St. Mery's account, twenty

from the fever.
thousand people were struck by fever in Philadelphia during

The health authorities tagged houses with

August of 1797.
should any inhabitants be stricken, and St. Mery

red flags
ccnfihi count twenty Of these markers "within a musket shot"

of his house.13
131 addition to abrupt interruptions in otherwise

orwharly'enui financially stable seasons, the closings due

tc>111agueelirought about unexpected expenditures for trans—

pKNTtatILNl to alternate cities, salaries paid when no

12 80.

St. IMery, op. cit., p.

l3Ibid., p.236.

177

phndngimm providing returns, and rent for structures not

owned by the company.
Asmmond source of anxiety to the produceremanager

cfi‘an anfly American playhouse was competition. The cities

wererkm.of a size to support competing theatres. Nor was
I_

theresndficient cultural interest or economic ability to
I

successfifldy support competitors in the field of enter—

tainment. In the case of Wignell and Reinagle, they were

able to "close" Philadelphia to the Old American Company,

 

‘3}__

but other forms of theatrical fare found popularity in the

city. One Of these was the Circus, which was to prove a

prominent competitor.
The first circus master in Philadelphia was an English-

man, John Bill Ricketts, an expert horseman who had trained

in England. Ricketts came to Philadelphia in 1792 and

established a riding academy at Twelfth and Market Streets.

This school was to provide his livelihood while he gained

the backing needed to build a circus. Odell mentions that

.Ricketts had a.circus in Philadelphia before playing in

bknv York in.August of 1793.14 This circus was erected in

1792 cul‘the outskirts Of the city.15 The following year,

iJI expaxuling his plans, Ricketts contacted John Durang

about joining him. Having seen this dancer-actor perform,

the ring-master invited the agile gentleman to take a

 

llHkiell, op. cit., p. 336.

15Riley, Op. cit., p. 377.

 

 

178

Ixmitimias a Clown, providing comic interludes during
equesmflan performances. Durang at that time declined

the Offer.
Ifitketts was not confined to the Middle Atlantic

 

Circuflzahd played alternately in New York and Philadelphia, li
buildhwgamphitheatres for his attractions in both cities.
Fkbm November twenty-fourth, 1794 through April twenty-
first, 1795 he played a season in New York in competition
on v.

with the Old American Company. The following year,

October nineteenth, Ricketts was to Open a large building

on Chesnut Street and, to the chagrin Of Wignell, directly

across the street from the Theatre.17 The enterprising

Scot called his new ring the Art Pantheon and Amphitheatre,

but it was commonly known in Philadelphia as Ricketts'

Circus. Ricketts added the performances Of plays to his
repertoire and these were performed intermittently from

December twenty-second, 1795 through April twenty-third,

1796. Wignell countered in the early part Of his 1795-96

seasculkn/ bringing out Signior Joseph Doctor, an acrobat

frwnn Sadltnr's Wells in London, and M. and Mme. Lege,
18

pantomimists from the Italian Theatre in Paris.

 

l6Downer, Op. cit., p. 35.
17
St. IHery, op. cit., p. 348.

18Pollock, op. cit., p. 58.

179

Thefbllowing season, 1796-97, found Ricketts again
vthgwimiWignell during December, January and February.

The esmflflished nights on which the theatre had found it

nmst afiflsfactory to play were Mondays, Wednesdays, and

Ricketts played when he wished but settled

Fridays.
Ricketts

generaLUzon Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays.
beganlfis season in mid—October. The Theatre managers had

Opportunity to observe his success before their season

began. Saturday nights seem to have proven golden to this
equestrian marvel. Ricketts appeared to have a money

making Operation in a house with over twelve hundred seats,

and with far fewer performers to maintain.

The Theatre managers decided to take advantage of

this interest in Saturday evening entertainment. SO, on

December seventeenth, they played a performance Opposite
Ricketts' own. Undaunted by this turn of events, Ricketts
shifted his playing nights to Mondays, Wednesdays, and

iFridays, thus competing with the theatre on its regular
In less than a month, the Theatre per—

playing nights.
Peace was restored through the return

sonnel capitulated.
by exach cxmnpany to the nights it had originally played.19

1%) add to Wignell's woes, a second circus was Opened

before Ricketts Closed out his season in 1797 and for a

tinma the (Haesnut Street Company was playing in competition

ivitii two (xircuses. The newer and considerably larger

l9ibid. , p. 59.

 

 

 

180

Circus was Opened at Fifth and Prune Streets. M. Lailson,
its owner, constructed a splendid amphitheatre for
equestrian shows and pantomimes. The members of this
company, like the manager, were French and comprised the
largest equestrian contingent to be seen in America to
that day. They played through the spring and well into
the summer, closing the season July 27, 1797. Eighteen
new pantomimes, farces and comic ballads were introduced
by Lailson and his company during that season.20

The 1796—97 season was a veritable nightmare for
Wignell. In the midst of a season completely circumscribed
by circus activity, he felt it necessary to raise the

prices Of admission. In this, William Warren thought

Wignell had "made a great blunder" as "many were very

much hurt at . . . it and kept away entirely. This

unpOpular decision was abandoned by the beginning of the
following season as it had not appreciably increased the
box Office receipts.

Warren, a performer Wignell hired in 1796 in England,
summarized his thoughts about the season in early May, at
least two months before Wignell intended that the season

should end. The reason for this early summary will be made

 

2OIbid., pp. 61-62.

 

21William Warren, "Journal of William Warren,"
linpublished document in the holdings of the Canning
jPollock Library, Howard University, May 6, 1797.

thy”

 

181

clear directly, but Warren's few remarks are worth re—
peating.

The Company was very strong and Byrnes Ballets got

out in great style. . . . Mrs. Merry made a great

impression-~Cooper was well received when he took

any sort of pains--Moreton a great favorite Harwood

also--in fact the prices being rais'd was the only

thing complain'd of. . . .22
Byrnes, Mrs. Merry and Cooper, along with Warren, were
newcomers that season. Warren's uncomplaining attitude in
this entry of May sixth is almost surprising for he had
just experienced an extremely discouraging setback. His
benefit was played May first and the receipts were three
hundred eighty dollars. Four hundred fifty-six dollars
were needed to break even and make a profit for him. By
his calculation he owed the managers one hundred twenty
dollars. A rapid Check Of these figures indicates that the
difference between the first two is not one hundred twenty
dollars. However he figured his debts, he found it "a
very discouraging circumstance after working through so
difficult a season." He went on to say that "business
seems to decline generally." By his admission the managers
treated him well, but they were "very much involved them-
selves."23

Any important economic fluctuation in a community

is bound to affect the theatre in that community. Warren's

 

‘Zlbid.

23Ibid., May 1, 1797.

182

comments in this regard are pertinent. Beyond commenting
that business was declining generally he wrote that,
"During the season several heavy failures took place
amongst the Merchants . . . the rage Of speculation

had been so great . . . the consequence was fatal to the
general prosperity." Much of this speculation had been

in land in the West and had been the product of the
expectation for gain through rapidly increasing immi—
gration. Among those brought low were Robert Morris and
John Nicholson. Morris' name was the first to appear on
the list of original subscribers to the theatre and
Nicholson had purchased two shares in the initial sub-
scription. Morris, the great financier of the Revolution,
was to spend a good part Of the years 1798-1801 in debtor's
prison.

The 1796—97 season was abbreviated because of that
old nemesis Of the theatre in America, the law. In the
spring, Wignell was informed that the authorities in
Baltimore had passed a law prohibiting playing in that
city curing the summer, the exact limits to extend from
.Iune tenth to October first. The obvious cause of such
a law was fear Of the plague. Wignell's company had
3planned to move directly to Baltimore at the close Of
their Philadelphia season, as they had done the three
;previous years. Immediate changes in the company's plans

werwatnecessitated. One alternative was to pass Baltimore

183

by until the fall and play elsewhere in the summer.
Another was not to play Baltimore that year but hope

for some work that would hold the company together until
December when they would re—Open in Philadelphia. Wignell
was particularly anxious to keep his actors working.
Nothing was more apt to cause disaffection and, on
occasion, desertion, than layoffs.

The theatre in Baltimore belonging at least in part
to the Chesnut Street subscribers, was in jeopardy of lying
fallow and passing what should have been a profit producing
season. Also, many loyal and good friends Of the theatre
in that city were to be without any dramatic fare for an
unknown and possibly lengthy period of time. The idea was
put forth to play a brief season before the advent Of summer.
This scheme was adopted, for the following announcement was
published in Philadelphia on May sixth:

The Engagements of the Managers, rendering it neces-

sary, from recent occurrences, that they should open

the theatre at Baltimore, so as to close the season
there on the tenth of June next, they thought it
expedient, (with the approbation of the individual
performers, who are particularly interested) to
discontinue the present course Of Benefits until

that period has elapsed.2

The reference to "recent occurrences" seems Obviously
pointed at the news from Baltimore about the restrictions

on playing. The determination to follow this course of

action would seem to have been arrived at for some of the

 

2”Pollock, Op. cit., p. 339.

184

following reasons. Philadelphia had been less than a
raging success during the winter and into the spring.
Lailson's circus was bent on continuing its competition
and would cut into the Theatre's income and the player's
benefits. The impossibility of providing a season for
the patrons in Baltimore for over a year and a half could
mean (a) the loss Of returning supporters, (b) no Oppor-
tunity to develop new supporters, and (c) the possible
loss of the theatre there because it would produce no
income for such a long time. Should some alternate summer
season go well, it might be advantageous to extend it into
the fall, thence preventing a short season at Baltimore
before opening again in Philadelphia. Some or all Of
these thoughts, plus the prospect of the Baltimore theatre-
goers welcoming a surprise season and attending to show
their appreciation of Wignell and Reinagle's consideration
of their interest in theatre, led the managers to decide
to move the company to Baltimore for the month Of May and
part of June.

The newspaper announcement quoted above suggests
‘the performers were "particularly interested" in this
decision to go to Baltimore. If indeed it is true that
tflie actors and singers were enthusiastic to go, it probably
Ineans the benefit season then in progress in Philadelphia
unis not successful. The actors would have fought such a

nuyve if they had been receiving good box Office response

185

in Philadelphia. The promise was made to the performers
that the benefits would continue to be played in Baltimore.
Such an agreement would be essential as the time after they
returned would not allow for each to have his benefit
before the season in Philadelphia was concluded. The
actors may have felt that playing in Baltimore without

the competition from horses and international acts would
prove more lucrative. A letter from Wignell to Henry Hill,
dated June 7, 1797, supports the notion that Philadelphia
had proved slow in the spring. In this letter from Balti-
more, Wignell expresses thanks to Hill for the loan Of
money "on the eve of my departure from your City," i.e.,
Philadelphia. The exact amount of this loan is not stated.
Rather, it is described as a "kind accommodation." A
"P.S." notes that Wignell was enclosing one hundred fifty
dollars, though no mention is made that this is payment in
full. In the body Of the letter Wignell explains that he
had requested Mr. Anderson, the theatre's treasurer, to
provide Hill with bank notes to cover the loan.25 Wignell
would not have needed to borrow a fair amount of money
from Hill if the season in Philadelphia had been a success.
It is understandable that a short and unexpected season

in Baltimore would necessitate some funds above the normal
cost of Operation. However, the fact that Wignell went

to Hill personally rather than to the banks or to a group

 

25The original of this letter is in the Manuscript
IDepartment of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

186

Of the subscribers meeting in concert allows for the
possibility that a certain financial instability existed
in the spring of 1797 that Wignell was not anxious for
the subscribers to know about.

The engagement in Baltimore was to last only a
month because Of the new law. TO the anguish of the
Philadelphia managers, this novel tenet also included a
new tax on playing. The assessment was to be eight
dollars a night. Baltimore had long been receptive to
the theatre and past experience led Wignell to hope that
the very brief season might be extended until July fourth
so he appealed to the City Council for such permission.
Wignell's letter to Hill, while describing business as
"tolerably good," had reported that the takings were too
small "to do more than pay the expenses" of the trip.26
The deliberations of the Council continued for two weeks
as Wignell and his large group waited a determination.
'The council jointly determined that no extension would be
granted. The verdict prompted Warren to comment that
'these "religious fanatics" proved a "set Of 'stony hearted
‘Villains.'" There was nothing left for the company to do
twat return to Philadelphia.

The indomitable Wignell had now to follow this

:fiasco with some program for his performers. The Chesnut

 

26Ibid.

187

Street was re—Opened for five performances, the first of
these on July fifth and the last on the fourteenth.
Meanwhile, Ricketts and Durang had been readying
themselves for a lengthy sojourn in Canada and were to
leave Rickett's New York circus uninhabited. In some
way Wignell became aware that Ricketts' circus was
available for rent or lease. Durang had returned to
Philadelphia on more than one occasion to put his affairs 5

in order and it is just possible that he visited his Old

 

associate, informing him of this. Wignell had negotiated
with Ricketts in 1795 for the use Of his New York circus.
In 1797, an arrangement with Wignell would be beneficial

by providing Wignell a place to play and Ricketts rental

on his building while he was out of town. Wignell seems

to have left for New York even before the performances

on Chesnut Street were concluded for, on the fifteenth Of
July, Warren reported in his journal that Wignell was in

New York and that, if he could Obtain the theatre there,

"we are to go there."

In summary, the excursion to Baltimore appears to
have been an attempt to salvage part of an expected income
that had been impossible to realize because Of a new and,
as time proved, temporary law against playing in the
summers. Also, the desire to please the Holliday Street
Theatre's investors and patrons entered into the decision

to play. Despite these motives and the willingness of

188

the performers to participate, the managers were unpre-
pared financially to undertake this extraordinary trip.
A precipitous move, the trip proved an economic disaster
and added a deficit to the already burdensome financial
problems Of the Chesnut Street theatre.

Wignell was successful in his negotiations at New
York. With very little hesitation, Ricketts agreed to
Wignell's use of the circus and, on the nineteenth Of
July, left for a tour of Canada in partnership with that
dancer, Whirligig, and bit player, John Durang.27
Durang's account of touring in the wilds Of upper New
York and Canada is a fascinating and absorbing tale Of
itinerant performing in the 1790's.

The ease with which Wignell and Ricketts came to
terms suggests that some preliminary communication had
taken place before they met in New York. This is not
contradicted by Warren's comment, i.e., "if the circus
could be engaged." From this it may be assumed that the
possibility for such an arrangement had been explored
previously. The new project seemed to stimulate Wignell
for his letter to Henry Hill indicated the high spirits
‘with which he approached the work in New York. The day
zafter Ricketts left for Canada, he wrote,

I have the pleasure to inform you that the

prospect of our success here is such as to

encourage to anticipate a complete indemnifi-
cation for our loss at Baltimore--I have taken

 

27Downer, Op. cit., p. 47.

189

Mr. Ricketts' Circus—-which we shall adapt to our
exhibitions—-and Open as soon as it can be made

ready.28
It was to take more than a month to ready the theatre
located in Greenwich Street, what with converting the
ring into an orchestra and pit area, and arranging the
stage to include traps and grooves.

A company Of what was to prove rival performers
Opened a season at the John Street Theatre on July
eighteenth. One suspects that, in his concern for his
own efforts, Wignell neither expected nor concerned him-
self with this prospective competition. From the tenor
Of his letter, he was ignorant Of its presence or un-
concerned by its potential as a threat to his success.

John Hodgkinson, the very aggressive and dynamic
personality at the head of the New York descendants Of
the Hallam-Henry company, had been the manager at the
John Street Theatre from the time Henry had left the
company and Hodgkinson had driven Hallam out of the manage-
Inent. Hodgkinson had been aware of a plan by Wignell to
bring his company to New York for a season in 1795. It was
'the New York manager's intention to insure the safety of
Iris territory against incursions from any direction after
‘the danger Of 1795 passed. The method chosen by Hodgkin-

scnl was to form an alliance with a manager who would prove

 

28The original of this letter is in the Manuscript
Ihapartment of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

190

no menace to his own position Of prominence in the city.
The choice lighted on John Solee, a Frenchman who had
found a fertile ground for his performing and managing
talents in Charlestown, South Carolina. Solee maintained
a company in that city and toured the southern states as
far north as Richmond, Virginia.

Hodgkinson had known of Solee's reputation and
contracted a five year agreement with him to use the John
Street Theatre, this agreement to begin in the summer Of
1797. There seems to have been nothing in this arrange-
ment to permit Solee the use Of the new Park Theatre,
under construction at that time and to be ready for Hodgkin-
son's company early in 1798. William Dunlap, by 1797 a long
time participant in the American theatre as playwright and
play doctor, had become a partner Of Hodgkinson in 1796.
During the summer of 1797, while Hodgkinson was playing
an engagement in Boston, Dunlap remained in New York, keeping
a close watch on their fortunes and corresponding with
Hodgkinson about theatrical affairs. Strangely enough,
Hodgkinson does not seem to have taken the playwright into
his confidence for, in one letter, Dunlap asked Hodgkinson
‘what kind Of an arrangement he had with Solee. Hodgkinson
explained by letter that Solee and he were to divide the
seasons in New York with Solee at the helm from "June to
Ckrtober" and Hodgkinson from "November to April." The

seasons were scheduled for five and six months,

191

respectively, so the correct choice of words would have
been "through" and not "to" the months mentioned. It is
not surprising that we find no record Of Wignell's aware—
ness that Solee was due in the city. Hodgkinson would
have had no reason to inform Wignell Of his plans, unless
to attempt to scare him off.

Hodgkinson was very disturbed to hear from Dunlap
that not only had Wignell invaded his territory while he
was out of town but that Ricketts' absence was to continue
into January of 1798. Should Wignell experience general
acceptance in New York, the possible personal consequence
for Hodgkinson and Dunlap would be competition in the first
months of the fall and winter season from a company touted
by many as superior to their own.

Using Dunlap as his mediator and knowing that Dunlap
and Wignell were Old friends, having collaborated on some
of their most successful efforts, Hodgkinson threatened
'Wignell with the establishment of a company to play Balti-
Inore in the winters and Philadelphia in the summers, should
\Nignell remain in New York into the winter. This bluff was
emu obvious attempt to drive the Philadelphians Off, if pos—
siJDle.29 The note of desperation in such a threat indicates
tine real stature of the Chesnut Street Theatre Company through—

cnit America. Hodgkinson was further galled, at that specific

 

29Odell, op. cit., p. 446.

192

time, by the poor beginnings of his own season in
Boston.

The five year pact with Solee, commencing with
that season, was never to be completed. The sojourn of
this Southern manager to New York in 1797 was his only
adventure in that city. Using a pick-up company com—
posed Of some Of his own players and others from Boston
and New York, Solee played Opposite the Greenwich Street
visitors and experienced financial failure and artistic
embarrassment. Solee had not intended to play at length
in New York, but to travel to Philadelphia. However, he
was unable to effect this move due to the plague and had
to meet Wignell in head-on confrontation.30

Following the Baltimore season, the Chesnut Street
performers had received only half checks for their first
week back in Philadelphia. This may have been because
they only played the evenings Of July fifth and seventh,
though half pay seems less than fair for two-thirds Of a
week's work. The following week provided the last pay-
checks until the end Of August, because the performers
had to await Wignell's preparations in New York. Near
the middle of August Warren complained, ". . . for the

last 9 weeks, I have only received Forty dollars, this

 

30The reader is referred to a very fine account of
tflnis struggle in Chapter XII, Volume One of Odell's
Annals of the New York Stage.

193

is insufficient for our subsistence . . . out of this I

"31 He seemed dis-

had my journey from Baltimore to pay.
appointed to have had fifteen weeks "vacation" in his
first year with the company.32 With the other members
Of the company, Warren arrived in New York to open the
Greenwich Street theatre on August twenty-fourth.
Dunlap, in his letters to Hodgkinson, had little
good news to report about Solee's stay in John Street.
While his reports were almost all bad, Wignell's reports
on the Greenwich Street Theatre were not much better.
Again, Warren's journal provides the kind of progress

report that reflects the success of the effort. The

following was gleaned from weekend entries:

Second Week - no salary

Third Week - half salary

Fourth Week — money against salary (exact figure
not given)

Fifth Week - salaries paid

Sixth Week - salaries paid

Seventh Week - half salary

Eighth Week - half salary

Ninth Week - half salary

(hi the twenty—first of September, Warren noted, "1/2
salaries paid--first year of Engagement expires this day
--ahllnuch dissatisfied—-and don't mean to renew it."

Warren avoided the possibility of the kind Of loss he had

¥

31Warren, Op. cit., August 12, 1797.

32lbid., August 25, 1797.

194

experienced when taking a benefit in May by declining
that Option in New York.33

In late September the Solee forces were foundering
badly and Wignell approached Dunlap about renting the
John Street Theatre until Dunlap and Hodgkinson's Park
Street Theatre should open or Wignell and his company
could return to Philadelphia. This offer was not
accepted by Dunlap, so Wignell continued at the Green-
wich Street. At about the same time he sought this
arrangement, Wignell declared that he could not return
to Baltimore.3u This attempt to rent the John Street
Theatre and the consideration Of a move to Baltimore,
whether such a move was feasible or not, attest to
Wignell's perplexity over his condition in Greenwich
Street and his need for a change Of theatres. Not long
after this Solee faded from the picture. The "victors"
in the season's struggle for audiences played on but were
soon set upon by rival forces. For during the last six
weeks of Wignell's playing at Ricketts' circus, he was
confronted by the bain of his previous season in Phila-
<ie1phia, the circus. Contending for audiences during the
closing weeks of the season would have been less difficult

jhad.the circus company been housed in another building.

 

33Ibid., November 15, 1797.

3”Odell, Op. cit., p. 465.

195

However, Wignell's nights Of playing were to be shared
alternately with a group of French, English, and American
performers devoted to the equine arts, ballet, pantomime,
Indian dances, and other assorted entertainments. Finances
may have forced Wignell to this co-habitation, and it is
plausible to assume he benefited by a reduction in rent. I
If he had been taking in enough at the box Office, he ~

might not have had to agree to such a schedule of playing

 

and the attending inconveniences. F
Deemed by critics of the day and those who followed

an artistic 222p, the New York season was a disaster for

the managers. Wignell's receipts showed the horrendous

results--a loss of two thousand three hundred fifty dollars.

This, despite the total take of seventeen thousand two

hundred eighty-six dollars for forty-six nights Of playing

from August 21 through November twenty—fifth. The cause?

Friday 29th Mr. Moreton and Mr. Reinagle brought
$30 and informed me that seats were securd in the
Stage for us--at 3 PM we cross the North river we
sleep at Elizabeth Town Saturday, December 2 we arrive
in Philadelphia at 10 PM. Thus ends our New York
excursion—-the receipts might have supported a
moderate establishment--but the Company was very
large also the Band. The Theatre inconvenient and
so wretchedly Cold-~being incompetent to exclude
either Wind or Rain—-Wignell had expended a very
large sum in fitting up the place—-for which expendi-
ture the principal part of the funds were mortgaged—-
previous to our Opening the Theatre and which was
the sole Reason of the salary payments being so
irregular. Of the benefits one only succeeded.
Fennell and Mrs. Merry made $250 each. December
on the 10th Mr. Wignell advanced $10 to pay freight
of my Baggage the vessel in which I shipped it from
New York was run ashore I recovered my things-—by
paying a salvage--the Theatre is in a state Of
preparation. the loss at New York was $2350.

196

This description Of the exodus is from Warren's journal
entry for November 29, 1797. Odell's summary is Of

another kind.

And so departed Wignell and Reinagle, with all
their starry host. New Yorkers who lamented their
going might have consoled themselves--could they
have known--with the reflection that all of the
leaders, except Moreton, would be seen again in
the City, at the new Park Theatre or elsewhere.
This had been a great autumn in New York

theatricals.35
It is pertinent to ask why Wignell remained in New York so

l.ong if the receipts continued to fall short of the costs
of production. The answer was the plague. The disease
kept Solee from Philadelphia and did the same for Wignell.
In 1797, the epidemic in Philadelphia surpassed the horrors
of 1793 and the years between. The cost to Wignell of a
move back to Baltimore would have been prohibitive and the
truth was that in no other location could the company have
realized a smaller deficit than in New York. Twenty-three
hundred dollars was not a small deficit but, in a stand at
zalmost any other theatre in America, the loss might have
tween doubled or trebled. In his July letter, Wignell had
tween realistic. While he had hoped to regain the Baltimore
lxasses, he admitted fear of experiencing "some difficulty
1!] a sufficient fund to bring on [to Philadelphia] our

ltxrge and expensive family" (see footnote 28).

 

351bid., p. 470.

197

Before passing on to a consideration of the problems
of 1798 and 1799 a final note should be made on the fate
of the circuses in Philadelphia. It will be remembered
that there were both Ricketts and Lialson to contend with
in 1797. At the beginning Of and well into the 1797-98
season, the theatrical performers were not buffeted about
by the competition of circuses. Ricketts, Durang and a
small contingent had gone to Canada in July. The travels
of these men were to keep them out Of the country until
the fall Of 1798.36 Therefore, during the Chesnut Street
Theatre season from December eleventh, 1797, through May
fifth, 1798, no trouble was encountered with Ricketts.
Laison returned to the capital city to play an abbreviated
season from March eighth through April seventh, 1798.
Lailson, like the Chesnut Street producers, was over staffed
and too ambitious. He was unable to continue, went bank—
rupt, and sold his theatre and its outfittings in the spring
of 1798. Wignell purchased for the Chesnut Street Theatre
the larger part of the holdings in properties.37 A few
Ioerformances were played by temporary companies at the two
(zircuses and at the Southwark between April twenty-fourth
.and.June eighth. These were of almost no consequence to

Idignell for they came at the very end or after the close

 

—_____,

36Downer, Op. cit., p. 93.

37Scharf and Westcott, op. cit., p. 953.

 

 

 

 

 

198

of the Chesnut Street season. As if to place an exclama—
tion point at the close of the circuses and the 1797-98
seasons, the dome of the circus formerly belonging to
Lailson crashed to the floor and destroyed the interior
of that structure on July eighth, 1798. The circus was
uninhabited when this crash took place.

Ricketts returned to Philadelphia to play a season
from January ninth through March twenty—third of 1799 and
to open a campaign at his circus on November twenty-first
Of that same year. On the evening Of December seventeenth,
1799, Don Juan, or The Libertine Destroyed was announced
with an accompanying program note that "The last scene-
represents the Infernal Regions with a view of the mouth
of Hell." The performance was interrupted by fire and
the circus burned to the ground.38 One can imagine the
comments of religionists about that parley Of events.
Ricketts was ruined, losing twenty thousand dollars at
once, his livelihood and his future in American entertain-
Inent. With the help of Durang, he made a valiant attempt
to re-coup losses by playing briefly at Lancaster, at the
£Southwark in Philadelphia, in Baltimore, Georgetown,
.Alexandria, and by returning north. His troupe even played
21 short season in Lailson's circus, sans roof. Finally,
irl a state Of despair, Ricketts left America for the West

Ituiies and, after being captured by pirates who sold his

 

38Philadelphia Daily Advertiser, December 18, 1797.

199

horses and belongings at auction, was able to make enough
money to plan a return to England that was not an embarrass-
ment, only to be lost at sea enroute.39

The theatre was Wignell's life and it was in the
theatre that he would attempt to recover the losses of
1797. Entering into the 1797—98 season at the New Theatre,
Wignell must have felt some pleasure to be back in Phila-
delphia mixed with anxiety provided by the close proximity
Of his creditors. The new season was also to be trouble-
some with Thomas Abthorpe Cooper a cause of dissension.
Cooper was a very young and confident performer whom
Wignell had engaged in England only a year earlier. As
time passed he was to prove a great American favorite and
to amass a fortune acting in the United States. However,
he was seldom as diligent about his performing as a manager
might have wished.

In September of the 1797 New York season Wignell had
tlired his pOpular but sometime performer, Fennell, to put
in an appearance. Fennell had never been seen in New York
and was well received. The public reaction was enthusiastic
and Wignell was especially pleased. Cooper, at that time
tflne leading man in the company, was "dissatisfied with

Vtignell's preference of Fennell . . . and it was prophesied

 

39Downer, Op. cit., pp. 96-103.

200

that the young tragedian would not submit to the rule of
one who treated him 3p cavalier."4O
Some unpleasantness ensued. Fennell played only
briefly during the New York season. He did, however,
agree to a guest appearance in early January Of 1798.
The combination of resounding accolades for this appear-
ance by Fennell and an invitation for COOper to play a
special performance in New York, caused the latter to
inform Wignell Of his intention to take advantage Of the
Opportunity for a benefit in New York. Wignell refused
to allow the actor, under the terms of their contract, to
perform. Cooper played Jaffier in Venice Preserved
despite Wignell's admonition not to and a legal exchange
of two years followed. The effects were more detrimental
to the already troubled Wignell than to the young performer.
Fennell stayed on at the Chesnut Street but a row with him
closed the theatre for a time in February, 1798. All in
all, the 1797—98 season proved a spotty one for the Chesnut
Street Company. Moreton died during that season, Cooper

(deserted--"he broke his articles"—-"Fennelle (sic)--went

'to make salt."ul

Under the restrictions in force, Baltimore perfor-

rnances were again held in May and June. Wignell applied

 

uoDunlap, Op. cit., p. 214.

ulWarren, Op. cit., May 3, 1798.

 

201

to extend the season there so the company would not have
to be moved so soon after its arrival. Again this appeal
was denied. It was at this juncture that Wignell and
Reinagle were faced with a crisis greater in magnitude

than any they had previously encountered.

 

It has been demonstrated that the seasons of 1796 FE
and 1797 were fraught with difficulty and the season of
1797—98 in Philadelphia troubled by personnel problems.
These difficulties had prevented the managers from making f'

regular payment on the mortgage for the theatre and the
property on which it stood.- By spring, 1798, John
Dickinson, owner Of the property on Chesnut Street and
possessor of the lien on that ground was no longer demand-
ing payments of interest and the principal. Instead, he
left an "execution" with the High Sheriff Of Philadelphia
for the sale of the property. Dickinson had tired of
waiting for his money and made this move without consulting
his debtors. When Wignell was apprised of Dickinson's
action, he left Baltimore immediately to return to Phila-
delphia, directing John Bernard to travel with and super-
vise the company at Annapolis. Reinagle penned the following
response to Dickinson:
June 11, 1798

Sir, .
It is with deep concern, that we learn that an
execution has been left with the sheriff (at your
instance) for the sale Of the property we hold in

Chesnut Street, to make good the payment Of the
principal and interest, due you for the ground on

202

which we have (at a great expence) erected a valuable
building.

Notwithstanding untoward circumstances have
hitherto prevented the possibility of our punctuality
in paying the interest, we are not without the hope
of soon being able to effect the payment of both the
interest and also part Of the principal. Besides
what monies we are able to raise by our own exertions,
we propose to dispose of such parts Of the ground, as
we shall endeavor to dispense with, from our own uses.
but previous to any step we can with propriety take
in this, we must solicit that you will (on receiving
the purchase money Of such lots) release so much Of
the said ground, as we may find purchasers for, so as
to enable us to give a just and fair title to the
purchaser.

This we conceive will by no means weaken your
security as to your claim for the residue, for be-
sides lessening the amount Of your demand, you will
still hold your lien on the ground, & buildings we
have already erected thereon.

The gentlemen appointed as Trustees for our
establishment are Messrs. Philip Nicklin and John
Ashley, who will pay you the money as fast as the
sales can be effected.

we beg the favour of a speedy answer & remain
with great respect
Sir

your most obedient
Humble Serts.

Wignell & Reinagle
Phila. June 11th, 1798

Much Of the fragmentary correspondence Of Wignell
and Reinagle that remains is like this letter. At several
points during their tenure as managers in the 1790's they
were reduced to begging the indulgences Of a number of
creditors and seeking out favor or permission from private
citizens and public Officials. They seem to have been
able to gain assistance when they needed it which attests
not only to the confidence of their associates but the

sustained friendship of men like Henry Hill and Samuel

203

Anderson. Both of these faithful men, and perhaps Nicklin
and Ashley later, stood by the managers and dealt for them
when they were in Philadelphia and when they had to be
plying their trade elsewhere.

If in the previous year the Council of Baltimore had

 

seemed "stony hearted" to the prejudiced Warren, Dickinson 7“
must have been accorded far worse description. It should

be remembered that he had first been approached about this 5

land parcel in 1791 and had probably received little Of i

what he had been promised in the intervening seven years.
His loss of patience is not difficult to understand. At
any rate, he advanced his plans to sell the property.
Things were bleak in Philadelphia. Anderson strove
to raise money for the back payments. Yellow fever set in
during the summer and raged in the autumn. The Oldest
residents did not remember "a summer so Oppressive."u2
There was fever in New York also. On September tenth,
Warren notes that the company played Road to Ruin. That
title could have been the company motto through 1798. On
October eighth, the theatre in Baltimore was Opened for a
second season to a house of only two hundred eighty-seven
dollars. During the second week there Wignell, Bernard,

Milbourne, l'Estrange and others were sick. By early

November all recovered save Wignell who was unable to

 

1‘2Warren, Op. cit., August 25, 1798.

204

conduct his managerial tasks for some time after that.
During that month Warren again intended to leave the com-
pany but did not. All, with the exception of Mrs. Merry,
remained playing in Baltimore closing the season there
January 23, 1798. Mrs. Merry's husband died the day be—
fore Christman, 1798, and she retired to Annapolis for
the remainder of the Baltimore season. The desire to
reap a profit was so great in the closing weeks at
Baltimore that the performers were called upon to face
the footlights as often as six nights a week. At the
close Of the stay in that city, Harwood left the company.
It is notable that he was an American actor who had re-
ceived his apprenticeship on the professional stage in his
native country and played prominently for several years,
retiring after a career of continuous activity.

February and March of 1799 dragged on with the com-
pany back at Chesnut Street for an engagement that reaped
small returns. In full knowledge of the consequences for
himself and the stockholders should Dickinson sell the
building and grounds, Wignell called for an emergency
meeting Of the stockholders.

At a Meeting Of the Subscribers to the New Theatre,

at the City Tavern, held in pursuance of public

notice, on the 11th March, 1799--

Messrs. Wignell & Reinagle having represented, that

the Theatre was about to be sold in satisfaction Of
Mr. Dickinson's Mortgage——

 

205

It was the opinion Of the persons present, That it

is the interest of the Shareholders and Creditors

of the Theatre, to purchase Mr. Dickinson's Mortgage;
and therefore they Resolved, That a Special Meeting
of the Shareholders be called, to take the immediate
measures for that purpose, on Saturday Evening next,
at 7 o'clock, at the City Tavern.

John Leamy,
Chairman.

43
While the company played on, the shareholders met and be-
gan negotiations for purchase Of the buildings and grounds.
March receipts in 1799 were particularly poor and ended
with the band members refusing to play for a performance
unless paid first. The managers would not pay under duress,
probably because they could not, and the band walked out
except for two members. The performance was given and the
farce was played to the accompaniment of two instruments.
Warren's entry for the thirtieth of March provides
the sad climax, "the Managers take the Benefit Of the in-
solvent law." Looked at from a distance of one hundred
and seventy years, this event seems miniscule in its import.
The disappointment and despair that the managers felt might
best be imagined by projecting oneself into a hypothetical
situation where one dreams of a venture, strives to make
that dream a reality, the dream becomes a reality, the suc-
cess Of the reality seems sure, and in half a decade all is

lost. The theatre remained a painful remainder Of their

efforts yet a tribute to them also.

 

73The original of this announcement is contained in
the Society Collection Of the Historical Society of Penn—
sylvania.

206

The transaction for the purchase seems to have taken
only a matter Of weeks for the records show the new owners
to have taken possession on May second, 1799. Shortly
thereafter, five Of the proprietors were elected "Agents"
to manage the affairs connected with the "lots, Buildings
and Premises." The Resolutions and Articles of the forty-
One owners are reprinted in part in Appendix D. It is
interesting to note that seventeen and possibly eighteen
of the proprietors in 1799 were among the original sub-
scribers.uu Conspicuously absent are the names of Wignell
and Reinagle. The portion of the Resolutions that would
be of greatest interest to these two gentlemen appears in
the sixth Article and is quoted here.

it shall be the duty of the Agents . . . to
lease out for any term, not exceeding five years,
the Building called the New Theatre, to such person
or persons and for such rents and upon such conditions
as they may see fit. But the Agents shall not re-
serve or exercise any controul in the Theatrical
management Of dramatic entertainments, or in the em-
ployment Of performers. And no such lease shall be
granted for the said Building, called the New Theatre,
unless part Of the consideration thereof be, that
each Of the shares or the one ninety-eighth part in—
terest in this association, shall be entitled to one
ticket of free admission into the Theatre on every
play night, But no such ticket Of free admission
shall be transferable more than once in one season,

 

uuThe seventeen names that appear as subscribers in
both cases are: James Crawford, George Plumstead, John
Leamy, John Brown, Mark Prager, Jr., Robert Rainey, John
Travis, Peter Blight, Thomas Fitzsimmons, Robert Patton,
Charles Biddle, John Ashley, Thomas Ketland, John Vaughan,
Andrew Spence, Francis West, and Pearson Hunt. Joseph
Donalson, Jr.'s name appears in 1799. He was either the
same Joseph Donalson who appears on the earlier list or
the son of that man.

207

nor shall the said Theatre ever, during the con-
tinuance Of this Association, be let for any other
purpose than for Dramatic exhibitions, without the
unanimous consent of the Share—holders, except in
case such exhibitions may be prohibited by lawful
authority.
SO, Wignell and Reinagle were no longer involved in the pro-
prietary affairs of the theatre. While this turn of events
deprived them of former rights, it also relieved them Of
the heavy burdens of responsibility for the financial af-
fairs Of the establishment. One wonders if they were in-
strumental in the composition Of the Article quoted above,
particularly for the inclusion of a statement to the effect
that the Agents and, one might assume, the other propri-
etors might be included by implication, would not be in-
volved in the "controul" Of the production or management
of the theatrical fare or in the "employment Of performers."
The assurance that the theatre would not be rented for other
than dramatic performances would have provided an important
safeguard to perspective lessees.
The need for the managers to have recourse to the law
of bankruptcy seems to have had a demoralizing effect on
the company they managed. Harwood had resigned in January.
Wood, a relative newcomer, withdrew in April to leave for
Jamaica. He claimed bad health caused his early retirement,
but added that "a general depression of spirits in view of
my new career, made me determine about this time to abandon

the pursuit entirely." Wignell was desperate and asked Wood

to investigate the possibilities for a short season in

208

75 Warren lost the right to rent the house he

Kingston.
was inhabiting in Philadelphia for lack Of payment.

A skeleton crew agreed to try Baltimore and to divide
evenly whatever receipts were taken. This group appeared
to bring Off what had eluded the whole company for two
years. The City Council Of Baltimore voted to allow an
extension of the playing beyond June tenth. The joy was
shortlived for the head of the Board Of Health advised
the mayor not to ratify the Council's decision, saying
the Board would not bear responsibility for the conse-
quences. The mayor refused to accept the responsibility
and complied with the board's wishes. The picturesque
Warren branded them a "set of canting thieves.“46

There was talk of moving to Lancaster but Annapolis
was visited instead. Byrne, the dancer, and his wife left
the company. Warren's records suggest a state of disarray.
Wignell was in Philadelphia seeking support, Bernard and
Reinagle were taking the measure of Georgetown as a playing
site, while Holland surveyed Lancaster, then Easton, Penn-
sylvania. In the middle Of August a decision to divide
the company was reached. At this point, l'Estrange de-
fected. Marshall led Holland, Warren and fifteen others

to Easton in late August. Warren was sick for a part Of

the five weeks played there, but shared in the takings Of

 

usWood, Op. cit., p. 67.

“6Warren, op. cit., June 14, 1799.

 

209

twenty-six dollars and fifty cents to each player. He
commented, ". . . we might have got more--had we been all
in health--but sickness and being but few in number——we
could not do even Jane Shore though we Often tried it."u7
Warren borrowed funds to transport his charges to
Baltimore where they opened October 1, 1799. It was at T

this time Wignell formally took Warren into the management.

Misfortune dogged the players to Baltimore. Warrell, Jr.,

 

a minor player in the company, died during the stay in ‘
that city, Mrs. Marshall was at death's door, and Mrs.
Merry was in ill health. They braved out a short season
with salaries paid most of the weeks there.

Though a formal contract has not yet been discovered,
Wignell was apparently the first lessee agreed to by the
agents of the New Theatre for December fourth, 1799, found
his company performing there. Wood had returned from
Jamaica and was again involved. He felt ". . . the state
Of the theatre . . . was more encouraging than it had been,
and began to show symtoms Of a probable revival.“8 After
so much adversity, the fortunes of Wignell were to take a
turn for the better. From December, 1799, until the time

of his death Wignell was not to want for work. During that

period he spent less time on the road and it became common

 

u7Ibid., September 26, 1799.

uBWOOd, op. cit., p. 70.

210

for him to entrust trips to the supervision of Warren.
This new found security was not immediately evident in
December of 1799. Two weeks after the Opening of the
1799—1800 season, Mr. and Mrs. Marshall left the com—
pany abruptly and without warning to take positions

with Solee in Charlestown, South Carolina. That was the
same day, December seventeenth, that Ricketts' circus

burned.

 

The next day news reached Philadelphia of the death i
Of President Washington and the city went into a period Of
public mourning. This event closed the theatre for several
days. On the twenty-third, the Chesnut Street played a

Washington favorite, The Roman Father. The theatre was

 

draped in black and Wignell preceded the play with a "Monody
on Washington" that honored the great patriot and former
patron of the theatre. This dedicated performance was well
attended and grossed eleven hundred and sixty-four dollars.
The twenty-sixth of December was celebrated by marches and
eulogies. The theatre participated by repeating the "Monody
on Washington" and presenting a play entitled The Consti—
tution. On the thirtieth of December, at the behest Of
President Adams, Wignell delivered the same monologue and

The Secret was performed.)49 These evenings provided a

 

 

ugReese James, Cradle Of Culture suggests The Stranger
by Dunlap was played, p. 17, but Warren's journal for Decem-
ber 30, 1799 shows The Secret to have been performed. News-
papers Of the day support Warren.

 

 

 

211

substantial return and, despite the solemnity of the period,
hOpe for the manager and his company. The season prospered
and extended itself until the last performance on May 19,
1800.

A quick move to Baltimore allowed for the opening of

the theatre there four days later. Warren and part of the

__—.- w lea-W!

troupe continued to travel and play after the close of the

Baltimore season on June tenth. Wignell seems to have

 

returned to Philadelphia to prepare for an ambitious autumn. *
He was to catch up with Warren on July thirty-first to
direct him and the players to meet him in Washington.
During the spring and summer of 1800 the Federal
Government had transferred its departments and personnel

50 Wignell was particu—

tO the new capital on the Potomac.
larly anxious to be the first to provide a performance in
the new seat Of government. Wood wrote that Wignell had
received a "pressing request" to mount such a premiere.

The performances were to take place in a hotel named The
Lottery. It seems safe to assume that Milbourne or Holland
or both were dispatched during the late spring to determine
the measurements Of the room in the Lottery to be outfitted

as a theatre. Returning to Philadelphia, they prepared

"scenery, an artificial dome, and the embellishments Of

 

50Aloysius I. Mudd, "Early Theatres in Washington
City," Records Of the Columbia Historical Society, V

(1902). p. 65.

212

the audience part, so as to have them in readiness to be

DUt up without delay upon their arrival. . . ,n5l

Wood's account seems to match descriptions provided
by others and is worthy Of recounting.

Poor Wignell's ill-fortune, constant to him on all
occasions, did not fail to check his plan, so well
contrived and at a large cost. On the way to Wash—
ington a furious storm of rain invaded the wagons,
and drenched the tasteful labors Of the painters so
seriously as to make it necessary to repaint nearly
the whole, besides occasioning a considerable delay
in Opeining the house. Not a jot discouraged, how-
ever, this excellent man persevered in his exertions;
and after innumerable difficulties incident to the
unprovided state Of the place, and at great expense,
he at length Opened The First Theater in Washington
with an apprOpriate address by the late Thomas Law,
Esq., who continued to aid the enterprise not only
with his pen and his influence, but with his purse;
he was ably seconded by several other gentlemen of
liberality and taste. The opening play of "Venice
Preserved" was well acted by Messrs. Wignell, Cooper,
and Mrs. Merry . . . and warmly received and
applauded by an audience, more numerous, as well

as splendid, that can be conceived from a population
so slender and so scattered. The encouragement con-
tinued to exceed his expectations, yet fell very far
below his expenditure, as his company consisted Of
every one of the persons who composed the Phila-
delphia establishment. Mr. Wignell's main Object
was to Obtain a footing in Washington, where he
might keep together his company during the summer,
in the event Of a recurrence of the pestilence,
which was regarded as but too probable. It may be
justice to add, that he ever expressed a degree of
pride at having established a theatre at the
metropolis of our country, and acted on the first
night of any performance at the foundation of what
was properly entitled The National Theatre.52

 

At the Opening Wignell recited the prologue which included

an apology for their lack Of scenery.

 

SlWOOd, Op. cit., p. 55.

52Ibid., pp. 55-56.

213

The floods Of late, which drowned you many a horse,

Have caused to us a much severer loss--

Our groves, our temples gone beyond repair,

The gorgeous palaces it did not spare;

The storm has swept our canvas almost bare.

For this deficiency we will soon atone-- 53

Would you could build as fast with brick and stone.

After only a half dozen performances, the Washington
theatre was abandoned. Claypoole's Advertiser for September
11, 1800 comments that they played "with great reputation,
but no proportionate profit." Warren concurs with the last
half of this observation, leaving to others criticism of
the performances.

Beginning October 18, 1800, Wignell's company played
twenty—eight weeks at the Chesnut Street closing the season
on April 11, 1801. One can see that the earlier opening
would be Of advantage when the spring came around. In other
years, seasons at Philadelphia began in December and ended
in July. The Baltimore law against summer playing made it
impossible to stay in that city after June tenth. Thus,

a season from the middle Of October to the middle of April
in Philadelphia allowed for approximately six weeks in
Baltimore before the necessity to close.

The 1800—01 season in Philadelphia was interrupted
once for a benefit to help defray the cost of "finishing
the theatre." This benefit was scheduled for February 18,

then postponed because of rain. The stockholders had been

 

53For the entire text of this prologue, see Appendix

 

214

asked to pack the theatre with friends for the occasion.54

The alteration to the facade resulted in Benjamin Latrobe's
neO-classic design shown on page 114. Incidentally,
Latrobe spent several years trying to collect payment

for his work.

After the usual Baltimore season in 1801, the
Chesnut Street was Opened for just four nights during the
summer. Following that, Warren and others Of the company
played a sharing season at the South Street while work
progressed on the New Theatre. Wignell and Reinagle loaned
"wardrobe, music . . . (and) set pieces" to Warren without
charge.

Very much like the previous season, the l80l-02 season
played from October fourteenth to April fifteenth. On March
twenty—second, Warren reported, Prigmore, a member of the
company for some years, "ran away with his name in the
bill," i.e., it was announced he would play, but he deserted
the company. The success Of the season is suggested by
Warren's proud notation of April fifteenth that he had
purchased a "new gig--and a house." The order of his pre-
sentation of these acquisitions in amusing. The traveling
(luring the summer of 1802 was conducted without Wignell.

The pattern of the two previous years was broken

slightly when the company played for a month in Baltimore

 

5“Warren, op. cit., February 18, 1801.

 

215

from November eighth through December fourth in 1802.

Things went well for full salaries were paid each week.

The late closing held Off the Opening of the Chesnut

Street until December thirteenth. The season began
successfully. During its third week COOper was hired for
four performances previous to his paying a visit to Eng-
land. Receipts totaled four thousand five hundred thirty-
two dollars for the week, nine hundred fifty-five going to
Cooper as his agreed share. The Saturday of that triumphant
week was January 1, 1803. On that day in the evening Wignell
married the female star of the company, Mrs. Ann Merry.

All seemed well with Wignell as he approached his
thirtieth year in the American Theatre. He had a prosperous
business at last and dependable associates. He had no need to
perform unless he chose to. On the seventh of February he
played the Archbishop of Canterbury to Warren's Henry in

Henry VIII. The records Of the following days are con-

 

flicting. The sequence Of events would appear to have gone
something like this.

Hodgkinson and Fennell, having heard of the great
success Cooper enjoyed and themselves idle for two weeks
as the theatre in New York was closed, came to Philadelphia
to make appearances and money. Warren took umbrage with
their manner Of approach. According to him, they seem to
have insinuated their way into the Opportunity to play by

"raising a tumult in the City--COOper's success has been

216

the cause why these lads annoy us . . . and their desire
to raise the wind."55 We have no word of Wignell's re—
action except a report that he had the duo to dinner on
Thursday, the tenth. Despite the fact that he had not
been well and had been bled in the morning he determined
to go ahead and play the host.56 There is only Wood's
report that the dinner was anything less than a happy

57

experience. Fennell, who was present, reports of a
most cordial evening and he wrote in 1814, forty years
before Wood. By Saturday of that week Wignell's arm was
badly inflamed, ostensibly from Thursday's bleeding. The
process of bleeding could and did in many cases bring

about infection due to the primitive process used. This

seems to have been the unhappy fate of Wignell. On Sunday,

 

55Ibid., February 12, 1803.

56Fennell, op. cit., p. 365.

57Wood, in his account, reported that "Fennell and
Hodgkinson were dining at Mr. Wignell's hospitable table,
when he felt threatenings of blood determining to the
brain-—a danger from which he had occasionally suffered
for many years. The lancet was resorted to, with immedi—
ate relief, and he was enabled to resume his seat after a
short absence. During the evening, however, sharp pains
in the arm awakened a fear that some injury had been re-
ceived in bleeding. . . . A few hours confirmed our worst
fears, and after two days Of excruciating suffering,
death released my valued and early friend from a life of
care and struggle," op. cit., p. 90. The discrepancies
between this account an Warren's are clear. Warren's
account was from a diary. Wood's was a remembrance of
his life forty years before he wrote.

217

Drs. Wistar, Parker, and Rush were summoned and their

examination resulted in the fear of "a mortification."58

We learn that Mr. Wignell, of the New Theatre, is
confined by an indisposition produced by the follow—
ing extraordinary circumstance: Having occasion to
be bled, a bleeder was called in on Tuesday last,59
and the Operation performed. On the succeeding day
the orifice in his arm became painful, and exhibited
symptoms Of inflammation.--This indication increased
to an alarming degree, insomuch that, we are informed,
a consultation of the faculty was held last evening
on the question Of an amputation. We are happy,
however to state, that this has not been conceived
necessary, and that Mr. Wignell [sic] was this
morning in a fair course of recovery.

We trust this will act as a caution to bleeders,
and to those who employ them.60

This entry Of Saturday, the nineteenth, would indicate
the manager had a comfortable week. The man had certainly
been dangerously ill on Sunday. However, Fennell last
saw Wignell at the theatre during a benefit for Hodgkinson.

The last time that I had the pleasure of seeing this
worthy gentleman and friend, was in his private box
at the theatre, whither he had invited me to attend
the performance Of Mr. Hodgkinson in Macbeth. During
the play he Observed to me that his arm was so pain-
ful that he was obliged to request that I would per-
met him to leave me, and return home; I of course
consented, and he retired.61

 

58Warren, Op. cit.

59The bleeding was performed on Thursday and not on
Tuesday as the newspaper reports.

60This report, printed on Saturday, February 19,
1803, in Poulson's American Daily Advertiser was probably
written on Monday or Tuesday,8following the news of the
doctor's decision.

61Fennell, Op. cit., pp. 365—366.

 

218

The only benefit in which Hodgkinson appeared that week
was on Friday night and the performance was of The West
Indian and not Macbeth.62 It is suggested here that
Wignell found himself well enough to invite Fennell to
the performance on that Friday and to be present for part
of it and that Fennell's memory about the particular play
was faulty.

On Monday, the twenty—first, Wignell succumbed to
the infection. Warren's journal for that day shows the
following: "poor Wignell died this morning--he had be
[sic] married just seven weeks-—the Theatre Closed."

For the twenty-second the following comprised the entry:
. . . the Funeral Of my poor friend took place this
day—-it was attended by a numerous and highly re-
spectable concourse of friends and Citizens--a
melancholy day for me--I lost my warmest my fastest
friend and benefactor——his kindness--his goodness-—
will remain for ever engrain'd in my heart.

A rather sad footnote in Poulson's American Daily

‘Advertiser on Thursday, the twenty-fourth, suggests the

 

possible influence of the American medical profession in
the eighteenth century.

We are authorized to inform the public, that the
medical gentlemen, who attended the late Mr. Wignell
in his late illness, and examined his arm after his
death, are convinced that the Operation Of bleeding
was properly performed, without wounding any nerve,
tendon or artery, and that the melancholy circum-
stances which followed the Operation ought not to

be imputed to the bleeder.

 

62Warren, op. cit., February 18, 1803.

CHAPTER VI

ACTORS AND AUDIENCES AT THE CHESNUT

STREET THEATRE

For the caprice of some actors are such as you

cannot calculate on to a certainty; their affa—

bility on the commencement Of their engagement

has the sincere appearance of reliance, but as

soon as they are in possession of money, a con-

sequent dignity will arise and so alter their

manner and conduct as to cause the business to

be done in a careless lazy way, and take on

themselves the assurance to dictate the manager's

business and make Objections. . . .1

This commentary came from the pen of Wignell's con-
temporary and sometime employee, John Durang, but it might
as well have been the statement of the manager himself.
A manager in Wignell's day dealt with from fifty to eighty
people whose financial, physical and social welfare were
his concern. A manager was responsible for performers
from the time Of their engagement through the days or
years of their membership in a company. The most important
task in recruitment was to make as accurate an assessment
as possible Of the recruits' staying power, i.e., the
probability Of their willingness to remain with a com-

pany for some time.

 

lDurang, Op. cit.

219

220

Wignell extolled the virtues and advantages of his
adopted land in recruiting talent in England. His pro-
mised salaries were competitive and in some instances
surpassed what certain performers could expect at home.

He described the cost of living as less expensive than

in England. He could and probably did discuss the new
theatre, exhibiting a copy of Richards' plans and emphasiz-
ing the inclusion of the most "modern" stage devices and
comforts for performers. He could point to the social
acceptability players enjoyed, failing to indicate that
this acceptability was isolated and accorded to only a
few. For example, he could tell his prospective employees
of his own experiences with the first head of the American
State and the cordiality Of their meetings. During his
second excursion to England in 1796 Wignell could proudly
describe the first two seasons at Philadelphia and Balti—
more and the audience's clamor for new faces on the stage.
English actors, noting the near continuous playing of
actors in America, might hOpe for year—round employment
and the accompanying security that should attend it.

By the 1790's the long tradition of royal patents,
begun in the time Of Charles I but most effective in their
governance of playing after the Restoration, had been so
well established in London that the two major houses still
provided the opportunities at the apex Of the profession.

Performers who could not hOpe to play in these houses

 

221

were relegated to the minor houses about the city or in
the provinces. New Opportunities where playing seemed
assured and competition almost non-existent would appeal
to players Of less than the best ability. This factor
would also interest individuals like Mrs. Whitlock who
had been reduced to a secondary position by her cele-
brated sister who enjoyed support bordering on the
fanatic.

The contracts that bound actors Of the 1790's tO
Wignell's company have not been discovered. However
unbusinesslike practitioners Of the theatre are reputed
to be, men like Warren, Bernard, and Wood were intelligent
and conservative in their dealings and Warren and Bernard
made some arrangements with Wignell before leaving England
that were in the nature of contracts. One suspects that
Fennell could not be bound by a contract and Wignell was
wise enough to use him when he could, avoiding the un-
pleasantness of trying to force him to play by taking him
to court. Fennell's talent and pOpularity allowed him to
"job in" from time to time after he ceased to be a regular
member of the troupe.

The long legal struggle that Wignell and Cooper
carried on resulted from the actor's having "broke his
articles," i.e., violated the conditions of his contract.
Those articles included clauses which stated that he was

to be guaranteed forty weeks work a year and, if he should

222

break his contract with Wignell, he would "forfeit" five
hundred pounds sterling.2 The use of the word forfeit
should not be misunderstood here. There is no evidence
to support the notion that the actors posted a bond with
the managers which might then be refused them. Two
possibilities are suggested. First, it could have been
that the managers extracted a portion Of the actor's
salaries over a period of time to accumulate a bond that
might then be lost to them should they break their agree—
ments. The other and more reasonable possibility is that
this forfeiture was more in the form of a fine. In
Cooper's case, the second of these seems to have existed
for his New York supporters got five hundred pounds to-
gether and Cooper delivered it to Wignell to buy up his
contract.

Cooper brought two witnesses to Observe this trans—
action which was to take place in Philadelphia. Wignell
and Reinagle refused his offer. Cooper's talent was worth
more to them than the cash. It is probable his arrival
with the money in hand came as a surprise and they needed
time to decide On a course of action. Cooper left Phila—
delphia when they refused to negotiate. ~They sent after
him but he was determined not to return to Philadelphia.

Instead, he Offered to pay them twelve hundred dollars.

 

2Ireland, Op. cit., p. 16.

223

Cooper, after being rejected a second time, decided to go
ahead with his plans to play in New York where he was
well received. At the Opening performance on February
twenty-eighth, 1798, he played Hamlet. The program had
the following note printed in it.
Mr. Cooper, by certain unfortunate circumstances,
being prevented from the future exercise Of his
profession for nearly the term of two years, unless
he pays the penalty of his article to Messrs. Wig-
nell and Reinagle, the managers of this Theatre
propose to appropriate this his first night's per-
formance toward the discharge Of the same.3
An additional contingency Of COOper's contract appears to
have been that if he did not Obtain his discharge through
full payment of the forfeiture he could be legally barred
from public performances. The anxiety of the New York
managers over meeting the conditions Of the contract con—
vince historians that these binders were not casual affairs
and that the managers in New York had confidence that the
Philadelphia contract would hold up should it be tested in
the courts of New York. Indeed, Dunlap records that "the
managers of the New York company had been formally threatened
with legal prosecution if they suffered him to play on
their stage."u

According to Warren, a judgment against Cooper was

eventually rendered in a Philadelphia court, charging him

 

3Dunlap,'op. cit., p. 220.

uIbid., p. 219.

 

224

the five hundred pounds sterling, six months interest on
that amount and the court costs. This judgment, arrived
at in March of 1800, did not settle the controversy in—
volving Cooper. In January, 1801, he left New York to

return once more to Philadelphia and try for a solution

satisfactory to him. In the exchange COOper took Offense

v w.
u

at something Wignell's lawyer said and demanded satis-

faction. Nothing came of this demand, but during COOper's

 

absence from New York, Hodgkinson had to make announce- i
ments of program changes, postponing works in which Cooper
was to appear. On his return Cooper was notified of these
announcements and that the tenor of them had not been very
sympathetic to him. He became indignant and withdrew from
the Park Street Theatre company. This reaction, in view

Of his apparent ostracism in Philadelphia, seems to have
been high-handed. However, there is the strong possibility
that, while he had a combative exchange with their attorney,
Wignell and Reinagle may have proposed that Cooper work out
his differences with their company through playing. They
were always in need of a strong tragedian and could have
known Of his treatment at the hands of Hodgkinson and
Dunlap, i.e., Hodgkinson played the important Shakespearean
roles. Cooper performed leads in Dunlap's translations of
Kotzebue and other lesser works. It will be demonstrated

that COOper was less than a diligent student Of his parts,

225

so his departure was probably less than a complete dis-
appointment to Dunlap and Hodgkinson.5

Almost immediately following his withdrawal from
the New York company, Cooper appeared at the Chesnut
Street Theatre.

Performers could exhibit capricious and undependable
behavior in numerous ways. To safeguard against such
deviations from workmanlike habits, managers of the period
resorted to financial penalties. The following is a por-
tion Of a contract between Warren and Wood, managers of
the Chesnut Street Theatre in 1815, and a new performer.
NO similar system of regulatory fines has been discovered
for the period Of Wignell's management but there is the
possibility that one did exist so the reproduction Of part
of it may be instructive.

Contract between Warren, Wood and Charlotte Placide

I Gentlemen are not to wear hats in greenroom, talk

vociferously, or enter into disputes which might

lead to quarrels. Fine $1.00

II Fine Of one week's salary for appearing at a
rehearsal or performance while intoxicated.

III For making the stage stand [missing a cue].

Fine $5.00

IV Performers must attend every rehearsal.
For each scene missed Fine $ .50
For the entire rehearsal Fine $4.00

 

5Ireland, op. cit., p. 21.

VI

VII

VIII

IX

XI

XII

XXVII

226

Rehearsing with vox [prompter] at last rehearsal.
Fine one night's salary.

Walking across or standing on stage when not
engaged in business. Fine $ .50

Introducing improper jests not in the text.
Fine $2.00

Opening stage door except for required business.
Fine $5.00

Any person talking with prompter or talking aloud
behind scenes during a performance. Fine $1.00

Each performer is to be dressed in greenroom at
the beginning Of play, or forfeit. Fine $5.00

All dresses regulated and arranged on the morning
Of the performance by manager. A performer who
makes any alterations or refuses to wear them
forfeits a night's salary.

Any performer who neglects or refuses to give out
a play when called upon by prompter by order Of
manager, forfeits. Fine $5.00

In all plays in which modern clothes are worn,
gentlemen are expected to wear powder, shoes and
buckles, unless the character particularly requires
a different dress. This rule to be observed under
pain of forfeiting a night's salary.6

While the standards of decorum implicit here are

directed primarily at the life Of the performers in relation

to the theatre, their effect would extend to the personal

lives Of the players. Beyond these gray areas that over-

lapped and acted as an encouragement to a temperate life,

little is known of attempts by the managers to govern the

social lives of their performers. It is reasonable to

assume the managers would have preferred to spend little

time concerned about personal habits as long as they did

 

6See Appendix F.

227

not interfere with company business. The performers were
professionals whose livelihood depended on continuous and
disciplined participation in the repertoire; moreover, the
nature Of the work provided constant pressure to review
parts played in the past or to learn new additions to the
seasons' Offerings.

Wignell's first company, arriving in September Of
1793, was confronted with adverse circumstances. After
the lengthy boat trip and the expectation of staging the
works they had been rehearsing on shipboard, they were
informed that they could not enter Philadelphia because
of the plague. It has been pointed out in an earlier
chapter that Wignell, unable to hold the ship and unwilling
to expose them to illness, deployed the actors and their
families in various homes in communities in southern New
Jersey. They were scattered in this way for some weeks
before they were brought together again to play in Annapolis.

The effect of this interruption in their preparation
for appearing as a company is not recorded. Presumably they
could have used their time in New Jersey to con the lines
for various roles they were to play. When they were finally
settled in Philadelphia, much of their time was occupied
with playing or preparing to play.

The profession of an actor, though demanding, was
not a harsh one. Ordinarily performances were given only

every other day and almost never did they play over four

228

nights a week. Yet, unlike our contemporary performers,
they were expected to be prepared for many roles. Re-
hearsals, when they were held, were in the mornings. At
what hour these were held and their average length is un-
known. They were flexible as Fennell was, on one occasion,
"detained beyond my usual time." He was in a hurry to

7

arrive home to attend to one Of his lectures. He was
rehearsing in the morning, lecturing in the afternoon,
and performing at night.
Certain performers were loath to attend rehearsals
and avoided them whenever possible. An example was Hodgkin—
son. While he was never a regular member of Wignell's
company, the specific reference to him sheds light on an-
other kind Of problem managers faced. Hodgkinson was not
overly fond of playing. He loved good food and wine and
enjoyed hunting. Bernard thought Hodgkinson would have
gladly given up six nights Of Shakespeare for a day's
shooting.
He played but three nights a week, and being well—
studied in every character Of the "Stock Drama,"
new pieces, which were not more than two in a season,
were the only chances that dragged him to a re-
hearsal. -

Bernard was in error in the number Of new pieces that were

tried most seasons. In an ordinary season at the Chesnut

 

7Fennell, op. cit., p. 340.

8Bernard, Op. cit., pp. 26-27.

 

229

Street, e.g., 1794—95, twelve new plays and Operas were
added to the repertoire in addition to twenty-three new
afterpieces. During the same season over sixty plays
already in the repertoire were played.

Under demands like these, it is not surprising

 

that some players were faulty in their lines. Though :5
some players have phenomenal retentative powers, Charles ‘
Abthorpe Cooper was not one of these. Despite his other

"splendid mental and personal requisites for the stage, i-

the man was said to have a bad theatrical memory."
Wood goes on to say,
Indeed, I scarcely recollect half a dozen Of our
most distinguished actors, stars, or regulars,
who did not labor under this disadvantage. More-
ton, Warren, Blissett, Francis, Bernard, and Mrs.
Merry, were striking instances.
This shortcoming would have been less noticeable in a
minor player but Cooper played the great tragic roles.
When Wood adds the comment that this fine actor "was not
careful in his study for certain parts" and resorted to
the use Of lines planted various places about the sets,
we are left with a picture of a far from ideal performer,
despite the high regard some of his contemporaries had
for him. On one occasion, when the announcements stated
that COOper was to undertake the role of Othello, the
following resulted.
In the full face of Fennell's well deserved popu-
larity in the Moor, Cooper exhibited himself so
miserably imperfect as tO make his performance

wholly ineffective, and not infrequently ridiculous.
SO bewildered and confused did he become that in

230

the last scene, where he should have exclaimed——"I
will not scar that whiter skin than snow and smooth
as alabaster," he substituted "I will not scar that
beauteous form, as white as snow and hard as monu-
mental alabaster."

This was rather tOO much for the audience, who
testified their dissent from his new reading by a
general titter.9

Instances like this may account for some of the animosity fa
between Wignell and Cooper for it seems unlikely Wignell

would allow such an error to go unmentioned.

 

Those today who may think it ingenious to write
notes or other cues on their clothing for aid during '
examinations or performances might be surprised tO know
what an Old device this is. While protecting the performer
by not mentioning her name, Wood related tales of a female
singer in the company who "never, by any chance, learned
the words of her song." Though she had been a performer
with the company for numerous years, it was her custom to
print her cues of the palms of her gloves to aid her during
performances.

This was invariable practice. This glove manoeuvre,

however, was not always available, and her ignorance

Of the text frequently led her into the most ludicrous

blunders. In Laura, (in the "Agreeable Surprise,")

instead of saying, "Eugene's virtues have made me

a proselyte," she . . . substituted . . . "Eugene's

virtues have made me a prostitute." A hundred similar

absurdities might be related of this lady, whose hus-

band, an inferior person, fully equalled his dame in
these new readings.lo

 

9Wood, op. cit., pp. 76-78.

lOIbid.

231

Such carelessness or unwillingness to learn would have
provided the managers with anxious moments, especially
if this kind of thing were tO go on for years. It may
have been that the lady came to know her songs but kept
the habit of recorded cues as a crutch in case she went
blank on stage. Wood certainly doesn't give that im-
pression.
Few of the players made enough money consistently
to sustain themselves in any other than modest conditions.
We know little of the style Of life Of the lesser players.
The ambitious and energetic Fennell provided some infor-
mation about financial problems of the players. His
strong drive and restlessness led him to seek other employ-
ment to compensate for losses or lack of pay. Even he may
have intended to confine himself to performing but un-
expected circumstances prevented this.
Comfortably settled in Philadelphia, but finding
myself unpleasantly disappointed in the estimated
expenses of housekeeping, I thought some employment,
in addition to theatrical pursuits, necessary; the
influx of the French having greatly increased the
price of provisions, house-rent, &c. from what they
had, while in England, been represented to me to be.
I mean not to cast the smallest imputation on Mr.
Wignell's integrity, in his relations to me of the
cheapness of living in Philadelphia; for as he de-
scribed them tO me, things were on his departure
from America. The sudden and extraordinary ad-

vance on the prices of provisions, had taken place
during his absence.11

 

llFennell, op. cit., p. 339.

232

Fennell wrote in another place that his "first engagement
with Mr. Wignell, would not support a family without

"12

collateral aid. . . Warren agreed when he found

periods of draught "insufficient for our subsistence."l3
Though he threatened more than once not to, Warren re—
mained in the company. His main reasons for despair were
caused by financial hardship. It is interesting to note
that a study Of Warren's journal shows that, after his
employment as a junior partner with Wignell and Reinagle,
he diligently paid full salaries, even in hard times.

If these better paid members of the company were in
difficult straits, how hard it must have been for the minor
players when half salaries or less were paid. Despite the
adversities Fennell indicates that there were those who
could and did save enough money to have some available for
retirement. While he found this kind of saving a personal
impossibility, he had the highest regard for those Of a
frugal turn. He wrote Of those in Wignell's company who
made less than a fourth Of the money he had accumulated in
his travels, yet they "by discretion and economy, arrived
at that honourable 'auream mediocritatem' before hinted

at; and may they enjoy it as they deserved it."lu

12Ibid., p. 475.

13Warren, op. cit., August 13, 1797.

l“Fennell, Op. cit., p. 342.

233

There would have been few in the company who made the
salaries that Fennell, Mrs. Oldmixon, Cooper, Mrs. Merry,
and Mrs. Whitlock could command. Bernard's indication
that, in the 1790's, "incomes maintained a fair level,"
seems to have been a distant recollection and, for him,
the fact that no player received less than four pounds a E
week seemed adequate, if not liberal. I

The leading personalities of the company could and

did supplement their twenty to forty dollars a week with

 

benefit performances, usually one in Philadelphia and one
in Baltimore. These special performances added to their
incomes as much as one-third of their basic salaries.15
Many of the actors found additional employment in teaching,
16

giving concerts, and lecturing. These forms of income
do not seem to have been confined strictly to the leading
players. An actor had merely to "visit some town in the
interior where no theatre existed, but 'readings' were
permitted; and giving a few recitations from Shakespeare
and Sterne, his pockets in a night or two were amply re-

plenished."l7 Fennell, unable in the winter of 1796-97

to perform with the Chesnut Street Company (as COOper had

 

15Bernard, Op. cit., p. 263.

16Scharf and Westcott, Op. cit., II, pp. 962 and 1078.

17Bernard, Op. cit.

234

just been added to the company and Wignell had no intention
of engaging two tragedians), performed a series of "readings
and recitations" in Philadelphia. He had planned on Offer-
ing thirty of these, but the "success Of them was so en-
couraging, that I extended them to fifty—seven."18

Philosophies of management varied from the somewhat
tight-fisted approach of Hallam and Henry to the liberal
attitude of Wignell. Charles Durang, an admirer of Wig-
nell's treatment Of his players, had some thought regard-
ing this important problem.

TO permanently maintain a good theatrical establish-
ment, the salaries should not be too high or too
low, so that the management may sustain its in-
fluence, leaving to enterprise a bonus to meet
emergencies, or to produce novelty. The actor's
remuneration should be as liberal as possible, in
ratio to his abilities, that he may be enabled to
do justice to his duties by appropriate costume on
the stage, and to appear with gentlemanly neatness
in private; and, in the exercise of prudence, be
allowed the power of saving a modicum out Of his
earnings which would impart to him in after life
all the blessings of a theatrical fund.l9

Financial hardship was only one of the causes Of unrest.
As a neophyte, Wood found the theatre less romantic than he
had anticipated. After only a brief stint in the back stage
world, he recorded the following.

How different is a theatre from our preconceived

notions Of one! A few weeks have shown me the

violence of envy, jealousy, and the pangs Of dis-
appointed hope and ambition. Am I then doomed to

 

l8Fennell, Op. cit., p. 357.

19Durang, Op. cit., Chapter XIV.

 

235

pass my life, short as it promises to be, in this

strange mimic world? NO one do I see of either

sex, even moderately contented, much less happy.

The greater proportion, particularly the comic

department, are positively miserable. One or two

professional disputes have occurred Of so violent

a character, that nothing less than the firm

authority exercised by Mr. Wignell could have

checked or prevented their becoming a public talk.

I am sick at heart, but will still hope to find

some calmer sphere of action.20
Perhaps a like reaction accounted for the brief stand Of
Miss Broadhurst who remained with Wignell's first company
for only a season.

The antics of some performers were a source of
aggravation to the managers, as they were to fellow per-
formers. Cooper presented the managers with problems
from the beginning of their business relationship. At
his first benefit performance, despite a guaranteed income,
he privately engaged for an elephant to appear, intending
to assure himself of a full house.21 Even Cooper's apparent
intention to amend his style of life could not be counted
upon by Wignell. After the long legal exchange outlined
above, the young tragedian returned to the Philadelphia
company in 1801. His attitude seemed altered for he

agreed to open as Alexander in Alexander the Great, a part

 

he had formerly refused. In partial reparation for his

harm done the Philadelphia managers

 

2OWood, op. cit., p. 51.

21Ireland, op. cit., p. 15.

_ 1v 7.! up? .1
'1

 

236

. . . five hundred dollars of the first night were
paid to the Creditors Of Wignell and Reinagle-—as
a compromise suit gained against Cooper he on
respect agreed to act Alexander, a character
particularly stipulated against in his Engage-
ment.22

COOper's independent spirit was unchanged by this apparent
compromise. Only a few weeks later he was announced for a

performance but the house remained dark as he decided to

join a "sleighing party."23

The managers could make decisions intended to please
their public and see them backfire. One such example is
related here.

On the production Of the charming comedy of "The
Heir at Law," Mr. Wignell was unfortunate enough

to commit one Of those mistakes in cast, not un—
common, except among the best and most experienced
managers, and as this case showed, sometimes com-
mitted even by them. Desiring to retain the im-
portant aid of both these favorite actresses, he
allotted Cicely to Mrs. Merry; and Caroline, a very
insipid young lady, to Mrs. Marshall. This lady
properly considered such an allotment an affront

to her acknowledged talent, and stoutly refused to
accept it. She acted the part, however, for a few
nights in a very careless manner, determining to
secede from the company, with Mr. Marshall, at the
first Opportunity. On arriving at Philadelphia

this determination was carried out, and the Marshalls
privately took shipping for Charleston. On this fact
becoming known, Wignell Obtained a legal process,
with which an Officer was dispatched in search of
the fugitives, but failed to overtake them. The
loss Of Mrs. Marshall was deeply felt and regretted
by the public for many succeeding seasons. Wignell,
who seldom committed mistakes Of any sort, and
especially this, the worst error of management--
wasting, I mean, the best talent of his company on
insignificant parts, which no possible ability or
exertion could raise to notice--Often feelingly

22Warren, Op. cit., January 12, 1801.

23Ibid., February 14, 1801.

 

 

237

regretted the Circumstance of this false cast.

It is painful, indeed, to recollect the
great number Of actors driven in disgust from
their situations by thoughtless degradations
of this kind. . . .24

Wood, who in another part of his book described the
development of the star system, is here arguing a point

25

Of view that would encourage its growth. Of greater
importance to this study is Wood's value of Wignell and
the comment that the manager "was one of the best" who
rarely made mistakes in casting. Wignell may be lauded
for his intent to put one of his best talents in a minor
role. At the same time the loss of Mrs. Marshall,
temperamental or not, was not worth the determination

to have her play this insignificant character. The ad-
mission that he erred and the regret for having made such
an error are meaningful indicators of Wignell's person-
ality.

The manager's problems with performers extended to
the ranks of the employed singers. Wood's weak pun which
he emphasizes, introduces such a problem.

It is needless to say the discords among the singers

proved a great addition to the poor manager's cares.

As most Of the operas have been composed with a

view to the peculiar powers and voices of some ori—

ginal representative, it frequently happens that

these pieces were not suited to the ability of later
singers, and it became necessary to omit much of the

2”Wood, op. cit., pp. 60—61.

25Ibid., p. 58.

 

238

composer's music, substituting such pOpular and
approved airs as were most certain of obtaining
applause. As a natural consequence, each artist
insisted on a share Of this privilege until the
merciless introduction of songs, encored by the
admirers Of the several singers, protracted the
entertainment to so late an hour, as to leave the
contending songsters to a show Of empty benches,
and a handful of tired-out hearers; the audience
preferring to retire at a reasonable hour.26 ..

The vision one has is of an announced Opera punctuated by

pOpular and unrelated tunes. Managers were guilty of

 

introducing music at convenient, if not appropriate,
places in their productions. Adding popular ditties b
which were even farther removed from the story line must
have resulted in productions that were aesthetically dis-
turbing. Should the composers of the Operas have been
present, there might have been disturbances other than
aesthetic.
Some Of the quotes above point to the serious pro-
blem of retaining performers. A rating of Wignell's per—
formers that was published in 1796 provides graphic
evidence of this aspect of personnel management. The
evaluation was provided by PhilO—Theatricus, probably a
single reviewer, and personal prejudices undoubtedly
influenced his ratings. The designations "Performers

Absent" and "New Performers" indicate the turnover in

company personnel.

 

26Ibid., pp. 92-95.

239

Performers Absent New Performers
Mrs. Whitlock 13 Mrs. Merry 15
Shaw 10 Mechtler 4
Marshall 9 Miss L'Estrange 4
Cleveland 5 Mrs. L'Estrange 3
Green 4 Mr. Cooper 11
Rowson 3 Warren 9
Miss Broadhurst 10 Fox 6
Mr. Fennell l3 L'Estrange 4
Bates 12 5'6
Chalmers l2
Whitlock 11
Marshall 7
Cleveland 5
Green __5
119

A perfect score or one assigning true excellence to the
performers was 15. Mrs. Merry was the only performer to
be accorded that honor. Rated next highest with a 14 was
Mrs. Oldmixon whose name does not appear because the lists
include only new performers in 1796 and those who had left
the original group. She began with the company and con-
tinued with it through the time of the rating in 1796.

Of the established male contingent, Moreton received the
highest rating at 14. Fennell and Harwood with 13 each
and Bates and Chalmers with 12 each were rated above

Cooper.27

This is probably because Cooper had just begun
to play in Philadelphia and had not had enough time to
display his talent. Wignell was alloted 10 points on the
scale. From this list at least fourteen persons are

identified as having left the company less than three

years after its organization.

 

27The Gazette Of the United States, December 16,

 

1796.

 

240

PhilO—Theatricus was most impressed by the differ-
ences in total tabulation. The 1796 performers whose
rating tallied fifty—six points was not half of the point
accumulation of the company Of 1794. The intent of this
criticism would appear to be aimed at reminding the man-
agers of the audience's awareness if a first rate company
was not in residence.

Occasionally a manager would bring together the
very best available talent and the audiences were treated
to superior performances. Wignell's engagement of Fennell
and Hodgkinson in 1803 was such an occasion. Wood be-
moaned the necessity to depend on sometime leading men.
But, their absence must have been worse than not having
them available.

In their absence some drOll performances took place.
The play—bills record . . . examples of poor sub—
stitutions, singers playing tragic heroes, Old men
playing juveniles and vice-versa. . . . These odd
casts were the consequence Of difficulties in Ob-
taining actors, not from ignorance or inattention
of the managers.2

The uncertainty Of the availability of some performers
concerned Wignell. This has already been demonstrated in
the case of Fennell. In the 1790's companies vied for
talent and the practice of piracy developed. During the
1799—1800 season, Wignell's whole choice of Offerings

was influenced by the absence of a strong tragedian.

 

28W00d, Op. cit., p. 96.

 

241

Fennell was Off somewhere and Cooper was playing in New
York. Left with only a youth who was confined to the
younger tragic figures, Wignell structured the repertoire
to concentrate heavily on comedies and other "novelties."29
Because it was impossible to avoid the serious drama alto—
gether, Bernard was called upon to play Shylock, Hotspur
and others, though his forte was comedy. In March, Cooper
returned from New York and the repertoire was broadened
immediately. "Cooper's return enabled the manager to re-
vive many of the plays in which Mrs. Merry excelled, and
long unrepresented from want Of anything like a suitable

male tragedian."3O

As time passed, the Chesnut Street
Theatre was referred to in a complimentary way as "Old
Drury" but, in spite of this reputation, "inferior parts
in tragedies were almost uniformly butchered."31 This
quote is from a twentieth century author and is not a
contemporary criticism. However, it is probably true.
In the development of a company like the Chesnut
Street, there came times when the Older players had to
give way in certain parts to the junior members. Unlike

his former employers Hallam and Henry, Wignell seems to

have stepped aside gracefully in roles which no longer

 

29Ibid., p. 66.

30Ibid., p. 70.

31Coad and Mims, Op. cit., p. 60.

242

suited his age. An instance of this came about when Wig—
nell and Bernard, both born in the 1750's, agreed that

their days Of playing the Surface brothers in The School

 

for Scandal were past. In 1796, they were the established

 

interpreters of these roles in the company. Wignell had
played Charles Surface to Philadelphia audiences for over
a decade. Wood wrote that he and Cooper, the chosen suc-
cessors, felt like "men going to execution," so clearly
were the former players identified with the parts. The
younger men concentrated on a "careful study of the
characters" to make as good a first impression as was
possible. Curiosity about their interpretations made for
good audiences. Wood was coldly Objective about the per-
formances in assessing them to have been "far from satis-
factory." Nonetheless, they were encouraged by a public
who received them graciously. The day after they played
the parts for the first time, they were lunching in a
restaurant and overheard, from an adjoining table, a con-
versation in which there was a dissenting Opinion. Of
Cooper, the critic said, "He sometimes seemed ashamed of
the imposition he was practising. The excellence Of his
Richard on the previous night saved him from the severity
of his auditors." Wood received his share of comment by
comparison. It seems Cooper's performance

. . . was a melancholy failure, but saved from

general execration by the superior badness of

the wretched young person, whom the manager
thought proper to substitute in his most perfect

r v. ‘l

Turf!“ v IA

243

character; that if he designed the professional
ruin of the actor . . . he could not have hit on
a surer course.

Cooper, the eogist he is pictured to have been, advised
Wood not to be downcast and thereby determined they would
succeed. The two men relayed their experience to Wignell
who was greatly amused by what must have been a fairly
devastating experience to Wood, at least. A fine example
Of the manager's temperament and manner of dealing with
his company is related by Wood.

[Wignell] kindly assured us that he was in possession
of certain Opinions, which, if not flattering, were at
least of sufficient value to convince us that the
public were not so hard to please as our late critics.
He maintained that the whole play had been so favor-
ably received as tO warrant an immediate repetition.
He argued with great force against the folly Of
actors suffering themselves to be over-influenced

by individual judgments, however well meant. He
instanced Garrick's theory, that every sensible

actor should receive with deference the suggestions
Offered by friends and foes, but avoid the error Of
the Old Man, Boy, and Ass. You cannot please every
one, he said: the public, and the public alone is
your master. By their verdict you must stand or
fall. Above all, consider individual strictures or
praises as only expressive of one Opinion. He
ridiculed the folly Of some thin-skinned actors,

who wasted the precious time due to their studies

in idle search of criticisms and eulogy, Often
written with no other reason than to flatter some
weak-minded person, or perhaps still more frequently
Of strictures to gratify a personal dislike. He
advised young actors to maintain an obstinate ignor-
ance of anonymous notices, whether friendly or other-
wise.

One gets the impression that Wignell took advantage
of this exchange to play the mentor and indulge in some
unsolicited instruction. His judgment in continuing to

have Wood and COOper play was supported as "time gradually

r. I" “1

 

244

wore away earlier impressions, and rendered their efforts

satisfactory to the public."32
The interaction Of a manager and his players is

personal and sometimes related in diaries and biographies.

From such accounts, it has been shown how Wignell was

 

understanding, encouraging, firm and patient. The relation- F‘
ship of a manager with audiences in his theatre is very
different. It is impersonal and his role as servant to
the public causes him to show it a dispassionate and confi— '

dent exterior. He must be sensitive to the wishes Of the
audience and give an ear to its complaints. But, seldom

does he confide in his patrons or express his personal
opinions before them. Consequently, managing directors

are often unknown to their clientele and it is rare to find
directors mentioned in either correspondence or biographies
Of their audiences. Such is the case with Wignell. Little
is known Of his confrontations with patrons and his reactions
to those confrontations.

Certainly, he was a favorite as a performer. Some
audience reaction to his acting has been described in
earlier chapters. It appears to have been complimentary
in almost every instance with some superlatives accorded
his playing of certain roles.

All indications point to the conclusion that, as a

manager, he strove constantly to please audiences whenever

 

32W00d, Op. cit., pp. 72-75.

245

that was possible. He produced all popular forms of dramas
for them, providing the newest London hits and the Shakes-
pearean favorites. His dramatic fare included more comedy
than tragedy and comic afterpieces followed the performances
of both. Demands for new faces on the stage were met by
recruiting in England and inducements for the best players F‘
in America to perform in Philadelphia in guest appearances

or as members of the Chesnut Street Theatre company.

 

The theatre was arranged in the most modern fashion [
known. The comforts of the audiences were considered with
care and their pleasure catered to. Refreshments and
tobacco were available in the lobby before, after and during
performances. For the comfort of those in the pit, "wine
and porter" were sold there "between the acts, precisely as
if they were in a tavern."33

There is one clear and important exception to Wignell's
willingness to provide patrons with comfort and privilege.
This exception had to do with Mrs. William Bingham, the
former Anne Willing, and the leading lady of fashion in the
early 1790's. Mrs. Bingham's husband was a large land owner
and had been elected to several positions of prominence.

They spent five years in France from 1784 tO 1789 where he
held an ambassadorial post. When they returned they became

enthusiastic patrons of the New Theatre. Mrs. Bingham led

the fashionable people to the theatre and was anxious to

 

33Weld, Op. cit., p. 24.

246

exhibit her place of prominence by the purchase of a box
for her personal use. She was willing to pay any price
"fixed by the manager." Such an Offer would have been

most tempting for the money it might bring but more for
the insurance it could buy for the continued support of
the Binghams and their friends. Mrs. Bingham proposed r-
that, as part Of the agreement, she be permitted to furnish

the box according to her taste and hold the key to that
34

 

box. Wignell, however, declined the Offer and refused '
to allow the purchase of the box. One author has explained
this refusal in the following way: ". . . he was an American
manager, and that within the walls of his playhouse all men
-—and women-~must be free and equal."35 Considerations
other than equality and democracy were at work. Very
probably, the income from a box sold to a single member
of the community, even with the cost of unkeep included,
would be less than income eXpected from constant sale Of
seats in that box.

Mrs. Bingham, who probably had announced to friends
her plans for the box and was embarrassed by the rebuff,

proceeded to blackball the theatre, placing it "under a

social ban."36

 

3”Scharf and Westcott, Op. cit., II, p. 1695.

35Coad and Mims, Op. cit., p. 30.

36Scharf and Westcott, Op. Cit.

247

Wignell's decision was not an easy one to make.
Mrs. Bingham's reputation in the society of the day would
have insured requests by others for the same privilege.
The initial Offer Of a "price to be fixed by the manager"
was a generous opening. Perhaps Wignell did not want to
permanently tie up thirty-five seats in a large box. It
is reasonable to assume that a precedent such as the pur-
chase Of a box could lead to difficulties with others
desiring the same Opportunity. Those difficulties could
have been compounded if, of an evening, Wignell had a
large enough audience to fill the theatre and he could
not sell vacant seats because they "belonged" to wealthy
patrons who could not be present. There was also the
possibility Of a box owner giving friends or acquaintances
use of his box free, thereby depriving the managers Of
paid admissions.

The Binghams and their acquaintances were in the
minority at the theatre. The social background of the
larger audience was different than the Willings, Binghams,
etc. "In a puritanical, as well as boisterous, new
society, the theatre drew a barroom patronage and neither
skilled playwright nor actor found a congenial atmosphere

at first."37 Men were predominant in the audiences. Women

 

37Frank Klingsberg, "Ideas That Did Not Migrate
From England," The Pennsylvania Magazine Of History and
Biography, LXIII, NO. 5 (October, 1939), 381-382.

 

 

 

248

could, of course, appear in box seats and in the pit, "but
these are not women Of any social standing. The upper

gallery admits women and colored people who can't sit any-

"38

where else.

The behavior of the audience varied in its manner
and intensity. St. Mery found performances "boisterous"
and "the interludes . . . even indecent."

It is not unusual to hear such words as Goddam,
Bastard, Rascal, Son Of a Bitch. Women turn their .
backs to the performance during the interludes . . . -
the style Of the plays, which are English and in the '
English taste, is extremely coarse and full of

pleasantries highly repugnant to the French taste.39

 

Wansey's impression was that the conditions of performance

were such that he could have easily imagined himself back

in England. This likeness extended tO the clothing styles.“0
The presence Of eminent personages was no guarantee of

good behavior in the house. Indeed, that presence might

have acted as a spur to some of the perverse and proud young

democrats. For, despite Washington's presence one evening,

. . . the house could not be kept in order. As soon
as the curtain was down, they would throw apples,
nuts, sometimes bottles, on the stage and in the
orchestra . . . and call out for "Carlisle March,"
"Cherry Charlot's Jigg," "Mother Brown's Retreat,"
and the names of many noted characters.41

 

38St. Mery, Op. cit., p. 347.
39Ibid.
40

Wansey, Op. cit.

“lburang, op. cit., Chapter XIII.

249

One habit seems to have been a source of unpleasant—
ness to more than one Observer. "A shocking custom Ob-
tain's here Of smoking tobacco in the house, which at
times is carried to such excess, that those to whom it is
disagreeable are under the necessity of going away."42
In the record Of his voyage to America, Messieur Du Lac
found the same condition.

I1 ne regne dans l'intérieur de la salle ni ordre ne

décense. Le bruit des allans et venans trouble

continuellement l'attention du spectateur qui,

malgré les defenses portés sur les affiches, a

souvent encore beaucoup a souffrir de la mauvaise

Odeur des cigarres qui l'on y fume continuellement.

Les hommes gardent le chapeau sur la téte et restent

aussi placés devant les dames; il s'en trouve

rarement d'assez galans pour leur Offrir leur place.

Tout y prouve que la politesse et la liberté marchent

difficulement de compagnie. . . . 3

Unpleasant behavior during performances varied from
simple rudeness and inattentiveness to deliberate and
Vicious attack. Mrs. Merry, a great favorite, was the
recipient of the first of these two styles of behavior
one evening. Before describing this incident in which Mrs.

Merry was treated in a rude fashion, a look at Royall

Tyler's second act of The Contrast may be instructive. This

 

satire would seem to have come very close to recounting com—
portment not at all rare in the actual theatres of the day.

Tyler's play was written in 1787.

 

u2Weld, Op. cit.

uBFrancios M. P. DuLac, Voyage dans les deux
Louisianes etc. (Lyon, France: Bruyset, 1805), p. 367.

 

250

. . . Oh! That you could be with us at a little

snug party . . . with some other ladies, in a side—
box at the play. Every thing is conducted with such
decorum. First we bow round to the company in
general, then to each one in particular, then we

have so many inquiries after each other, and it is

so many ages since we last had that pleasure, and

if a married lady is in company, we have such a

sweet dissertation upon her son Bobby's chincough;
then the curtain rises, then our sensibility is all
awake, and then, by the mere force Of apprehension,
we torture some harmless expression into a double
meaning, which the poor author never dreamt Of, and
then we have recourse to our fans, and then we blush, .
and then the gentlemen jog one another, peep under 5
the fan, and make the prettiest remarks; and then :
we giggle and they simper, and they giggle and we

simper, and then the curtain drops, and then for

nuts and oranges, and then we bow, and it's pray

Ma'am, take it, and pray, Sir, keep it, and oh!

not for the world, Sir; and then the curtain rises

again, and then we blush and giggle and simper and

bow all over again. Oh! the sentimental charms of

a side—box conversation!

 

Approximately a dozen years after this scene was
written, the highly rated Mrs. Merry was faced with just
such a collection Of ladies who had taken a box very near
the stage. The ladies became so engrossed in their own
conversation that they were extremely rude to the players.
This rudeness was the more disconcerting for its source
was a group who were regular patrons and well thought of
by the manager and the performers. In situations Of this
sort it fell to the players to draw the Offenders to the
performance. On this occasion Mrs. Merry was exposed to
abuse for some time before she paused to glare at the
Offenders. The remainder of the audience responded with
a round Of applause for Mrs. Merry's handling of the situ—

ation. The pleasant result was that the ladies responded

251

by giving over their attention and the incident did not
give Offense as their friendship to the theatre and its
performers continued.ml

The seasoned performers knew what to expect from

audiences and, undoubtedly, developed personal ways Of

 

responding to manners that were disturbing. Why is there P
no mention Of Wignell's stepping forward to intercede in

behalf Of the players? Perhaps, on rare occasions, he 1
did this. However, such a ploy would have to be reserved 3

for special or severe cases. Periodic and indiscriminate
appearances would make a manager the butt Of audience
ridicule. In an atmosphere like that which Weld, St. Mery
and others describe, a manager would be wise to avoid
speeches or exhortations to patrons of a state that was
newly free and very aware of its independence.

There was a device that might more readily have found
acceptance and that was the use Of the prologue. Wignell
could have called on one of the performers who was also a
writer and asked him to compose a prologue to beg the in-
dulgence of the audience.

While a stern look from Mrs. Merry was capable of
quieting a bevy of local belles, other performers could not
eXpect the same kind of response. Popularity in the theatre

is a most tenuous thing and very easily won and lost through

‘

uuWOOd, Op. cit., p. 80.

252

the fickleness and caprice Of both performers and patrons.
Wignell engaged a family of dancers whose name was Byrne.
This hiring around the year 1800 was at the behest Of "con—
stant supporters" Close to the theatre. Unfortunately,
from their first appearance, both Mr. and Mrs. Byrne were
not to be allowed to perform without molestation from the r“
audiences. As time passed, Mr. Byrne was abided but his

wife was subjected to cruel insults. Their stay with the

 

company was brief. f
Exaggerated and increased insults could become part

Of a plan of harassment. Such an effort was aimed at

Fullerton, a member Of the Chesnut Street Company in the

1801-02 season. Fullerton was an import from Liverpool

whose assignment was to replace COOper during one of his

absences from Philadelphia. During the summer of 1801,

this newcomer was greeted with politeness, if not vigorous

enthusiasm. However, from the Opening Of the winter season

in mid-October, he underwent censure from audiences in the

theatre and critics in the newspapers. At first, some

singular outbursts aimed at him were put down by other

audience members. When these taunts mounted in number

and were organized into deliberate efforts to distract

those playing with Fullerton, the more timid were ruled

by the bullies. Wignell may be assumed to have been central

in what Wood describes as the use Of "every possible effort

. . . to ascertain the cause Of this continued persecution."

253

The cause was diligently sought in the hope of applying
a remedy. The available remedy, of course, was to re—
place Fullerton. However, Wignell could not so easily
resort to a measure of that sort. He had not recruited
Fullerton by having seen him perform but hired him on
the recommendations of others. Fullerton was hired as a
leading man and could only be let go at a considerable

loss to the manager. The player had a comfortable con-

 

tract in hand and the assurance of its articles. In '
addition to this, there was not a supply Of leading men

from which to pick a replacement. We may suppose Wignell

was Optimistic about the passage of this period of dis-

approval.

NO one seems to have calculated the sensitivity Of
Fullerton. He was an extremely nervous man at all times
and this was undoubtedly detected by his detractors who
enjoyed his discomforts. He became almost incapable Of
playing. "His terror and agony on entering the stage was
truly pitiable."u5 Giving signs of being seriously dis-
turbed, the distracted actor threatened and attempted sui-
cide. There is no way of knowing Wignell's thoughts re—
garding this behavior or his efforts to assuage the hurt
mind of this sensitive soul. On the evening of January
twenty-ninth, 1801, Fullerton played "with less than

usual exhibition Of outrage from his persecutors," and

 

uSWood, Op. cit., p. 85.

254

left the theatre in apparent good spirits. He did not
arrive home and a search provided no clues to his
whereabouts. The following morning his body was found
floating in the Delaware River, seemingly a victim of
suicide brought on by the treatment he had received in

the theatre.“6 I

IL I. J}-

How Wignell responded to Fullerton's difficulty is

not known. The attempt to discover the cause of the

 

actor's persecution was doubtlessly intended to aid in '
bringing an end to that persecution. There is evidence

that Wignell was unwilling to expose his players to harm.

During the season previous to the untimely demise of

Fullerton, Wignell had kept the theatre dark on March

fourth as this was the day of Jefferson's inauguration.

Though the inauguration was conducted without ostentation

and in a spirit of conciliation, great fear and discord

ran through the country. A regularly scheduled night for

playing was passed up by Wignell as there was fear the

advocates of Jeffersonian democracy and their adversaries

would use the theatre to champion their Opinions and ideas.

Warren reported, "By the advice of his friends and the

Consent Of the Company--he does not perform this night."77

Audiences proved generous at times. In periods of

emergency they would enthusiastically support benefits for

 

u6Ibid.

u7Warren, Op. cit., March 4, 1801.

255

charitable causes. The managers were gratified on these
occasions to witness the sustenance Of the sick or be-
leaguered. Such a performance might be for the relief
Of another city suffering from plague, or to ransom cap-
tured American seamen.

The citizens Of Philadelphia came to a determination

a few evenings ago to purchase the freedom Of such
S[eamen] belonging to this port as are now in cap-
tivity at Algiers, and a large Committee was appointed
to solicit subscriptions for that purpose——During the
time Of the appointment of this Committee, a letter
addressed to the Citizens present, was received from .
Messrs. Wign[el]l & Reinagle declaring their Obli- A
gations to the Citizens of Phil an[d as] a proof Of

their gratitude prOp[Osed an evenin]gs-—entertainment

at the New Theatre as a benefit for those unfor[tunate]

persons in slavery in Algiers. This was received with

the loudest shout Of applause and last evening the

Comedians fulfilled their promise. It is supposed

they got at least two thousand dollars--Preceding

the Play Mr. Wignell delivered an animated and well

written address suited to the occasion.

-mu.q’

 

 

Performances of this sort added good will to the sympathies
many citizens already felt towards the theatre and may have
gained new friends.

St. Mery commented that other attempts to collect
money for the prisoners at Algiers had resulted in approxi-
mately one—fifth of the amount raised by the theatre and
added, "thus it was chiefly actors, needy themselves . . .,
who showed the greatest sympathies for unfortunates, who,
in going afar to serve the welfare of their country, have

left their women and children in misery."}49

 

”8Forman, Op. cit., p. 187.

149St. Mery, op. cit., p. 272.

256

An example of audience generosity was rendered to
an individual performer. Miss Westray, definitely in the
second rank Of actresses in the company, was disappointed
when her benefit, after a strong advance sale at the box
Office, took place the evening of a day on which a violent
snow storm occurred. The theatre's expenses were four
hundred dollars a night and Miss Westray's loyal and very
sturdy friends came to the performance but only in numbers
that brought slightly over three hundred dollars into the
till. The poor actress had sustained a loss Of approxi-
mately ninety dollars. A day or so later she received an
anonymous note "regretting the circumstances which had
blighted her prospects, civilly noticing her talent and
worth, and enclosing the sum Of one hundred dollars from

'"50 Other performers experienced

51

'a few unknown friends.

the allegiance of the company's supporters.
Wignell was received with warmth and enthusiasm on

the Opening night of the Chesnut Street Theatre. The first

audience to view a performance there was appreciative of

the efforts Of the men who had labored to provide Phila-

delphia with a well equipped theatre and a respectable

professional performing company. NO man in the professional

theatre can expect to consistently sustain the approval of

his audiences. Wignell knew this and worked to maintain,

 

SOWood, Op. cit., p. 72.

51Dunlap, op. cit., p. 135.

 

257

for his audiences, the quality of performance that would
provide them with pleasure and a sense of satisfaction
with attendance at the Chesnut Street Theatre. There
appears to be no record Wignell ever experienced public
attack on his methods or his personal manner and conduct.
He was described as "a most amiable, well mannered man'.‘52
who had failings but whose failings "leaned on Virtue's
side." Fennell found Wignell capable of over reacting at
times, but, "affable and conciliatory in his manners, he
obtained the affection of all his associates."53

These observations coupled with the advice he gave
to COOper and Wood when they were the objects of criticism,
suggest Wignell expected that he and his company would re-
ceive unfavorable commentary and reaction at times, that
it was to be met with understanding and not with overt
or physical defense, but that time was better spent in
study to remedy the ills than responding to criticism or

worrying about it.

 

52Wood, op. cit., p. 92.

53Fennell, op. cit., pp. 366-367.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study has emphasized the position of Thomas
Wignell in the management of the Chesnut Street Theatre.
Another study of this theatre might emphasize the posi-
tion of Alexander Reinagle and would be useful in the
develOping library of works on the American Theatre.
There was no intention in this work to diminish the
contributions of Reinagle. Rather, the concentration
was a result of focus and delimitation.

Each manager had numerous responsibilities at the
Chesnut Street Theatre. Reinagle, as musical director,
supervised the production of seventy-five operas in the
first six seasons, in addition to the development of:

. . . an extraordinary facility in adapting the

current English ballad operas to the American

stage, often rewriting the accompaniments, com-

posing new overtures, or contriving incidental
music.1

 

lErnst C. Krohn, Alexander Reinagle, Vol. XV of

Dictionary of American Biography, ed. by Allen Johnson
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 196“), p. 489.

 

258

259

It is little wonder musical historians find his most
artful compositions among those he wrote previous to
his years of active participation in the theatre.
Evidence of his experience with the City Concerts and
at the theatre during Wignell's two trips to England
convince us he was a capable administrator. '

Wignell was the theatre's recruiter and more
intimately associated with the actors in the company
and the problems of production. He never gave up act-
ing entirely but, as the personnel improved and adminis-
trative tasks became more demanding, he gave up some of
his roles and concentrated on the management of the
theatre. In the late years, he was able to trust numerous
responsibilities to Warren and Wood, the young men he had
groomed as assistant manager and treasurer, respectively.
Despite Reinagle's continuous tenure with the Chesnut
Street Theatre, Wignell was referred to by many of his
contemporaries in newsprint and personal accounts as "the"
manager of the New Theatre and it is safe to place most
of the accolades or criticisms on him.

Before attempting to assess Wignell's abilities it
is worthwhile to summarize the areas of responsibility in
which he was most influential.

At the Chesnut Street Theatre, the every day ad-
ministrative tasks of payrolls and receipts, ordering

supplies and arranging schedules, rehearsals and

260

performances, were only part of labors of larger signifi-
cance. For example, it was essential that Wignell be
cognizant at all times of the need to build an ever in—
creasing audience. The accomplishment of this task
depended on the establishment of a performance level

that would insure the return of patrons who were regu-
lar in attendance and who might be depended upon for
word-of—mouth advertising.

Recruiting, like audience building, was an active
and continuous process in the seventeen-nineties. In fact,
recruiting was intimately connected with the growth of
audiences. Audiences in the seventeen-nineties clamored
for new performers from England. Recruiting was only one
of the employee relations that demanded Wignell's perpetual
attention. Continuous employment was the surest way to
hold almost all but the really featured players. The
necessity to attempt to provide continuous salaries was a
constant pressure the managers experienced. It has been
demonstrated in Chapter V that, despite steady efforts put
forth by the managers, salaries could not be paid con-
sistently in 1797, 1798, and 1799.

The good will and confidence of the company was no
less important than the support of the subscribers.
Possibilities of running afoul of investors or the prOperty
owner were myriad. Having established vested interests in

the playhouse and its offerings, the investors were apt

261

to be supportive when the quality of performance was good
or when their dividends were paid. Should both of these,
and particularly the latter falter, the managers could
eapect trouble in the form of criticism or law suits.

The managers had to be on cordial terms with the
press. The newspapers could provide influential en-
couragement or condemnation. Despite strong feeling
against the theatre on the part of many Philadelphians,
the newspapers were capable of objectivity and they
proved this over some years. As representative voices
of the community, the members of the press could have
mounted opposition to playing that would have aroused
the citizens in protest. The hope of managers must have
been that while the Quakers and other oppenents could not
be won over completely they might be pacified or wooed
into private criticism by an absence of vitriolic news—
paper commentary.

These tasks of management were complicated by events
that could, in some cases, be controlled and, in other
cases, were outside a manager's sphere of influence. The
uncontrollable events included bouts with nature, e.g.,
plague, illness and flood.

Thomas Wignell, as measured against the tasks he
faced and the conditions that made these tasks difficult
must be adjudged an effective manager. The continuous

and orderly growth of audiences at the New Theatre from

 

262

the time of its opening is significant in measuring his
strength as a manager. After 1799 he could devote his
full energies to directing the affairs of the theatre.
He had assembled a company that no longer depended on
him to perform. He had trained Warren and Wood to help
him. He could depend on Warren to supervise the company
when it toured for seasons outside Philadelphia. He was
not beleagured by the yellow fever that had made the
earlier years of his management so frustrating. He had
less and less contact with Reinagle as the conductor
spent most of his life in Baltimore after the turn of
the nineteenth century. In effect, he was free to con-
centrate on problems such as audience building.

It might be expected that the exodus of the federal
and state governmental officials in 1799 and 1800 would
have reduced the size of audiences in Philadelphia. The
fact is that the New Theatre enjoyed increasing numbers
of patrons and an accompanying steady rise in revenues.

Wignell did not, in his late years, have the
responsibility of ownership and its accompanying hard-
ships. His successful efforts were undoubtedly related
to his freedom from these hardships.

Wignell's philOSOphy for performers included the
maxim, "the audience is your master." His attempts to
please that master are exemplified in his continual

search for new talent. Only two years after the theatre

 

263

opened in 1794, he sailed again to England to engage per-
formers. His leading performers were the darlings of the
public and attest to his judgment of talent. The erratic
behavior of a Fennell may have been a source of anguish
to Wignell but it must be remembered that Fennell per-
formed fairly often and almost always for the Phila-
delphia company. It is doubtful any manager of the day
could have contained this restless man.

The major difference Wignell had with Cooper was
sparked by the hiring of Fennell for a brief engagement.
When the young man requested permission to perform in
New York, the denial of that permission was a miscalcu-
lation of Cooper by Wignell. Wignell may have seen this
as a dangerous precedent and avoided it for that reason.
It is not be be expected that a manager would allow favors
to a young man like Cooper which he would deny to others
in the company. Managers almost always have problems of
greater moment than do performers. The financial extremi-
ties of the company while it played in New York and Phila-
delphia in 1797 demanded that Wignell make every effort
to fill the theatre and Fennell's presence in cast lists
was a sure way to do that. Cooper's jealousy had to be
a secondary concern. One suspects Wignell might have
been wiser to have permitted the young performer to play
in New York while Fennell was performing in Philadelphia.

However, this observation is made with the advantage of

 

264

viewing the situation after the fact and not with the
intelligence on which Wignell had to act in January,
1798.

In the case of Mrs. Marshall leaving the company,
Wignell was justified in casting her in a second lead.
One of the strongest criticisms of the Hallam and Henry
company had been that its female performers did not
appear often enough or in a variety of roles. Wignell
was presenting the best cast he had. It is not known
if there were other considerations that influenced Mrs.
Marshall's decision to leave the company. She went
directly to Charlestown to work for Solee which allows
for the possibility that he had been in communication with
her about a position with his company and, in that communi-
cation, made her an attractive offer.

Wood was the writer who disapproved of the casting
of Mrs. Marshall and who thought Wignell's judgment faulty
in that matter. However, it is also Wood who described
Wignell's ability to mediate differences between performers,
to be sensitive to actors who had been roundly criticized,
and to realistically inform young performers about the life
of the actor. It was Wignell who agreed to train Wood
first as a performer and then in the practices of manage-
ment. Against the names of persons who might have had
quarrel with Wignell can be placed those of Mr. and Mrs.
Morris, Mrs. Merry, Warren and others who were with Wignell

for a number of years through good times and bad.

265

Newspaper criticism like Hallam and Henry had known
from I789 into 1792 never accrued to Wignell. Throughout
his career he received the kindest treatment from the
press. This is doubly interesting as critics became
more numerous during his tenure in the theatre and more
demanding. He had the temerity to attack the press dur-
ing the time just previous to his bankruptcy in 1799. He
became so incensed that he was intent on a stage attack
through a piece entitled Retaliation, or A Peg at the

Printers. Rather than allowing him to proceed and then

 

attacking him afterwards, the writer for the Philadelphia
Gazette published the following.

Good Tommy Wignell, don't attack the printers!

As well might drunkards be revil'd by Vintners!

Believe me, friend, in spite of all your witticisms,
They'll bear too hard upon you by their criticisms.
'Tis they can raise a player and a poet-- 2
You're wrong, believe me, and they'll let you know it!

One suspects that Hallam, Henry, or Hodgkinson might not have
been treated so kindly. Wignell followed the advice of the
critic and avoided an embroilment with him.

A major concern of Wignell's was his demand for a
high standard of production and performance.

The main distinction between the colonial theatre

and that of the years after the Revolution lies in

the quality of the acting. During that later

period, thanks especially to the Philadelphia

directors, a procession of gifted British players

moved to these shores, many of them to remain here
permanently. Most of these newcomers had had sound

 

2February 23, 1799.

266

training in the provincial theatre of England or
even in the leading London houses, and had some-
times played with the great actors of the time
. a substantial number had risen to eminence

before leaving for the New World. In consequence
the tone of American acting was raised to such a
level that it deserved serious consideration even
when compared with the London stage.3

"In talent and organization," Durang valued the Chesnut

A The attention Wig—

Street "equal to its English Model."
nell gave to supplying talent for his company and the very
wise decision to withdraw the great tragedies when he did
not have the finest performers show his concern for a
superior quality of playing. In Chapter IV it has been
pointed out that some performances were wretchedly done
but we have also the impression that they were not re-
peated if their qulaity could not be improved. The per-
formers he was able to recruit, e.g., COOper, Mrs. Merry,
Mrs. Oldmixon, Fennell, and Mrs. Whitlock provided many
very fine performances for American audiences.

Wignell and Reinagle are lauded for their contri-
bution to the artistic development of opera in America,

and improvement in various forms of musical presentation

in Philadelphia.

 

3Coad and Mims, op. cit.

“Durang, 0p. cit., p. XIV.

267

. . . the whole project was based on the idea of
giving quality to the dramatic and the operatic
departments. Much has been made of this by the
historians of this departure, so fruitful for
the dgvelopment of high—class Opera in English.

Others are of the opinion that

. . . the opening of the New Theatre marked a new
epoch in the city's musical life. For one thing,
it immensely broadened the opportunities of ade-
quate presentation. Although many concerts con-
tinued to take place elsewhere, there was no longer
the enforced dependence on taverns and hotels as
the only convenient premises in a central position
that afforded sufficient facilities for concert-
giving. Then, too, the regular maintenance of a
theatre orchestra assured enlarged opportunity of
steady employment to an increasing number of trained
musicians; at the same time, the public could more
frequently hear orchestra music rendered in a
favourable environment, with its consequent in-
spiration to a rapidly growing clientele of music-
conscious patrons. Likewise, the ballad operas

. . . with the rich heritage they embodied, could
be heard oftener, and in a place more accessible
and far better equipped than the old Southwark
Theatre. In short, the New Theatre supplied a
potent educational stimulus that made itself felt
throughout the community and substantially contri-
buted to Philadelphia's prestige as a musical
center. gig

In summary, Thomas Wignell was a credit to his pro—
fession and an effective manager. His decisions were
often guided by adverse conditions he could not control
or vary. In the face of continued obstacles he was a
pillar of "perseverence" enduring "vexation, disappoint—

ment, treachery, and adversity."7 While some said he

 

5Sonneck, op. cit., p. 124.

6Eberlein and Hubbard, op. cit.

7Fennell, op. cit.

 

268

was "an excellent fellow, whose abundance of heart was
unluckily accompanied by a deficiency of head, that
kept him always in difficulties,"8 another could say
that his

. . . enterprise was carried out with a style

of success at that early day that should garner

the name of Wignell as an heirloom to the

theatrical household, to be forever reverenced

by the profession as a memory of one of the

first founders, on a durable basis, of the

American stage.9

Wignell might have been financially successful in
the years from 1794 to 1799 had he turned away from the
production of opera when he realized its enormous drain
on the company's resources. Another man, a Hodgkinson
for instance, might have driven Reinagle and his small
band of musicians out, thereby keeping the credit columns
of his books in constant use. Why Wignell did not do this
is not known. He seems to have been inextricably bound
to Reinagle through allegiance and friendship as well as
partnership. He declared that had he "devoted all his
care to the drama, instead of music, he might have been
rich instead of bankrupt."10 Though he understood this,
he never made move to abandon the original agreement

about the importance of opera in the dramatic fare to be

presented on Chesnut Street.

 

8Bernard, op. cit., p. 258.

9Durang, op. cit., Chapter XII.

lODunlap, op. cit., p. 116.

269

At the end of his life, Wignell was successful as
a manager, director and performer. He had provided the
drive and expertise that made Philadelphia the theatrical

center of the country and the home of the best performing

company in America.

 

‘rm

 

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

PROPOSALS BY MESSIEURS WIGNELL AND REINAGLE FOR

ERECTING A NEW THEATRE IN PHILADELPHIA

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

PROPOSALS BY MESSIEURS WIGNELL AND REINAGLE FOR

ERECTING A NEW THEATRE IN PHILADELPHIA

The new system of government of the United States,
having already had the most visible effects, in promoting
the general happiness, and in extending and improving the
Agriculture, Commerce and Manufactures of the country—-it
is natural, that the encreasing Wealth and importance of
this great City, deduced from these principles and the
present residence of the Government should require for
its Citizens, and others resident therein that its public
places of Amusement should be put on a larger and more
suitable scale, than they yet have ever attained to; more
especially as the present liberal Spirit of the Legislature
appears to be favorable to the advancement of the fine arts,
and the promotion of a pure and correct taste therein,
Considerations of this kind, together with a sincere wish
to elevate the elegant pleasure of the Drama into the high-
est possible degree of Reputation have induced Messieurs
Wignell and Reinagle, to unite in an undertaking for erect-
ing a new Theatre in some Central part of the City, to
which they now respectfully solicit that share of the Public
Patronage they may be thought to merit—-assuring the Friends
of the Drama, that their joint efforts and application
shall never be wanting to render their plan deserving of
Public favor.

In order that the Musical part of the Entertainment
may be conducted on the best principles Mr. Reinagle will
take care to obtain from Europe the best assistance in
that line, over which he will have Superintendance. While
Mr. Wignell proposes to embark for EurOpe, in October
next to obtain also such assistance from thence of per-
formers, of scenery, of dresses as may be suited to the
extensive nature of his present undertaking; for these
objects and all that concerns the international arrange-
ments of the Theatre, Messieurs Wignell and Reinagle will
supply the necessary funds——they ask for aid, only in
purchasing the ground and in erecting the necessary

272

273

building on it, for their present purpose, which they
wish in all respects adapted to the conditions of the
City and the number likely to partake of this Elegant
and Rational Amusement, they propose therefore in order
to carry into execution this part of their views, to
create a Stock of Sixty shares, supposed enough for the
purpose at three hundred dollars each share---Each Sub-
scriber at the periods limited in the subscription to
meet and elect Managers, to see the Building conducted
on the most suitable plan that can be obtained, and to
elect a Treasurer for the Fund to whom each subscriber
shall pay and give his Notes payable to the Treasurer
on order as follows One hundred Dollars at the time of
Subscribing One hundred Dollars on the first day of
March and One hundred Dollars on the first day of Septem-
ber 1792. making in all the full Subscription of three
hundred dollars and in consideration of the damage and
danger that may be sustained by the parties complying
from the . . . should there be any the payments made to
be forfeited to the joint stock unless the whole be com-
pleted in due time. In this stock of three hundred
dollars it is proposed to allow Interest of Six Per
Centum Per annum from the time of payment and further by
way of douceur, one ticket of admission for each share
subscribed, not transferable from the person obtaining
the share but for one whole and entire season, and then
due notice to be given to the Managers of its transfer
. . . or . . . of it. The subscriber is offered the
legal Interest for his money a douceur (?) in the ad-
missory Ticket, and he will have besides the pleasure
of visibly contributing to the advancement of the fine
Arts and of Science in this rising Empire.

It is proposed to appropriate the House and Grounds
to the Stock holders by way of perfect security for the
payment eventually of the sums advanced.

Of the Shares Ten will be redeemed and paid off
annually, and these unless applied for to be decided by
lot that no partiality may be shewn or offence given on
this occasion.

We the Subscribers having taken into consideration
the foregoing that the Legislature of the State having
given their approbation to the erection of a Theatre (?)
the City are desirable One should be built suitable to
the accommodations for it and calculated on a plan to
give general satisfaction hereby agree to take therein,
the Share, or Shares to our names respectively opposed.

27A

Listed here are the names of the subscribers
and the numbers of shares each purchased.

On the back of this same document is the
following information followed by names of

those who purchased these additional sub—
scriptions.

At a meeting of the Subscribers to Messrs Wignell
& Reinagle's proposals for erecting a Theatre, held at
the City Tavern the 22 June 1792 in consequence of Three
days previous advertisement.

Resolved That Mess Wignell and Reinagle be authori-
zed to open an additional Subscription for forty

Shares upon the same terms & Security as the former
Sixty Shares--

John Vaughan Henry Hill Chairman
Secy Pro. tem

 

APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF THE NEW THEATRE

APPENDIX B

SURVEY OF THE NEW THEATRE

Situate on the North Side of Chesnut & on the South
Side Of Carpenter Streets. Front on Chesnut & Carpenter
Streets. 64 "0 feet. Length North & South. 132 "0 feet.
and about the heigth of 3 high stories built Of brick with
good Substantial walls. The Roof framed in a good Manner
with Principal Rafters & beams. Eight large dormar win—
dows in the Roof leading out on d2 Modillion Cornice all
around. A Portico Of one Story high with 10 Colloums &
2 half pilasters fronting on Chesnut St. The whole Of
the Inside, divided into A Number of different appart-
ments. with the Stage the boxes. Pit & Gallaries. Scenery
& Machinery, Communications from this building into the
East & west wings. Doors Opening from the west wing into
A large open Space on the west. A large. Opening from
Sixth St. Communicating with the East wing.

Survey of the East & West wings attached to the Theatre

The west wing Is 1A8"O feet long by 14.0 feet wide built

of brick & four Stories heigh. with a plain Open Newel
Stairs in D? The lower Story divided in 3 Rooms. Two
Rooms are finished with plain shirting, windows plain
finished. & plaister'd. floors narrow boards Second.

Third & Fourth Stories. Divided into different appart—
ments with wood partitions. Not plaistered floors plain'd
& grov'd.

The East wing. Same dimensions as the West wing Same
height Divided into 3 Stories, Lower Story NO finishing
it being a place for lumber &Q

Second & Third Stores. Divided into Different Rooms
partiton'd with boards. & not plaister'd floors plain'd &
groov'd. An Open Stairs. Rough leading from bottom to
Top

276

r'

 

277

The whole of these Buildings are Bounded on the South
by Chesnut St. On the west by a large vacant lot. On
the North by Carpenter St. & on the East by. A four Story
brick building fronting on Sixth St. A Hydrant in Ches-
nut Street near the buildings One DOE--in Sixth St.

. . near . . . DQP

Survey'd Janry. “Th 1805. Philip Justus

 

APPENDIX C

RESOLUTIONS AND SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF SUBSCRIBERS

TO THE NEW THEATRE, JUNE 25, 1795

 

APPENDIX C

RESOLUTIONS AND SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF SUBSCRIBERS

TO THE NEW THEATRE, JUNE 25, 1795

AT A GENERAL MEETING OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE NEW THEATRE,
HELD (IN PURSUANCE OF PUBLIC NOTICE) AT THE CITY TAVERN,
ON THURSDAY, THE 25TH OF JUNE, 1795.

 

HENRY HILL, Esq. in the Chair.

RESOLVED unanimously, That the original Subscribers
to the New Theatre are of Opinion, that for the relief Of
the Managers, in paying their existing debts, due on account
Of the Theatre, a subscription for a loan Of forty-three
thousand six hundred dollars should be Opened; the amount
to be paid to, and applied by, the Trustees of the loan,
which shall, in the first instance, be Offered to the origi-
nal Subscribers; but any sum not subscribed by them, may be
Offered to such other persons as shall be disposed to
patronize the institution.

Resolved, That for securing the re-payment of the
said forty-three thousand six hundred dollars, with lawful
interest, a mortgage should be given on the Theatres in
Philadelphia and Baltimore; and the profits of the Theatre
of Philadelphia lodged in the hands Of Trustees to be
appointed by the Subscribers to the new loan, for the pur-
pose Of paying lst. The interest to the original Sub-
scribers; and 2d. The existing debts Of the Theatre, (not
including the principal of the debt to the original Sub-
scribers) in equal proportions upon the amount of the
respective claims.

Resolved, That the following gentlemen be Trustees
for the purposes aforesaid, until the Subscribers to the
new loan shall make other provision, gig. Mr. Charles
Pettit, Mr. Francis West, and Mr. John Barclay.

Signed, HENRY HILL, Chairman.
Attest, Richard Peters Smith.

 

279

280

A Committee of the Subscribers having communicated to the
Meeting a statement Of the accounts Of the Instituion,
with corresponding vouchers, the following abstracts are

here exhibited for the satisfaction of the Parties

interested.

delphia, to wit: lst. The amount Of monies paid,

0\ U1: LUMP

O

N I.

Abstract of Disbursements for the Theatre in Phila-

and

debts contracted for, the purchase money of the Lot
for erecting the building; for providing scenery,
machinery, and other apparatus; for the charge of

the Performers, while the Opening of the Theatre was
unfortunately suspended, in consequence Of the yellow
fever; for the expence Of conveying the Company to and
from Maryland, and for other necessary disbursements
preparatory to the production of an income from the

Theatre, Drs.

For the expence Of erecting a Theatre
in Baltimore, and furnishing the same,
NO. II.
Abstract of Funds raised in specie for the use
Of the Theatres in Philadelphia and Baltimore.
By the original Subscription at Philadelphia
By the Subscription at Baltimore
By the Notes of sundry Persons discounted
at Bank,
By the Profits Of two Seasons at Philadelphia
By Cash borrowed from sundry Individuals on
private loan,
By Cash from the private resources Of the
Managers

TO which may be added original Debts yet

remaining unpaid, viz
Debts due to Tradesmen and others for articles

100,000

20 000
mm

30,000
6,400

19,500
25,000

8,1426

4 000

93,325

furnished, and work done, 11,829
Debts due in England for Articles drawn

from thence, 3,8“5
Remainder Of the purchase money Of the Lot

yet unpaid, but which, in case Of need,

may be provided for by the sale of part

Of the said lot, 11,000

26 674

120,000

“I”

281

NO. III.

Abstract of the existing Debts Of the Theatre in Phila-
delphia, which are the objects Of the present provision;
the original Subscription of thirty thousand Dollars be—
ing supposed to be satisfactorily provided for by the
former Mortgage and Stipulation.

1. TO the amount of outstanding Accounts 11,829
for Tradesman's Bills '

2. To the amount of Notes discounted at 19,500
the Bank

3. To the amount Of Cash borrowed Of 8,426
Individuals on private loan

4. TO the amount of a balance of the Debts 3,845
contracted in England for the Theatre

Drs. 43,600
NO. Iv.

Abstract specifying the Security proposed for reimbursing,
in five or six years, a Loan to be raised in order to dis—
charge the pressing Debts Of the Theatre. N0. III.

1. A Mortgage on the Theatres in Philadelphia and Baltimore.

2. An assignment of the Profits of the Theatre at Phila—
delphia, computed at twelve thousand Dollars each Season,
to such Trustees as the Lenders shall appoint.

 

APPENDIX D

EXCERPTS FROM THE RESOLUTIONS AND ARTICLES
OF THE PROPRIETORS OF THE NEW THEATRE,
PHILADELPHIA, 1799

.97

APPENDIX D

EXCERPTS FROM THE RESOLUTIONS AND ARTICLES
OF THE PROPRIETORS OF THE NEW THEATRE,

PHILADELPHIA, 1799

1st. THAT the property Of this Association consists
Of a certain Lot of Ground, situate on the North side of
Chesnut street, and West side Of sixth street, in the City
Of Philadelphia, and upon part Of which said Lot, the
Building called the New-Theatre is erected; which Lot with
the Buildings were purchased at a public sale, held by
Jonathan Penrose, Esq. High Sheriff of the County Of Phila-
delphia, on the second day Of May by George Plumstead for
the use Of this Association. . . .

3d. THAT this association shall be called The
Proprietors Of the New Theatre, and its concerns, shall
be managed and conducted by five persons, members thereof,
to be called AGENTS, under and subject to the several rules
and regulations herein mentioned.

4th. THAT on the Tuesday in in this present
year and upon the 2d Tuesday of May in every year, during
the continuation of this association, there shall be elected,
by ballot, from among the members thereof, Five Agents to
serve as such for the term Of one year, and until new Agents
are chosen and confirmed, except as to the first election,
in which case the Agents are to continue until the second
Tuesday Of May next and the Agents so chosen and confirmed
shall make choice Of one of their number as a President,
and shall have power to appoint a person to be Secretary
and Treasurer. . . .

6th. THAT it shall be the duty Of the Agents generally,
to superintend the interests Of the association, to sell and
dispose of any of the vacant lots belonging to the Associ-
ation, which the persons entitled to the major part of shares
in the same shall, under their hands, from time to time
authorize and direct: and to lease out for any term, not
exceeding five years, the Building called the New-Theatre,

283

 

 

284

tO such person or persons and for such rents and upon such
conditions as they may see fit. But the Agents shall not
reserve or exercise any controul in the Theatrical manage-
ment Of dramatic entertainments, or in the employment Of
performers. And no such lease shall be granted for the
said Building, called the New Theatre, unless part of the
consideration thereof be, that each of the shares or the
one ninety-eighth part interest in this association, shall
be entitled to one ticket of free admission into the
Theatre on every play night, But no such tickets of free
admission shall be transferable more than once in one
season, nor shall the said Theatre ever, during the
continuance Of this Association, be let for any other
purpose than for Dramatic exhibitions, without the un-
animous consent Of the Share-holders, except in case such
exhibitions may be prohibited by lawful authority.

7th. THAT when the said Agents or the major part of
them, shall agree for the sale, or for the leasing of any
of the property belonging to this Association, they shall
cause to be prepared, at the expence Of the purchaser or
Of the lesee a deed of conveyance or a lease, and cause
the same to be executed by the Trustees, or a major part
Of them.

8th. THAT it shall be the duty of the Secretary and
Treasurer to keep fair minutes of the proceedings Of the
Agents and of the several meetings of the Share—holders:
He shall receive all monies payable to the Association
either for property sold or for rent Of the New-Theatre
and within thirty days after he shall have received the
same, shall, after deducting the necessary expences of
the Trustees and of the Agents pay the same to and amongst
the said Share-holders in proportion to their respective
shares; and the said Secretary and Treasurer shall be
allowed one and an half per cent for all rents by him
received. . . .

10. THAT the secretary shall keep a book for trans-

fering Of Shares, in which the person transfering the same,

shall subscribe his or her name to a memorandum thereof,
and shall render up the certificate before issued for

such share: and the assignee shall receive from the Secre-
tary a new Certificate in his or her own name Of the same
form, and bearing the same number as the original, signed
and witnessed as before directed.

And the said new Certificate shall entitle the
Assignee to aproportionable part Of all such monies as
shall be collected by the Treasurer during the time he or
she is possessed of the share so transferred. . . . But
no person receiving a transfer Of a share, shall, for that
reason, be entitled to a ticket Of free admission into the

'9".

 

‘11!-

 

285

Theatre for that season, if the ticket belonging to such
share shall have been transferred in the season when such
transfer is so made: and the Secretary shall give immediate
notice to the managers of the Theatre Of every transfer SO
made. And in case of a loss Of such certificate the same
shall be supplied by the Agents in such manner as they
shall prescribe.

ll. THAT the ticket Of free admission, may by any
Of the owners thereof, be transferred once in a season, by
an indorsement on the Certificate thereof, witnessed by
the Secretary, and an entry or memorandum thereof, made
in a Book, by him to be kept for that purpose; and notice
shall be immediately given by the Secretary tO the managers
Of the Theatre Of such transfer: and the Secretary shall
receive from the assignee Of such share One Dollar, and
for the transfer Of a ticket for the season Fifty Cents,
for his trouble. . . .

 

 

13th. THAT before any person or persons to whom the
Theatre may be let for Dramatic exhibitions shall receive
the lease from the Agents, he or they shall subscribe an
acknowledgement, that these articles Of Association have
been exhibited to him or them, and that he or they approve
and consent to all matters therein respecting the tickets
Of free admission and the transfering thereof.

14th. THAT at every meeting Of the share-holders,
every share shall be entitled to one Vote except otherwise
directed by these articles, and any number Of members met,

whose shares shall amount to twenty-five shall be a sufficient

number to proceed to any business, except that Of altering
these articles Of Association, the ordering the sale of any
property, and the election of Managers.

And the proceedings of such meeting or of a majority
thereof shall be binding and conclusive upon every member
Of this Association in the same manner and to as full
effect, as if they were personally present and consenting.
PROVIDED always that such meeting be advertised in, at
least, two Of the daily news-papers in the city Of Phila-
delphia for five days next preceding such meeting. And
no person shall vote at any Election for Agents (except
the first) who has not held his or her share or shares,
for at least six months next before such Election. . . .

15th . . . And in no case shall any amendment be
made so as to make valid a sale Of the New Theatre before
the dissolution of this association without the unanimous
consent Of the shareholders, except in the case only Of
the prohibition of dramatic entertainments as mentioned
in the sixteenth article.

 

 

286

16th. THAT no sale of the building called the New
Theatre shall take place before the first day Of July in
the year 1819, nor shall this Association be dissolved
until the monies arising from such sale, when made,
shall be divided amongst the shareholders: But if it shall
so happen, that before the first day of July 1819, Theatri-
cal exhibitions be prohibited by lawful authority, then
with the consent Of persons holding fifty shares, made
in writing under their hand, the said Building shall be
sold by the Agents and when the monies arising from such
sale are divided amongst the share—holders, this Associ-
ation shall be dissolved.

17th. In all elections the subscribers shall be
allowed to vote by proxy, provided the said proxies be
shareholders in this association. Witness, our hands and
seals: at Philadelphia, this day Of
AnnO Domini 1799.

 

APPENDIX E

PROLOGUE SPOKEN AT THE FIRST PERFORMANCE

’13

(

IN WASHINGTON, AUGUST, l-OO

 

 

APPENDIX E

PROLOGUE SPOKEN AT THE FIRST PERFORMANCE

IN WASHINGTON, AUGUST, 1800

I'

Thank Heaven; ten tedious, anxious years are past,
And here together we meet at last,

The Grecian states, ambitious to destroy,
Took the same time to level cloud-capt Troy.
Their hero, by subverting sought his praise, E
Our Patriot's noble glory was to raise.

Let other nations look to Greece and Rome,

Columbia's bright examples are at home;

Whate'er is great or good we find in one--

All virtues joined to form a Washington.

Heaven partial seemed, occasions to dispense,

Pleased to unfold his great preeminence,

Exulting thought! Why thus appear distrest?

But ah! you feel the most, who knew him best.

Mourn not but, thankful that his life was spared

SO long, enjoy the blessings that he prepared.

As planetary systems roll on high,

Ruled by the Almighty's law of harmony,

These states in ceaseless unity shall roll,

Swayed by the plans of his inspired soul.

TO—night we'll make you weep by mimic play,

For tears are tribute with delight must pay;

Expand your tuckers, ye sigh-swelling Fair;

Unfurl your fans, your handkerchiefs prepare;

Catch the soft moments, ye enamoured beaus,

Arrest the tear drop trembling as it flows,

Sweet sensibility the sour endears,

And beauty sheds a lustre most in tears.

This Grand Hotel, for epicures designed,

Now makes provision only for the mind;

For you each night, two courses nice we cater,

And for your wants, the "Prompter" calls not "Waiter";
A bad exchange you'll sayu-solids for air;

Who's he that whispers? It is city Fair.

Sir, you're a poet, and delight forsooth,

Rather tO deal in fiction than in truth.

Those ruddy cheeks evince the air is fine.

And those fat sides show on the best you dine.

 

288

289

Well faith, we've formed a tolerable stage;

Here's room for comic glee or tragic rage;

But there pointing to pit and box the city populates
so quick,

I fear you've stowed yourselves away too thick.

Ladies, you smile, as if the crowding pleased,

Sure your fine frames tremble to be squeezed.

Tho' now our corps too thin appears,

This central spot must draw forth volunteers;

If power's their wish, to monarchies we raise them——

If fame—-'twere ample sure for you to praise them,

If death and glory-—here they may be slain,

And what is better, "rise to fight again."

Their country's service to a generous mind,

That first incentive, true they cannot find,

And yet we act no despicable part,

Who gladden life and meleorate the heart.

The floods Of late, which drowned you many a horse,

Have caused to us a much severer loss--

Our groves, our temples gone beyond repair,

The gorgeous palaces it did not spare;

The storm has swept our canvas almost bare.

For this deficiency we will soon atone—-

Would you could build as fast with brick and stone.

At first behold us with indulgent eye,

As soon with zest we'll every want supply,

Thus to this city all things will acquire,

That fancy can suggest, or heart desire,,

The guillotine, the sword, the cannon's roar,

Drive arts and science to this peaceful shore;

If various tongues from building could disable,

Your houses would of course be stopped like Babel;

Dutch, Irish, Germans, French, all hither flee,

To enjoy the sweets Of liberty.

With your permission-~Hark2 I'm called away-—

That bell cut short the best I had to say.

Accept the will, I pray you, for the deed,

For on this-—on all occasions we must plead

By your indulgence only we succeed.

 

 

APPENDIX F

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT OF WILLIAM WARREN AND

WILLIAM WOOD WITH CHARLOTTE PLACIDE

APPENDIX F

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT OF WILLIAM WARREN AND

WILLIAM WOOD WITH CHARLOTTE PLACIDE

Made, concluded and entered into this Second day of October
in the year Of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
fifteen between William Warren and William B. Wood, Managers
and joint Lessees of the NEW—THEATRE in Philgdelphia, in
the commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, and Managers and joint
Proprietors of the Theatre in Baltimore, in the common-
wealth Of Maryland, Of the one part, and Charlotte S.
Placide of the other part, witness.

The said O. S. Placide-~her executors and adminis—
trators, for and in consideration Of the sum Of One dollar
to her in hand paid, at or before the sealing and delivery
Of these presents, by the said [Warren and Wood], . . .
doth hereby for herself her executors and administrators,
convenant and agree to and with the said [Warren and Wood]
. . . that she the said Charlotte S. Placide shall and
will, for and during the term of one year to commence and
be computed from the Tenth day Of June, last past accord-
ing to the best and utmost Of her skill, judgment, power
and ability, Act, Sing, and Perform all such parts and
characters, in all or any Tragedies, Comedies, Operas,
Masques, Dramatic entertainments, Dances and other theatri-
cal performances whatsoever, which shall be exhibited,
represented Or performed at the said Theatre, or any other
wherein the said [Warren and Wood] shall be interested or
concerned, as by the said [Warren and Wood] or the Manager
for the time being of such Theatre or Theatres, shall at
any time or times during the term aforesaid, be ordered,
directed or required, or of which notice shall be given by
advertisement in the public newspapers, or by affixing up
the play-bills in the usual and accustomed manner. Apg
also, that she the said Charlotte S. Placide shall and
wiIl, during the said term, diligently and duly attend
all and every the rehearsals or practices of all and every
the theatrical pieces or performances wherein [she] shall
be directed or required to Act, Sing or Perform. And
[she] doth hereby further covenant, promise and agree to
pay, or allow to be deducted and retained out of the

 

291

 

292

payments herein after mentioned, by the same [Warren and
Wood], or the Manager for the time being, to and for their
own use and benefit, all and every sum and sums Of money
which at any time or times within the term aforesaid the
said Charlotte 8. Placide shall or may incur, or be liable
to forfeit or pay for neglect or refusal to attend, accept
of, study, practice and rehearse, or publicly perform any
part or parts, character or characters, as aforesaid,
according to the terms and conditions expressed and set
forth in the following table, that is to say: __

 

ARTICLE I.

Gentlemen at the time of rehearsal or performance,
are not to wear their hats in the greenroom, or talk
vociferously, or enter into such altercations there as
may tend to dispute or quarrel. The green-room is a 3
place apprOpriated for the quiet and regular meeting of .j
the company, who are to be called thence, and thence only,
by the call-boy, to attend on the stage. The manager is
not to be applied to in that place, or any matter of
business or with any personal complaint. For a breach
Of any part of this article, one dollar will be forfeited.

 

 

ARTICLE II.

Any person appearing intoxicated on the stage, shall
forfeit a week's salary.

 

ARTICLE III.

For making the stage stand, or not being at the prOper
entrance after being summoned by the caller, five dollars.

 

ARTICLE IV.

After due notice, all rehearsals must be attended.
The greenroom clock is to regulate the time . . . ten minutes
will be allowed for difference of clocks . . . forfeit,
half a dollar for absence at every scene--the whole rehearsal
at the same rate, or four dollars, at the Option of the
manager.

A performer absent at the commencement Of a scene,
is to be forfeited as if absent during the whole of it.

 

 

ARTICLE V.

A performer rehearsaing from a book or part at the
last rehearsal Of a new piece, forfeits a night's salary.

 

293

ARTICLE VI.

For walking across the stage, or standing on it
during rehearsal, (unless the business Of the stage re-
quires it) half a dollar shall be forfeited.

ARTICLE VII.

A performer introducing improper jests not in the
author, shall forfeit two dollars.

 

ARTICLE VIII.

A performer opening the stage—door, except required
so to do by the business Of the representation, forfeits
five dollars.

 

ARTICLE IX.

Any person conversing with the prompter during
representation, or talking aloud behind the scenes to the
interruption Of the performance, to forfeit one dollar.

 

ARTICLE X.

Every performer concerned in the first act of the
play, to be in the green—room dressed for performance at
the time Of beginning, as expressed in the bills, or to
forfeit five dollars. The performers wanted in the second
act, to be ready when the first finishes. In like manner
with every other act. Those performers who are not in
the two last acts of the play, to be ready to begin the
farce, or to forfeit five dollars. When a change Of dress
is necessary, proper time will be allowed.

 

 

ARTICLE XI.

All dresses will be regulated and arranged on the
morning of the performance by the manager. A performer
who makes any alterations in such dresses, or refuses to
wear them, shall forfeit a night's salary.

 

ARTICLE XII.

Any performer who neglects or refuses tO give out
a play when called upon by the prompter, by order of the
manager, forfeits five dollars.

 

ARTICLE XIII.

A performer not ready in any character (having had
the usual time allowed for study, and receiving due notice
Of its representation) shall forfeit a night's salary.

 

 

Y'- a;

294

ARTICLE XIV.

Any performer imperfect, in an old play or opera,
after sufficient time allowed, shall forfeit a night's
salar ; but in a new play, after three rehearsals, the
forfeit to be double.

ARTICLE XV.

If the prompter converse with any person during
representation, or be guilty of any neglect to the H
prejudice Of the performance, he shall forfeit 313
dollars.

ARTICLE XVI. .

 

Office, or omit to forfeit where penalties are incurred
by non-Observance of the rules and regulations of the
Theatre, he shall forfeit for each Offence or omission
a week's salary.

If the prompter be guilty of any neglect in his i

 

ARTICLE XVII.

Performers not in the bills of the day, are respect-
fully requested tO leave notice where they may be found,
in case of a necessity to change the entertainments.

ARTICLE XVIII.
For refusing on a sudden change Of play or farce,

to represent a character performed by the same person
during the season, a week's salary shall be forfeited.

 

ARTICLE XIX.

A performer refusing a part allotted him by the
manager, forfeits a night's salary.

 

ARTICLE XXI.

A performer singing songs not advertised in the bill
of the day; omitting any, or introducing one not in the
part allotted, without first having consent of the manager,
forfeits a night's salary.

ARTICLE XXII.

Any person standing within the chalk-line during
performance shall forfeit fifty cents, second time, after
being warned, one dollar, third time the same night,
three dollars, and for a 4th Offence on the same night,
the forfeiture will be a week's salary.

 

 

 

 

295

ARTICLE XXIII.

Making an entrance at an imprOper place at rehearsal,
fifty cents--before the public one dollar.

 

 

ARTICLE XXIV.

 

Making a noise on the stage, to the interruption
Of the rehearsal, one dollar.

 

ARTICLE XXV.

For going into the wardrobe without consent the
manager, five dollars will be forfeited.

 

ARTICLE XXVI.

NO person to draw the curtain or drop-scene aside to
look at the audience, under penalty Of two dollars, on a
2d Offence, the forfeiture tO be doubled:7

 

ARTICLE XXVII.

In all plays in which modern clothes are worn, gentle-
men are expected to wear powder, shoes and buckles, unless
the character particularly requires different dress. This
rule to be observed under pain Of forfeiting a night's

salary.

 

 

ARTICLE XXVIII.

A performer restoring what is cut out by the manager,
will forfeit a night's salary.

 

ARTICLE XXIX.

A performer absenting himself from the Theatre of
an evening when concerned in the business Of the stage,
will be forfeited a week's salar , or be held liable to
be discharged, at the option O he manager.

 

ARTICLE XXX.

Any performer, whose absence from his business shall
have arisen from imprudent or improper delays, or from
intemperance, shall be forfeited for the period of his
absence, his full income, and become liable to be dis-
charged. 7

 

 

296

ARTICLE XXXI.

Performers entitled by their agreement to benefits,
shall be bound to give satisfactory security to the
managers for the charges Of the night.

And further, that she . . . shall not, nor will, at
any time during the said term, publicly Act, Sing or Per—
form, any part or parts, character or characters, in any
Tragedy, Comedy, [etc.] without the license or consent in
writing Of the said [Warren and Wood]. And the said
William Warren and William B. Wood . . . shall and will
yearly and in every year during the said term Of one year
well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the said
Charlotte S. Placide the sum Of Twenty three Dollars
Current Money Of the United States of America for each
week in which any theatrical performances shall be publicly
exhibited at the said Theatres, which said sum . . . shall
be paid on the last day Of every acting week . . . the said
William Warren and William B. Wood . . . first deducting
thereout all and every sum and sums of money which she
. . . shall incur, or become liable to forfeit and pay,
according to the covenant and agreement . . . herein before
mentioned. Provided always, that if the season should
Close before the expiration Of any particular week, that
the sslary shall be due and payable only for such portion
of the week as has comprised nights of performance. And
further, that the said Charlotte C. Placide shall be —'
entitled to one night's performance in each winter season
in every year Of the said term of one year, according to
the custom Of the said Theatre, for her emolument, she
first paying or allowing to the Treasurer of the said
Theatre, the customary deductions or charges Of such per—
formance. And further, that she . . . shall also have,
and be entitled to one half nights performance during the
summer season Of the said term of one year . . . she first
paying or allowing the Treasurer Of the said Theatre, the
charges as above mentioned. And it is hereby mutually
agreed by and between the said parties to these presents,
that each of them shall and will, six months previous tO
the expiration Of the said term Of one year, give to the
other . . . notice in writing of her or their intention
of determining and putting an end to these presents, and
the terms, conditions and agreements heretofore contained.
And that on default Of such notice, so to be given as
aforesaid. The party so intending, will also, at all
times from and after the end and expiration of the same
term Of one year, give to the other Of them . . . the
like six months notice in writing, Of such design or
intention. And that from and after the eXpiration Of
such notice, and not otherwise, these presents, and
every article . . . shall cease, determine, and be
utterly void, to all intents and purposes.

 

 

 

297

And it is further agreed and understood between the
parties to these presents, that the covenants aforesaid,
shall be considered as mutual and dependant on one another;
so that if at any time, the said William Warren and William
B. Wood shall, on demand, withhold the payment of the
salary aforesaid justly due . . . or shall refuse or
neglect to afford to the said Charlotte S. Placide the
further compensation above agreed to, that then, and in
such case, [she] shall be discharged from the necessity
of complying with her engagements as aforesaid. And it
is further agreed, that in case Of a violation of this
agreement, or any part thereof, by the said Charlotte S.
Placide in a matter not herein expressly provided for,
that then, and in such case, these articles of agreement
so far as the said William Warren and William B. Wood are
bound thereby, shall become absolutely void and of no
effect, and the right of the said Charlotte S. Placide to
demand and receive her salary, compensation and profits
Of her benefits shall absolutely cease and determine, and
that the full and perfect compliance with the terms and
conditions aforesaid . . . shall be a condition precedent
to the Vesting of the right of the said Charlotte S.
Placide to a part or the whole of her compensation,
salary and benefits aforesaid--And that in any action or
actions hereafter to be brought against the said William
Warren and William B. Wood . . . by the said Charlotte S.
Placide . . . on this covenant, it shall and may be lawful
for the said William Warren and William B. Wood, to plead
the general issue, and give in evidence, the breaches of
the said Charlotte S. Placide as a complete and effectual
bar to a recovery therein.

And lastly, For the true performance of all and every
the covenants, Clauses, conditions and agreements herein
before contained, they the said William Warren and William
B. Wood, for themselves and each of them . . . do hereby
bind and oblige themselves and each of them . . . unto
the said Charlotte S. Placide . . . in the penal sum of
One Thousand Dollars, lawful money Of the United States
of America, and the said Charlotte S. Placide doth in
the like manner bind and oblige herself . . . in‘the like
sum of One Thousand Dollars, lawful money of the United
States of America.

In witness whereof, The parties to these presents

have hereunto interchangeably set their hands
and seals the day and year first above written.

 

 

Sealed and Delivered in the presence Of

Robt Cullen William Wood
each Weeks Peter Paddren Wm B Wood
performances to
consist of four nights, Charlotte S. Placide

or in proportion, more
or less

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Bernard, John. Retrospections of America, 1797-1811. New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1887.

 

Bezanson, Anne, et a1. Prices in Colonial Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1935.

Brown, T. Allston. History Of the American Stage. New
York: Dick & Fitzgerald, 1870.

Cahn, William. The Laugh Makers. New York: G. P.
Putnam's Sons, 1957.

Chase, Gilbert. America's Music. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1955.

 

Coad, Oral S. "William Dunlap: A Study of his Life
and Works." Dunlap Society Publications (1917),
p. 31.

Coad, Oral S. and Mims, Edwin, Jr. The American Stage.
Vol. XIV of The American Pageant. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1929.

 

Downer, Alan S. (ed.). The Memoir Of John Durang, American
Actor, 1785-1816. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-
burgh Press, 1966.

 

DuLac, Francios, M. P. ngage dens les deux Louisianes etc.
Lyon, France: Bruyset, 1805.

Dunlap, William. A History of the American Theatre. New
York: J. & J. Harper, 1832.

Dunlap Society, Publications of the. 30 vols. New York:
The Dunlap Society, 1887-1901.

Fennell, James. An Apology for the Life of James Fennell.
Philadelphia: Moses Thomas, 1814.

Ford, Paul L. Washington and The Theatre. New York:
Dunlap Society Publications, 1899.

299

 

300

Genest, John. Some Account of the English Stage from the
Restoration in 1660 to 1800. 10 vols. London:
H. E. Carrington, 1832.

Griswold, Rufus W. The Republican Court, or American
Society in the Days Of Washington. New York: D.
Appleton & Co., 1867.

Hamlin, Talbot. Behjamin Henry Latrobe. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1955.

Hardie, James. Philadelphia Directory and Register.
Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1793. '

Hart, Albert B. (ed.). American History Told by Contempo-
raries. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1924-1925.

Hewitt, Bernard. Theatre USA 1668-1957. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959.

Hornblow, Arthur. A History of the Theatre in America.
2 vols. 'Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1919.

Howard, John T. Our American Music. New York: Thomas
Y. Crowell Co., 1965.

Hughes, Glenn. The History of the American Theatre 1700-
‘ 1950. New York: Samuel French, 1951.

Ireland, Joseph N. Records of the New York Stage. New
York: n. p., 1866.

Ireland, Joseph N. Fifty Years of a Play-goer's Journal.
New York: Samuel French, 1850. '

Jackson, Joseph. Encyclopedia Of Philadelphia. 4 vols.
Harrisburg: The National Historical Association,
1931.

James, Reese D. Cradle of Culture 1800—1810. Philadel-
phia: University Of Pennsylvania Press, 1957.

. Old Drury Of Philadelphia: A History of the
Philadelphia Stage 1800-1835. Philadelphia:
University Of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

 

Johnson, Allen (ed.). Dictionary Of American Biography.
11 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927.

Johnson, Allen (ed.). Dictionary of American Biography.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964.

301

Krohn, Ernest, C. Alexander Reinagle. Vol. XV. Dictionary
of American Biography. Edited by Allen Johnson. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964.

Lowens, Irving. Music and Musicians in Early America. New
York: W. W. Norton Co., Inc., 1964.

Mease, James. The Picture of Philadelphia. Philadelphia:
B. & T. Kite, 1811. ‘ ’

Mitchell, James T. and Flanders, Henry (eds.). Statutes
at Large of Pennsylvania, 1682-1801. 18 vols.
Harrisburg: State of Pennsylvania, 1896-1911.

Moody, Richard. Dramas from the American Theatre 1762—1901.
Cleveland: The World Publishing Co., 1966.

Odell, George C. D. Annals of the New York Stage. 15
vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1927.

Parsons, Jacob C. Extracts from the Diary Of Jacob
Hiltzheimer of Philadelphia. Philadelphia:‘ W. F.
Fell & Co., 1893.

Pollock, Thomas C. The Philadelphia Theatre in the Eight—
eenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl—
vania Press, 1933.

 

Rankin, Hugh F. The Theater in Colonial America. Chapel
Hill: University Of North Carolina Press, 1965.

Roberts, Kenneth and Anna M. (trsns.) Moreau de St. Mery's
American Journey 1793-1798. Garden City, New York,
1947.

Sachse, Julius F. The Religious and Social Conditions of
Philadelphia During the First Decade Under the Federal
Constitution. Philadelphia: n. p.; n. d.

 

Scharf, J. T. and Westcott, Thomas. History of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia: L. H. Everts & Co., 1884.

Seilhamer, George 0. A History of the American Theatre.
3 vols. Philadelphia: Globe Printing House, 1888—
1891.

Sonneck, O. G. Early Concert-Life in America 1731—1800.
Leipzig: Breitkopf and Hartel, 1907.

. Early Opera in America. New York: G. Schirmer,
Inc., 1915.

 

 

302

Souder, Casper. The History of Chesnut Street, Philadelphia.
Philadelphia: King & Baird, 1860.

Stine, Richard D. The Philadelphia Theatre 1682-1829.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,

1951.

St. Mery, Moreau de. American Journey, 1793—1798.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1947.

Stone, G. W. The London Stage 1660-1800. Vol. III: The
London Stage, Part IV,1747-l776. Carbondale, Ill.:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1962.

Wansey, Henry. Journal of an Excursion to the United
States Of North America. London: n. p., 1795.

Watson, John F. Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania
in the Olden Time. 2 vols. Philadelphia: By the
author, 1879.

 

Weld, Isaac. Travels Through the States of North America.
London: John Stockdale, 1800.

Westcott, Thompson. A History Of Philadelphia. 3 vols.
Philadelphia: L. H. Everts & Co., 1884.

Wood, William B. Personal Recollections of the Stage.
Philadelphia: H. C. Baird, 1855.

Wright, Richardson. Revels in Jamaica. New York: Dodd,
Mead & Co., 1937-

Articles and Periodicals
Daily Advertiser (New York).

Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia).

Drummond, Robert R. "Alexander Reinagle and his Connection
with the Musical Life of Philadelphia," German
American Annual, V (1907), 294-306.

Dunlap's American Daily Advertiser.

Durang, Charles. "The Philadelphia Stage from the Year
1749 to the Year 1855," Sunday Dispatch (Philadelphia),
1854-1860.

Dye, Jr., William S. "Pennsylvania vs. the Theatre," The
Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, IX
(October, 1931), 332—372.

 

 

+

 

303

Eberlein, Harold D. and Hubbard, Cortland V. "Music in the
Early Federal Era," The Pennsylvania Magazine of
History and Biography, LXIX, NO. 2 (April, 1945),
103—127.

 

Ezekial Forman. "Letter to John C. Rockhill," The

—W—

Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,
X (1886), 182-187.

Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser.
Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Evening Post.

Gazette of the United States (Philadelphia).

 

The General Advertiser (Philadelphia).

 

Indepent Gazetteer or, The Chronicle of Freedom (Philadel-
phia).

Klingsberg, Frank J. "Ideas That Did Not Migrate From
England," The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography, LXIII, NO. 5 (October, 1939), 380-389.

 

 

The Mercury (New York) December 14, 1767.

 

Mishoff, Willard 0. "Business in Philadelphia 1777—1778,"
The Pennsylvania Magazine of History & Biography,
LXI (April, 19377. 175.

Mudd, Aloysius I. "Early Theatres in Washington City,"
Records Of the Columbia Historical Societ , V
(1902), 64—86.

National Gazette (Philadelphia).

 

National Intelligencer (Washington).

New York Magazine or Literary Repository, V, NO. 4 (April,
1794), 195.

Pennsylvania Gazette (Philadelphia).

 

Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,,The.

Pennsylvania Packet (Philadelphia).

Potts, William J. "Amusements and Politics in Philadelphia,
1794," The Pennsylvania Magazine Of History and
Biography, X (1886), 182-187.

Poulson's Daily American Advertiser (Philadelphia).

304

Riley, Edward M. "Philadelphia, The Nation's Capital,
1790-1800," Pennsylvania History, XX, No. 4 (October,

1953). 357-379.
Statutes of Pennsylvania, XII, 313-322.

 

United States Gazette.

Unpublished Material

 

"The Address and Petition of several INHABITANTS of the
City of PHILADELPHIA, and its Liberties To the
SENATE and House of REPRESENTATIVES of the Common-
wealth Of PENNSYLVANIA." Philadelphia, December 19,

 

 

1793-

"Articles of Agreement . . . between William Warren and
William B. Wood, Managers . . . and Charlotte S.
Placide . . . " June 10, 1815.

Drinker, John. "The Address and Petition of the PeOple
called Quakers To the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania." Philadel-
phia, December 6, 1793.

Justus, Philip. "Survey Of the New Theatre." Philadel—
phia, January 4, 1805.

Leonard, Orel K. "Shakespeare and the Stage in Washington,
D. C. 1800-1835." Unpublished Master's dissertation,
Department of English, George Washington University,
1953.

McKenzie, Ruth H. "Organization, Production, and Manage—
ment at the Chestnut Street Theatre, Philadelphia,
from 1791 to 1820." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
Stanford University, 1952.

"Meeting of the Subscribers to the New Theatre." March
11. 1799.

Minutes of "A General Meeting of the Subscribers to the
New Theatre, held (in pursuance of public notice)
at the City Tavern, on Thursday, the 25th Of June,

1795."

"Monthly Meeting of Friends of Philadelphia." December
21, 1793.

Pritner, Calvin L. "William Warren's Management of the

Chestnut Street Theatre Company." Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1964.

305

"PrOposals by Messieurs Wignell and Reinagle for Erecting
a New Theatre in Philadelphia." 1791.

"Resolutions and Articles Of Agreement Entered Into, and

Adopted By the PrOprietors of the Building and Lots
Of the New Theatre in Philadelphia." 1799.

Other Sources

 

Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Personal correspondence
of Alexander Reinagle and Thomas Wignell. 1790-
1803.

Warren, William. Journal of his relationship with the
company headed by Thomas Wignell and Alexander
Reinagle. 1796—1803.

Warren, William. "Journal of William Warren." Unpublished
document on the holdings of the Canning Pollock
Library, Howard University, May 6, 1797.

 

. 1...;

 

 

      
      

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

m\l“ll“Lflfllfllfljl|1\[\l\|\|\\|\\l\\|\\lm\“WW

085 1822