Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2010
In the late eighteenth century, and with increasing momentum in the early nineteenth, the minor theatres in London steadily challenged the monopoly of the two patent houses—with great ingenuity in circumventing several Licensing Acts; with highly imaginative and lively (albeit generally unsophisticated) bills; and with eager support from the workers, flocking to the capital as part of the industrial age, for whom the minor theatres provided escape. By the time Planché's “Mother Drama” admitted confusion about her sons “Legitimate Drama” and “Illegitimate Drama” on the stage of the Olympic Theatre on 16 April 1838, the minor theatres had prevailed.
1 The Extravaganzas of J. R. Planché, Esq., ed. T. F. Croker and Stephen Tucker (London, 1879), II, 13.
2 Brayley, Edward W., Historical and Descriptive Accounts of the Theatres of London (London, 1826), pp. 58–60.Google Scholar For an excellent treatment of the whole hippodrama phenomenon in England and France, see Saxon, A. H., Enter Foot and Horse (New Haven, 1968).Google Scholar
3 Dibdin, Charles, The Professional Life of Mr. Dibdin, Written by Himself (London, 1803), II, 105.Google Scholar
4 Decastro, J[acob], The Memoirs of J. Decastro, Comedian (London, 1824), p. 25Google Scholar; Brayley, p. 61.
5 Dibdin, Charles, Royal Circus Epitomized (London, 1784), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar This work is basically an attack on (and an appeal to) Davis, who, Dibdin felt, had betrayed him by 1784. Despite its obvious prejudice (and virulence), it is a valuable source of information on the first years of the Circus: many of the facts contained in it are confirmed by other sources— e.g., Decastro (especially in regard to Hughes' conduct) and press accounts—which gives the basic narrative credibility.
6 Dibdin, , Life, II, 106–107Google Scholar; Brayley, p. 67; Barton Baker, H., History of the London Stage and Its Famous Players (1576–1903) (London, 1904), p. 389.Google Scholar
7 Dibdin, , Circus, p. 5.Google Scholar The dimensions of the building seem not to have survived.
8 Ibid., pp. 5–6. The number of children involved is problematic: the London Chronicle (October 10–12, 1782), reporting on a licensing hearing, referred to “near 50 children;” writing in 1784, shortly after the event, Dibdin implies there were twenty some (Circus, pp. 5–6); writing his memoirs at the turn of the century, he says there were “not less, I believe, than sixty” (Life, II, 112). Many subsequent writers—Brayley, p. 68; Baker, p. 390; Findlater, Richard [Kenneth Bain], Crimaldi King of Clowns (London, 1955), p. 37Google Scholar—use the figure sixty, apparently relying on Dibdin's second account.
9 Decastro, pp. 13–14.
10 Dibdin, , Life, II, 112–113.Google Scholar Most of the young performers were the children of parents in the entertainment world; some of them subsequently had long careers in the theatre— among them Maria Theresa Romanzini, later Mrs. George Bland, and Theresa de Camp, later Mrs. Charles Kemble (Decastro, p. 14).
11 Dibdin, , Circus, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
12 Dibdin, , Life, II, 107–108.Google Scholar
13 Dibdin, , Circus, p. 7.Google Scholar
14 In 1752 Parliament passed an act placing all places of public entertainment (except Covent Garden, Drury Lane, and the Haymarket) in London and Westminster, and within a twenty-mile radius of these, under the jurisdiction of local justices of the peace; originally a three-year experiment, the act was renewed and made “perpetual” in 1755 (Nicholson, Watson, The Struggle for a Free Stage in London [Boston,] 1906, pp. 125–126).Google Scholar
15 Dibdin, Circus, pp. 7–9.
16 Ibid., pp. 10–14.
17 October 10–12, 1782.
18 Dibdin, , Circus, pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
19 Brayley, p. 68.
20 November 2–5, 1782. Press estimates of those turned away range from one-half to two-thirds.
21 Brayley, p. 69. The cost included costumes and scenery.
22 Loc. cit. This description was reprinted in the European Magazine, II (November 1782), 385, and the Universal Magazine, LXXI (November 1782), 253.
23 I (November 1782), 374.
24 LXXI (November 1782), 252–253. While the first half of this account provides substantial additional information, the second half is a slightly edited reprint of the review published in the London Chronicle, cited above.
25 Dibdin, , Circus, pp. 16–18.Google Scholar
26 Ibid., pp. 18–19.
27 London Chronicle, December 28–31, 1782.
28 Universal Magazine, LXXI (Supplement 1782), 383.
29 Dibdin, , Circus, p. 19.Google Scholar
30 Ibid., pp. 19–21.
31 Ibid., pp. 21–22.
32 Dibdin, E. R., A Charles Dibdin Bibliography (Liverpool, 1937), p. 47.Google Scholar
33 Advertisement in the Morning Herald, April 21, 1783.
34 Advertisement in the Morning Post, June 13, 1783.
35 E. R. Dibdin, p. 48.
36 Advertisement in the Morning Post, July 14, 1783.
37 Brayley, p. 69; Dibdin, Life, II, 113.
38 Dibdin, , Circus, pp. 22–25.Google Scholar
39 Ibid., pp. 29–30.
40 Ibid., pp. 30–31.
41 Ibid., pp. 31–32.
42 October 18–21, 1783.
