Vol. 4 No. 1 (Spring 1983)

SIR PETERS AND LADY TEAZLES OF MONTREAL'S THEATRE ROYAL, 1829-1839

Denyse Lynde

During the decade of 1829 to 1839, Sheridan's School For Scandal was frequently presented at Montreal's Theatre Royal by touring British and American stars. This article chronicles these productions and examines the changing acting style and growing audience sophistication that developed during this period.

De 1829 à 1839 la pièce School For Scandal de Sheridan a été souvent représentée au Théâtre Royal de Montréal par des vedettes anglaises et américaines en tournée. Cet article fait la chronique de ces représentations et examine les changements qui se sont produits dans le jeu des comédiens et dans le niveau d'appréciation de plus en plus élevé des spectateurs.

Theatrical activity in Montreal during the nineteenth century was represented by a broad spectrum of forms, the type of performance ranging from one person to full companies, the circus to the classics, the amateur to the professional. The audience was small that attended Montreal's main house, the Theatre Royal; its seating capacity was about 1500, and the repertory, although varied, was also curiously repetitive. While one would expect the repertory to include many Shakespearean productions, and there were numerous performances of Othello, The Comedy of Errors and Richard III, other plays appeared to be very popular also. For example, Franklin Graham's Histrionic Montreal makes frequent references during this decade to standard period dramas, The Hunchback (Knowles), comedies, The Belle's Stratagem (H. Cowley) and farces, A Bold Stroke For A Husband (H. Cowley).¹ But although the seasons have been documented to a certain degree by Graham, comments concerning the nature of these performances are limited. I propose to examine the records of performance of one play - Sheridan's School For Scandal (1777) ² - which during the decade of 1829-1839 was revived frequently. Descriptions of the specific players performing in these various productions should provide some insight into performance qualities and theatrical taste in nineteenth century Canada.

From 1829 to 1833, Vincent de Camp managed the short season, followed by Cornelius Logan in 1835 and Thomas Ward in 1836. During the remaining three years of this decade, no company played regularly at the Theatre Royal, mainly because of the unsatisfactory economic returns that De Camp, Logan and Ward had suffered. Instead, amateur companies performed, periodically enhanced by a visit and a series of performances by a touring solo performer.

During the season of 1829, Vincent De Camp and his company, Clara Fisher, Mr and Mrs Armand, Vestris, Mr and Mrs Knight, Mr and Mrs Achille, Mrs Fred Brown, Mr Fisher and George Holland, produced School For Scandal at the Theatre Royal.³ Vincent de Camp, brother to Mrs Charles Kemble, arrived from New York where his reputation as an actor and producer was weak. George C.D. Odell dryly comments on his abilities in Annals of the New York Stage:

The Mirror was almost brutal on its attacks of De Camp. As actor, it says, on December 22 [1827] "he gabbles like a goose amidst the swanlike quire"; his stage management, like his acting is very bad. "The New York Theatre, in consequence of his management, is fast falling into disrepute".⁴

Clara Fisher appeared as Lady Teazle.⁵ Her theatrical background was impressive:

Clara Fisher was born in England on July 14, 1811. Her father was successively a Brighton Librarian and London auctioneer. His daughter made her stage debut when only six years old at Drury Lane as Lord Flimny in "Gulliver's Travels", introducing an impersonation of Richard III, in which she made a tremendous hit ... in 1827, she came to America, making her debut at Park Theatre as Albina in "The Will" and the four Mowbrays in "Old and Young". ⁶

Franklin Graham tells us that 'her name became a household word, children were named after her, many young ladies affected her lisp and manner.' ⁷ During this season she also appeared as Letitia in The Belle's Stratagem. It is evident that Fisher's strength lay in comic acting; for her debut in the Montreal season, she played in She Would and She Would Not (C. Cibber), The Wonder (S. Centilivre), The Invincibles (T. Morton) and A Bold Stroke For A Husband (H. Cowley).⁸ Her acting background as a child performer miming such roles as Richard III would have laid a strong foundation for her resulting mannered style of acting and affected lisp.

On 6 July 1829, The Montreal Gazette announced that Fisher was performing in Quebec, and, as she would be arriving in Montreal shortly, a reprint of the review of Fisher's Quebec performance of Letitia Hardy in The Belle's Stratagem was printed in its entirety. A few comments from this lengthy passage provide some further insight into Fisher's acting style:

... every point made by Miss Fisher was raptorously taken in, and applauded throughout the evening ... she is in fact, a female Matthews, and in the justness of her conception of character, equal to that celebrated comedian.⁹

The comparison with Charles Matthews, a famous comic actor who reigned on the English stage during the eighteenth century, is instructive. Henry Irving, discussing elocution during a lecture at Harvard in 1885, had used Matthews' technique as an example:

The advice of the old actors was that you should always pitch your voice so as to be heard by the back row of the gallery - no easy task to accomplish without offending the ears of the front row of the orchestra. And I should tell you that this exaggeration applies to everything on the stage. To act on the stage as one really would in a room would be ineffectual and colourless. I never knew an actor who brought the art of elocution to greater perfection than the late Charles Matthews, whose utterances on the stage appeared so natural that one was surprised to find when near him that he was really speaking in a very loud key.¹⁰

Without opening the enormous discussion concerning the definition of 'naturalness', this excerpt suggests Fisher's approach to acting. From this comparison with Matthews, it can be assumed that her acting must have been characterized by a constant emphasis on the moment, provoking an immediate response from the audience of laughter or cheers for the cleverness of the performer's skill. Odell's comments confirm this:

It would certainly be difficult, from a glance at her parts in New York, to find the "line" of the brilliant new arrival. On September 13th she played Goldfind and exhibited versatility in the six parts of The Actress of All Work. Could one assume, from this exhibition, and Hackett's that mere cleverness ranked high in the theatres of 1827-28? I fear so.¹¹

For her debut in Montreal, Fisher repeated the role of Letitia Hardy in The Belle's Stratagem and on 23 July, the Gazette commented extensively on her style and interpretation:

The assumed character of a romping, ill bred, country girl was given with much comic effect, and displayed the talent for which Miss Fisher is justly celebrated but though played with great humour. We cannot exactly approve of the style of representation of the character, as it seemed to be rather a caricature than a correct and chaste personification ... too exaggerated to be natural.¹²

Although the Quebec and Montreal reviewers do not agree on the merits of Fisher's acting, it becomes evident that she performed in a very large and pointed style. One could imagine her manner as Lady Teazle in the first scene emphasizing the witty responses to Sir Peter's scolding. The tennis-like quality of each 'hit' can be seen in her rebuttal to Sir Peter's remark 'You had no taste when you married me': 'That's very true indeed, Sir Peter, and after having married you, I am sure never pretend to taste again' (II,i). The Quebec reviewer applauds her use of the 'point' or 'exclamation' style of acting while the Montreal reviewer concludes that these very characteristics undercut her presentation to the level of caricature. Odell concludes that her talent may merely be a form of clever technique.

While Fisher was undoubtedly popular with the Montreal audience, the Gazette reviewer on 10 August commented on her apparent weakness in the portrayal of such characters as Letitia in The Belle's Stratagem, Lady Teazle, and Violante in The Wonder (S. Centilivre). While he complimented her characterization of Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing, Peggy in The Country Wife and the multiple roles in The Invincibles (T. Morton), he concluded that

she is better adapted for producing comic effect than exciting feelings of the heart - she can delineate heroism well but it is a girlish passion ... she counterfeits anger to admiration, but it is not nor is it intended to be anger which excites the sympathy or fear, it merely produces a laugh.¹³

What this review tells about the audience's expectations of the role of Lady Teazle is considerable. Obviously, this role for the Montreal audience at this time was not purely comic. Lady Teazle, it appears, was a troubled woman, not a silly young girl, trying to deal with inner conflicts stirred by her new marriage and new home. The reviewer felt that Fisher played the role too superficially. He agrees with Odell's conclusions that Fisher's talents were primarily clever technique.

The Montreal reviewer concludes that Fisher's strength was comic acting. In fact during this season in Montreal, she performed mainly in comedies. Her performances before New York audiences, however, had extended to the tragic during the same season:

Clara Fisher returned on December 13 [1830] in The Country Wife (she must have been a delightful Peggy) and Old and Young. Kean (Charles) played Sir Giles Overreach on the 14th and united with the lovely young Fisher in Romeo and Juliet on the 15th.... To Marry or Not To Marry on the 18th, Kean's Shylock was harangued to mercy by Mrs. Barnes; but on the 20th, his Hamlet bade Clara Fisher's Ophelia get her to a nunnery.¹⁴

It is interesting to note that the Montreal reviewer applauds Fisher's portrayal of Peggy in The Country Wife and that Odell asserts that she would have done a good job with this role, as well. The spirited, young Peggy character would have suited Fisher's broad comic style. The reason why she did not perform tragic roles such as Juliet or Ophelia in Montreal was undoubtedly a reflection on the other members of the De Camp company. Odell noted De Camp's weakness as both a performer and stage manager; George Holland, male star performing with Fisher, was famous for his comic acting.

Holland, an actor of the old school as well, whom Graham described as 'invariably introducing even into modern characters its traditions and conventionalities; his effects were broadly given and his personality was essentially comic',¹⁵ would have provided that appropriate balance to the apparent lightness and broadness of Fisher. Like her, he appeared to favour the old school of comedy as characterized by the master, Matthews. These two visiting stars, who performed together in New York in 1823,¹⁶ presented a delightful but broad caricature of the older husband and young wife. The appearance of Fisher and Holland, two strong comic performers, in this production suggests the prominence of the Teazle plot. Holland had a distinctive acting style and he usually created specific pieces to exhibit his versatility:

On Wednesday, [1827] a Mr. Holland came out in a farce called A Day After The Fair; written we are told by himself and for himself. The piece has no great merit. it is a mere vehicle for imitations and transformations. To look at Mr. Holland's face and person we should scarcely take him for a Momus or Proteus. Yet he is a mixture of both. His hard, stern features are capable of great comic expression, and his stout frame is as lithe and flexible as a serpents. The part is that of a clever footman who personates half a dozen different characters, in order to expel a fidgety old gentleman from a house he has recently purchased.... Some of Mr. Holland's personations were surpassingly ludicrous. We never saw a more ingenious disguise than that of the opera singer. He sings a good comic song, and is skilful in catching the voices and cries of animals. ¹⁷

A further comparison between the acting style of Fisher and the approach of Holland can be drawn from the shared ability to excel at multiple roles - Fisher in The Invincibles and Holland in A Day After The Fair. Odell's conclusions concerning the 'cleverness' of the performer's performances again comes to mind. The following season, 1830, was also managed by De Camp with basically the same company and these two actors repeated their roles of Lady Teazle and Sir Peter.

During the 1831 season, there were many different forms of theatrical entertainment. The Garrison amateur company performed several plays and the Theatre Royal also housed its share of circus acts, horse shows and reptile extravaganzas.¹⁸ On the other hand, in February 1831, there appeared in the Gazette an announcement and letter from Mr Maywood stating his intention of bringing Mr Kean to Quebec the following August.¹⁹ In June the season was officially opened by the return of De Camp with a new company, Mr and Mrs Wm. R. Blake, Mrs Charles Bernard, Jas. H. Hackett, M. Fred Brown, R.C. Maywood, W. Duffy and Clara Fisher.²⁰ The School For Scandal was performed in mid-July and the 19 July review once again commented on the popularity of this comedy:

Yesterday evening, Sheridan's celebrated comedy of School For Scandal and the farce The Lady and The Thief was played before a tolerably large audience. Every part in the comedy was well sustained and the audience kept in constant good humour.²¹

The production starred Mr William Rufus Blake, described in reviews as an actor who 'might by some be looked upon as excessively tame when compared with Kean, but his representation possesses more of a resemblance to nature than any of the acting of that great performer', and Mrs Caroline Blake, 'a gay, lively actress [who] gets over all her parts with grace and vivacity'. ²² There is no cast list available for this production but certain conclusions can be drawn. Although later in his life, Blake played Sir Peter Teazle to his wife's Lady Teazle, it is doubtful that he played the old gentleman in this production. Graham commented that 'he was of fine appearance when young, but after reaching forty [in 1845] he became corpulent, which obliged him to change the roles of the sighing lovers to those of old men, in which he was excellent'. ²³ Odell apparently supports this conclusion in his description of Blake in 1824:

But the next debut at Chatham Gardens was one highly important for New York - That of William Rufus Blake, so long cherished by playgoers of the mid century and earlier. Blake, a native of Nova Scotia, afterwards somewhat too fat, but nevertheless, the Jesse Rural of his time, was at this time a slim, young man of easy bearing and light graceful style.²⁴

Four years later, Blake performed with his wife, the former Caroline Placide, and Mrs Leigh Waring at Chatham Gardens in The Rivals with John and Amelia Fisher, brother and sister to Clara.²⁵ Odell describes this cast, Blake as Captain Absolute, Mrs Blake as Lydia, John Fisher as David, and Amelia Fisher as Julia, as 'undeniably the best of the three [companies] so far connected with the house.' ²⁶ Therefore it is apparent that at this point in their careers the young couple played the roles of Charles and Maria. The reviewer in his comparison to Kean appears to prefer Blake's more subtle approach to acting to the' flashes of lightning' that was characteristic of Kean. One can see parallels in the reviewer's objections to Clara Fisher's broad comic style.

On 21 July, a new actress arrived in Montreal - Mrs Charles Bernard from Boston and New York Theatres. 'She is a lively performer and her style of acting is said much to resemble that of Clara Fisher', ²⁷ the Gazette reported. Mrs Bernard was joined by Mr James Hackett, the American comedian renowned for his excellent 'representation of [all] the Yankee characters that exist'. ²⁸ Later during this month the company presented School For Scandal with Mr and Mrs Blake, Mrs Bernard and Mr Hackett. Although the cast list is again unavailable, it is likely that Mrs Bernard followed Fisher and played Lady Teazle, with Hackett taking the comic role of Sir Peter and Mr and Mrs Blake playing the roles of Charles and Maria. Hackett, at this time, was a relative newcomer to the world of the stage. In 1826, he had made his debut at the Park Theatre²⁹ in New York. Odell reports on the style of this performer in a production of Comedy of Errors:

as adapted to dramatic representation and performed at the Theatre Royal, Covent Gardens.... Barnes as Dromino of Syracuse, Hackett as Dromino of Ephesus.... The revival was a great success ... Hackett's imitation of Barnes - and that is what his "acting" was - was so remarkable that it was very difficult to distinguish between the Drominos as they appeared before the puzzled but delighted audience.³⁰

Imitation and the art of mimicry were crucial elements of Hackett's acting style. In 1827, 'Hackett, on the night of his debut, September 5th did that - to us - incredibly absurd thing - he played Richard III in imitation of Mr Kean'. ³¹ His forte, however, was a more general form of imitation - the Yankee.

In 1832, Montreal audiences not only saw Hackett as Sir Peter but also as Solomon Swap in Jonathan in England and Rip Van Winkle in the play of the same name, both pieces closely associated with this particular actor. Later in his career, he tried tragic roles, performing Lear in 1842:

The feat he accomplished on September 30th, with a cast incompetent enough to have swamped the Lear of Edmund Kean.... Hill as Edmund ... [etc.] ... must have made the audience wonder if the whole thing was not got up as a colossal joke. ... I doubt if a worse cast of King Lear ever disgraced the Park stage; and that Hackett could win respectful hearing under such consequences speaks volumes for the real intelligence of the performer.³²

Edmund Kean would face a similar problem in Montreal in years to come. In 1832, however, Hackett did not tackle any tragic roles in Montreal. Perhaps he faced the same problem that Fisher had during her numerous visits. Also, remembering Fisher's engagements, one wonders how Montreal audiences compared Hackett's portrayal of Sir Peter with Holland's. If the young lovers were played by the Blakes in these two productions, the sentimental love strain of the comedy would have been considerably highlighted, an approach that was to be further developed in later productions. However, the popular Teazle plot, with Hackett and Bernard, would have rivalled the quality of the performance of Fisher and Holland a few years earlier. In fact during August 1832, an advertisement appeared in the Montreal papers announcing the return of Clara Fisher and once again she performed in School For Scandal. ³³

This season at the Theatre Royal was remarkable as well because of the visit of two rising stars. Indirectly the engagement of Edwin Forrest, performer in Sheridan's Pizarro and Othello,³⁴ and of Charles Kean, performing in A New Way To Pay Old Debts by Massinger, Richard III, Othello, Hamlet and Kotezebue's The Stranger, ³⁵ must have influenced theatrical activity in Montreal. Forrest, who would become America's famous tragic actor, acted in a violent style that was characteristic of the period. Charles Kean, only son of the famous Edmund, was a young man when he came to Montreal. While his acting remained unspectacular, he would return to England and leave his mark as one of the many famous actor-managers of the period. In particular, his concern for historical accuracy and scenic design might have been introduced to his fellow performers in Montreal. However, the reviewer, commenting on Kean's Shylock on 31 August 1832, recognized the inadequacies of the resident company:

Before dropping the subject, a word or two must be said of the actors to whom the other characters were allotted. They were, with very trifling exceptions, the shabbiest set that ever disgraced a stage. The character of Bassanio, and that of Gratiano, were the only ones that received anything resembling fair play. I could have wished Shylock to have cut Antonio's throat before the conclusion of the first act. I am positive if Shakespeare could have anticipated that his noble-minded Portia would ever have been given into the murderous hands of the lady who intoned it on last Friday night, he would have cut the character from the play. Nothing, I am convinced, but respect for Mr. Kean, prevented the "Gods" from driving her off the stage. The person who acted the part of the Duke, seemed to have almost as much conception of the character as if he understood not the English tongue.... A friend of mine observed that there was an intention in giving the part of the Duke to the greatest blockhead.³⁶

Regardless of their difficulties, the two men worked the season out, a season that remained isolated, for the following year a cholera epidemic closed the theatre.³⁷

When the theatre reopened in 1833, Charles Kemble and his daughter Fanny joined De Camp's company, Messrs Barton, C.K. Mason, Knight, C. Mestayer, Misses Clara Fisher, Mestayer and Smith and Mrs Sefton.³⁸ The arrival of the Kembles was warmly greeted by the Montreal audience who saw them perform in Venice Preserved on 27 July with Fanny playing Belvidera and Kemble as Pierre. The Montreal Gazette gushed, 'The rich intellectual treat, which all who attended the theatre last night enjoyed, will not be speedily effaced from their memories.' ³⁹ Again, one of the many plays performed was the School For Scandal. On 3 August the newspaper acknowledged the quality of the performance of the visiting stars and continued to praise the pair.

Last night, for Mr. Kemble's benefit, we enjoyed the representation of Mr. Sheridan's amusing comedy of School For Scandal; the house was crowded, though not to the excess on the occasion of Miss Kemble's benefit, and we seldom, if ever, saw the characters of Sir Peter and Lady Teazle and Charles Surface more effectively sustained than they were by Mr. and Miss Kemble and Mr. De Camp.⁴⁰

An advertisement, Vindicator, 2 August, confirms the casting - Mr Kemble playing Charles Surface, Fanny Kemble, Lady Teazle and De Camp, Sir Peter.⁴¹ Clara Fisher, still with the company, may well have played the role of Maria opposite Mr Kemble. As Mr Kemble played the role of Charles, the serious love plot between this character and Maria must have been highlighted, particularly when one remembers Odell's condemnation of De Camp's acting abilities a few years earlier. A shift towards a more sentimental rather than purely comic tone appears to be evident and Charles' role, crucial to both plots, is emphasized.

While Montreal may have been several weeks' travel from the theatrical heart of London, the thriving English stage of this period constantly influenced the growing centre of Montreal. What must be noted at this point is the number and variety of star performers visiting the Theatre Royal. As has already been mentioned, Charles Kean and Forrest performed during the 1831 season and Charles and Fanny Kemble in 1834. Previously, in 1826, Edmund Kean had performed at the Theatre Royal. Although the theatre was again closed by cholera in 1834, the following year another star visited Montreal, when the comic actor Tyrone Power⁴² performed in several productions.

During the season of Power's visit, 1835, the company, composed of players of the Chestnut Street Theatre Company of Philadelphia under Cornelius Logan's management,⁴³ once again performed School For Scandal. The announcement of this production comments on the merits of Sheridan's comedy, a play, judging from its frequent production at Theatre Royal, both popular and familiar:

The first of these pieces School For Scandal is justly considered the most brilliant and spirited comedy in the language. It has all the wit, grace and beauty of the best of Congreve's without any of that obsenity. judging from Mrs. Rowbothan's personification of other characters, we have no doubt that she will do every justice to the part of the wayward, extravagant and witty Lady Teazle.⁴⁴

The review of this performance was fulsome in its praise: 'Performed in excellent style. Mrs Rowbothan's Lady Teazle was one of the best representations of the character which we have seen.' ⁴⁵ In this production, the focus shifted back to the character of Lady Teazle and away from Charles Surface.

While the British stage certainly influenced Theatre Royal, just as influential was the American stage and touring stars. In 1836, another company from the United States arrived. The theatre was leased by manager Thomas Ward of the Washington Theatre:

The company included Mr. and Mrs. Thomas L. Ternan, William Abbott, John Nickinson, John Reeve, J.S. Ball, E. Eberle, Lewelly, Mr. and Mrs. H Knight, Mrs. Hughes, Madame Celeste, Herr Cline and Garner.⁴⁶

Once again, School For Scandal was produced, this time with William Abbott as Charles, Mr Ternan as Joseph, and Mrs Ternan as Lady Teazle. William Abbott, who played Romeo to Fanny Kemble's debut performance as Juliet in 1829, ⁴⁷ was a popular tragic actor. It seems appropriate that he should follow Charles Kemble in the role of Charles Surface. Montreal audiences had seen a fifty-eight year old Kemble in this romantic role; Abbott was forty-seven. Odell describes Abbott's characteristics in 1835, when he performed in New York the season before his Montreal visit:

On September 28th appeared William Abbott, long a favorite of the English theatres, too long, perhaps since born in 1789, he could not be expected in 1835, to retain much of this youthful figure or good looks, for the parts he elected to perform ... Abbott finally drifted into the stock ranks at the Park.... On the 29th he acted Charles Surface to Lady Teazle of Miss Philips.⁴⁸

Before he 'drifted into stock parts', he had performed Romeo in 1836 in New York⁴⁹ and would be hired to play with Miss Ellen Tree during her New York engagement in 1838.⁵⁰ Although Abbott was certainly a mature actor when he performed as Charles in Montreal, he was undoubtedly accomplished and well respected.

Mr and Mrs Ternan had also made their reputation in the portrayal of tragic roles. Their performance in Sheridan's comedy may have introduced the sentimental strain in the comedy. While earlier in the decade, Fisher, renowned as a comic actress, played Lady Teazle, another approach to the play seems to be suggested by the appearance of the Kembles and continued by the American company. The review of this performance in the Gazette on 12 July comments on the finesse of these performers:

We are not aware that any play has ever been produced in Montreal before, with so strong a cast of characters as this. Mrs. Ternan, in the heroine, was all that could be desired - earlier scenes full of life and spirit - killing character by whole sale, more however, for the purposes of displaying her own wit than from any malice prepense, as the lawyers say, and wheedling her scene, in which she is reconciled to him, promises amendment for the future, and to leave off her connection with the scandalous college, suddenly followed by her quarrel and resolution to seek for a separate maintenance was given with uncommon spirit. Towards the close of the piece, where she imprudently visits Joseph at his apartments and is discovered there by her husband, her acting was much admired and highly applauded.⁵¹

Once again, the part of Lady Teazle received special mention by the reviewer. However, unlike the comments describing Fisher's performance, this article refers to the successful exhibition of a variety of emotions mastered by Mrs Ternan. What seems to please this audience member was the constant shift of characterization in the part of the young Lady Teazle instead of a broad caricature. Another reason for the attention played to this part was the fact that Mrs Ternan was a much better performer than her husband. Although they frequently performed the roles of Charles and Lady Teazle, she alone received favourable notice. Odell describes their visit to New York in the 1830s as a dismal affair:

And now, on December 17th, came a rather pretentious pair - Mr. and Mrs. Ternan, he "from the Dublin Theatres", she "from Covent Garden". In fact, she still retained the name of Miss (Fanny) Jarman, which was of some distinction in the British Isle. This worthy couple had played in Philadelphia, just before they reached New York. Reviews I have read of their work speak highly of the lady, less enthusiastically of her lord. Philadelphia was shocked because he played Romeo without a wig; his own palpable baldness did not seem romantic to the Quakers ... as Joseph and Lady Teazle on the 24^th ... The actress appeared at a very bad season, and her repertoire must have seemed threadbare to the devotees of Fanny Kemble, Mrs. Barnes and Lydia Philips. In any case she never came back.⁵²

And, as the Montreal reviewer makes clear, Mrs Ternan's Lady Teazle remained the highlight - admittedly one of a very different type from Fisher's.

Later in the season, the play was performed yet again with another visiting star, the English comedian William Dowton.⁵³ Dowton first played Sir Anthony Absolute in The Rivals with Mr and Mrs Ternan. Again, the married couple played against each other in this play as Faulkland and Lydia Languish. On 3 September, a review of this production appeared in the Gazette:

The Sir Anthony Absolute of Mr. Dowton has long occupied the very foremost rank in dramatic representation.... Mr. Dowton ... has had the good taste to adopt Hamlet's suggestion on the subject, "to beget a temperance, even in his rage that may give it smoothness" . . . (rather than as others who have) stormed and bellowed at such a rate that we have been in dread of a fit of apoplexy ensuing from their exertions.⁵⁴

After a production of Henry IV with Dowton as Falstaff and Ternan as Hotspur, the company presented School For Scandal with Dowton as Sir Peter. This production marks another trend in theatrical representation. The visiting star took the part of the older husband who is almost cuckolded by his younger wife, rather than the part of the young romantic lead, Charles Surface.

At this point in his career, Dowton was not a young man.

On June 2nd, [1835] for the first time in America one of the very most distinguished of English actors, William Dowton, the great survivor of a classic school of comedy, one of the most polished performers in a long line of perfection.... Dowton was about seventy years old when he reached here, and some of his early vigour was gone; but his work was a liberal education to those who had intelligence to appreciate it.... On June 14th the great Sir Peter of the famous comedian was supported by Lady Teazle of Lydia Philips and the Charles Surface of Bulls.⁵⁵

Sir Peter Teazle, played by a good comic actor such as Dowton, could easily become the focus of School For Scandal. His relationship with his wife is tested just as the character of Charles is tried by his uncle. The famous screen scene revolves around the duping and discovery of Sir Peter. Also, the Montreal audience had already seen Mr and Mrs Ternan in this play a month earlier. Hence the excitement and interest in the production must have been generated by Dowton's performance as Sir Peter.

In 1837, the American stage again came to Montreal in the personage of Mr Oxley, 'the celebrated young American Tragedian', ⁵⁶ who performed in Hamlet, Virginius and the Tragedy of Brutus.⁵⁷ There was no regular company engaged to play at Theatre Royal this season because of the unsatisfactory returns that previous companies had suffered. Visiting stars therefore performed with amateurs. Following Oxley's performances, Sheridan's School For Scandal was performed with Mrs Preston as Lady Teazle and Mr Williams as Sir Peter. The advance press for this performance stressed the prominence of Williams' reputation:

Tonight Mr. Williams marks his first appearance after a lapse of four years.... The New Orleans papers are lavish in his praise and regard him as one of the most successful performers of old gentlemen on the American boards.⁵⁸

The reviewer for the Gazette, 18 July, compared Williams' performance with Dowton's and acknowledged the vast number of performances of this comedy that the town had witnessed over the past few years:

Considering the superior character of that part, and the numerous representations of which we have witnessed, particularly, in this city, by Mr. Dowton, the step taken by Mr. Williams of assuming it for his first appearance, was bold. We, however, were much pleased with his delineation of the old gentleman, and we do not presume to question the powers of Mr. Williams to appear in that or any other character of the same line.⁵⁹

Note the reviewer's high expectations concerning a production of this comedy; one can assume that his audience shared these feelings.

During the season of 1838, Ellen Tree visited Montreal. She performed in The Hunchback, The Wonder, The Lady of Lyons and Ion with considerable success, although she also played with an amateur company as no regular professional company was engaged. The reviewer commenting on her performance of Julia in The Hunchback, compares her style to that of Miss Kemble's:

It afforded Miss Tree an excellent opportunity (and she availed herself of it to the uttermost) to show her power, both as a comic and a tragic actress. Her conception of the character differs in no material degree from that of Miss Kemble, but her freedom from straining after 'hits' gives her a decided advantage over her predecessor.⁶⁰

These brief comments serve to add further insight into the attitude towards staging that appears to be developing in the Montreal theatre. Early in the decade, the Gazette reviewer had attacked Clara Fisher for a very mannered style of acting, a caricature rather than a personification. The reviewer also suggests that Ellen Tree's acting style was more subdued than Miss Kemble's. The difference in Kemble's Lady Teazle and Fisher's in performance suggests the beginning of a new approach to acting techniques.

Yet another approach to the play is found in the next production during the 1839 season. For a brief period during the nineteenth century, it became a popular fashion to see children play leading roles. Young boys and girls mounted the boards and declaimed from centre stage such roles as Hamlet, Lear and Richard; Clara Fisher made her debut as such a child actor in England. Montreal did not escape this passing fancy. Franklin describes the next visiting star in his survey:

The most notable star engagement was that of Miss Jean Margaret Davenport, then in her twelfth year. On the 5th of August, she appeared as Richard III, supported by her father and mother; Shylock, 7th; Norval, 9th; Sir Peter, 12th; Norval and Paul Pry in Petticoats, 14th; The Dumb Boy, 19th; Shylock, 20th; The Child of Nature, 26th; and a repetition of The Dumb Boy, 27. ⁶¹

Davenport, with her parents, was also supported by an amateur company, the practice at Theatre Royal for the past few seasons. While the result of the casting of Miss Davenport as Sir Peter may have been comic, another element must have been introduced into the play. A heightened sense of theatricality must have been apparent as the audience would have been aware that the good-hearted old man, Sir Peter, previously performed by such strong comic actors as Dowton, Williams, Hackett and Holland, was being played by a twelve-year old girl star. The Gazette was lavish in its praise:

This difficult character was performed by Miss Davenport in a manner so peculiarly and classically correct, as to prove her to be almost a perfect adept in her profession, and an artiste far beyond her years. When she first entered in the character of Sir Peter the metamorphosis from her general appearance was so complete, that she could scarcely be recognized; and we heard one gentleman in the boxes say - 'who is that old man? ' ⁶²

Although there was at least one audience member who apparently did not know that a young girl was playing the part of Sir Peter, most of the Montreal audience would have been drawn to this production of a frequently produced play precisely because of this unusual casting. The production of 1839 must have been something of a curiosity as the audience obviously knew the play well. Odell, describing the young performer in New York, voices his disapproval:

The new wonder was about eleven years old, and played with success (for those who like that sort of thing) a great variety of characters. She was accompanied by her mother, who, on the 18th, enacted Lady Randolph. The prodigy also acted Little Pickle, a feat more endurable. On the 20th, she gave Shylock, to her mother's Portia (I hardly restrain my scorn).... For her benefit on August 1st, she gave a mixed bill. Her first feat was in playing Sir Peter to her mother's Lady Teazle (a delightful spectacle).⁶³

A full understanding of the effect of a girl child playing the familiar roles of Sir Peter, Shylock and Richard III is impossible from a twentieth century perspective, but a heightened sense of theatricality, of the individual actor playing a specific role, must have resulted.

Although it is always dangerous to draw conclusions from newspaper evidence, the foregoing summary documents the 1829 to 1839 period at the Montreal Theatre Royal from a unique perspective. Not only can we be confident that a large percentage of the Montreal audience was thoroughly familiar with Sheridan's famous comedy, we can also observe the changing fashion in performance styles. During the 1833 season, Charles and Fanny Kemble visited the Theatre Royal and performed the roles of Charles and Maria, thus focusing the comedy on the sentimental tone of the love plot. Earlier, in 1831, Mr and Mrs William Blake had also taken these roles, supported by Fisher and Holland. While Fisher and Holland were very popular with the Montreal audience, they had performed the parts of Lady Teazle and Sir Peter earlier in this season: the second production would have focused on the sentimental strain of Charles and Maria. The role of Charles remained prominent during the 1836 season when William Abbott played the lover, but it was balanced by the equally popular Lady Teazle of Mrs Ternan. Interpretations of Lady Teazle varied throughout the decade but a pattern can be observed developing from Clara Fisher's broad stylized caricature to Fanny Kemble's more delicate thoughtful portrayal, and finally to Mrs Ternan's shifting emotional approach. While the part of Lady Teazle becomes increasing complex during this decade, Sir Peter remains the comic's role with little variation. Holland and Dowton, actors of the old school, and Hackett, master of imitation and mimicry, were followed by Williams, a newcomer to the stage, who continued the older actors' tradition of playing Sir Peter in a broad stylized manner. It is not surprising that it is this role that Davenport assumes in 1839 - the more complex Lady Teazle that the Montreal audience demanded by that time would not have been within her realm. While the historian's frustration at the lack of crucial reviews of specific performances and other supporting evidence prevents any firm conclusions, the available material suggests that the small theatre audience of Montreal had a sophisticated taste in their theatrical activities. The number and variety of performances of Sheridan's School For Scandal leads one to conclude that one of the main reasons that nineteenth century Montrealers went to Theatre Royal was to see a specific actor play a specific role. Their delight, judging from the reviews, was found to a certain degree in the resulting comparison of performances.

Notes

SIR PETERS AND LADY TEAZLES OF MONTREAL'S THEATRE ROYAL, 1829-1839

Denyse Lynde

1 FRANKLIN GRAHAM, Histrionic Montreal 1902, New York: Benjamin Blom, repr 1969
Return to article

2 RICHARD SHERIDAN, School For Scandal in Plays of the Restoration, ed MacMillan New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. All future references to this text.
Return to article

3 GRAHAM p 56
Return to article

4 GEORGE CLINTON DENSMORE ODELL. Annals of the New York Stage New York, 1927 111 p 335
Return to article

5 GRAHAM p 54
Return to article

6 ALSTON BROWN, A History of American Stage 1870, New York & London: Benjamin Blom, repr 1969 p 89
Return to article

7 GRAHAM p 54
Return to article

8 GRAHAM p 53
Return to article

9 Montreal Gazette 6 July 1829
Return to article

10 Quoted in Actors on Acting, ed. TOBY COLE and HELEN CHINOY, New York: Crown, 1970, p 358
Return to article

11 ODELL III p 327
Return to article

12 Montreal Gazette 23 July 1829
Return to article

13 Montreal Gazette 10 August 1829
Return to article

14 ODELL III pp 492-493
Return to article