SHAKESPEARE ON THE MONTREAL STAGE 1805-1826

John Ripley

A history and chronological bandlist of Shakespearian performances staged in Montreal between the construction of the city's first permanent theatre space in 1804 and the conclusion of Edmund Kean's visit in 1826. Some eighty performances included productions, readings, and adaptations of a dozen plays by such actors as the Allen-Bentley-Moore company, Seth Prigmore, Noble Luke Usher, Joseph Harper, Mr and Mrs John Mills, Frederick Brown, Emmanuel Judah, Robert Campbell Maywood, Lydia Kelly, Edmund Kean and Mrs Barnes.

Un manuel et une liste écrite des représentations shakespeariennes montées à Montréal entre la construction de la première place du théâtre permanent en 1804 et de la fin de la visite de Edmund Kean en 1826. Environ quatre-vingts spectacles comprenaient des productions, des lectures, des adaptations d'une douzaine de pièces données par des acteurs de la compagnie Allen-Bentley-Moore, et par des personnes telles que Seth Prigmore, Noble Luke Usher, Joseph Harper, M et Madame John Mills, Frederick Brown, Emmanuel Judah, Robert Campbell Maywood, Lydia Kelly, Edmund Kean et Madame Barnes.

'There is no Canadian Drama,' concluded J,E. Middleton as late as 1914. 'It is merely a branch of the American Theatre.' ¹ No area of theatrical activity in nineteenth-century Canada better vindicates Middleton's assessment than that of Shakespeare production. From the eighteenth century until the first salvoes of World War I, Canada's Shakespeare enthusiasts were catered to primarily by the same actors who serviced the American circuit - immigrants from English provincial playhouses, native-born American players of varying abilities, and errant stars from the New York and London stages. Until now theatre historians have paid little attention to Shakespeare revivals in colonial Canada. Montreal, one of Canada's oldest theatre centres, merits special attention. In the course of the nineteenth century its stages were graced by Edmund Kean, William Charles Macready, Madame Vestris, Charles Kean, Fanny and Charles Kemble, Edwin Forrest, E.L. Davenport, Tomasso Salvini, Adelaide Neilson, Charles Fechter, Henry Irving, Ellen Terry, and Genevieve Ward, to mention only the brightest of Shakespearian lights. To the record of their brief, profitable, and highly-praised appearances must be added the persevering, ill-paid, and unacknowledged efforts of a host of humbler figures who struggled throughout the century to maintain a viable legitimate theatre in the city, and to create a taste for serious drama among a population little inclined to intellectual pursuits.

As a modest beginning to the exploration of Shakespearian production in nineteenth-century Montreal, I have attempted to compile a chronological handlist of performances staged between the construction of the city's first permanent theatre space (1804) and the conclusion of Edmund Kean's visit in 1826. In a little over two decades audiences enjoyed some eighty Shakespeare performances - a record twentieth-century Montreal theatres have been unable to emulate. To flesh out the somewhat skeletal facts of the handlist, a few background notes on theatres, performers, and performances may prove helpful.²

Professional Shakespeare performances in Montreal date from 1786 when the Allen-Bentley-Moore Company of Comedians, a touring American troupe, played Richard III on 19 May, Henry IV on 2 and 23 June, and Othello sometime in December. In 1804 came the city's first permanent theatre building when Mr. Ormsby, an Edinburgh performer and sometime manager of Albany's theatre, remodelled 'the upper part of a large and long stone warehouse standing next door to the Post Office, then situated on St. Sulpice Street, near St. Paul Street.' ³ Here he presented Catherine and Petruchio, Garrick's mangled version of The Taming of the Shrew, on 30 January 1805. After a short season Ormsby returned to the United States, and a company of unidentified Boston players, assisted by local Thespians, essayed a summer repertory. 'I went one hot summer's evening to see them perform in Catherine and Petruchio,' recalls John Lambert, 'but the abilities of the Bostonians were totally eclipsed by the vulgarity and mistakes of the drunken Catherine, who walked the stage with devious steps, and convulsed the audience with laughter.' ⁴ A further reference by Lambert to 'an old superannuated demirep, whose drunken ... Desdemonas ... have often enraptured a Canadian audience' ⁵ suggests that Othello may also have been attempted.

The Autumn of 1807 saw the arrival of Seth Prigmore, an English actor who since 1792 had played comic old men in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere. Prigmore refurbished Ormsby's playhouse and re-opened it as The Montreal Theatre on 7 January 1808 with yet another performance of Catherine and Petruchio. A few weeks later he revived The Tempest with himself as Prospero and 'A Young Lady of this city' (probably Miss Hamilton, a local tavern-keeper's daughter) as Miranda. Playgoers were promised 'new scenery and decorations, particularly the Ship-wreck' (Montreal Gazette, 15 February 1808).

Spring brought Noble Luke Usher from the Boston theatre. On 27 May the youthful Usher played Othello to Prigmore's aging Iago, and was well received by the local press. Much encouraged, he undertook Hamlet on 2 June and Romeo on 1 July.

After a period of inactivity in the Autumn of 1808, Prigmore announced the re-opening of the theatre in December. 'Mr Noble Allport, from the Theatre Royal Covent Garden,' an advertisement proclaimed, 'has the management of the painting department, and the house is to be entirely repainted, with new scenery, and fitted up in a manner that will no doubt give general satisfaction' (Montreal Gazette, 5 December 1808). For the next couple of years audiences had little cause to criticize the theatre's scenic effects. The only Shakespeare play to benefit immediately, however, was the ever-popular Catherine and Petruchio, presented on 22 December with Prigmore and Miss Hamilton in the title roles.

The three Shakespearian revivals of 1809 featured visiting stars. In May, Joseph Harper, the original American Falstaff (John Street Theatre, New York, 5 October 1788), appeared for a brief season during which Macbeth was staged 'for the FIRST time in Montreal.' The play, the bills promised, would be presented 'with appropriate new scenery, painted by Mr Allport; dresses, decorations, &c.' (Montreal Gazette, 25 May 1809). Mrs Harper partnered her husband as the Lady. In August Usher made a return visit during which he played Othello on 15 August and Richard III on 25 August, In the course of the season Prigmore yielded the management of the theatre to Allport.

In June of 1810 Allport recruited John Mills, 'formerly of the Theatres Royal, York and Manchester, and late of the Boston Theatre' to play a six-night engagement, with the support of John Johnson, another Boston actor. Mills' first offering was Othello to Johnson's Iago. The production featured 'In Act 1st a new Street Scene, painted by Mr. Allport,' and in 'Act 2d, a new Castle Scene,' also limned by the manager (Canadian Courant, 4 June 1810). Two weeks later the company was joined by Mrs William (Sophia) Turner, 'formerly of the Theatres New-York and Charleston, and lately from the Boston Theatre.' She played Juliet to Johnson's Romeo on 18 June. In Act I playgoers were promised 'A Masquerade, in which Mr. Cipriani will perform a FANCY DANCE,' and in Act IV 'A FUNERAL DIRGE and PROCESSION' (Canadian Courant, 18 June 1810).

Mills assumed the management of the theatre for the 1810-11 season, just in time for one of the bitterest winters of the century. Early in January severe weather forced the theatre to close for several weeks, during which the near-bankrupt manager and his family 'moved into the theatre, making the green room his parlor and the adjacent dressing-rooms his chambers.' ⁶ Here he contracted jaundice and died in a howling snowstorm. Mrs Mills remained with the company, and Johnson undertook the management. Small audiences, inclement weather, and overwork made the actors' lot a nightmare. 'This city from its population, affording but one audience, it is seldom that a play can be repeated,' noted a contemporary journalist; 'consequently the performer has constantly new study on his hands; and the auditor would not conceive and hardly reconcile it to probability, that some of the longest Characters spoken on this stage has been studied in a few hours' (Canadian Courant, 18 February 1811). Needless to say, subtlety of characterization was rare.

Putting her grief behind her, Mrs Mills appeared on 5 February as Catherine to Johnson's Petruchio. Over the next few months Johnson took leading roles in three Shakespeare revivals. On 15 April The Merchant of Venice was presented for the first time; and on 13 May, Johnson appeared as Hamlet, with Mrs Allport as Gertrude and Mrs Mills as Ophelia. On 27 May he essayed Romeo, with Mrs Young as Juliet and the useful Mrs Allport as the Nurse.

In June, John Bernard leased the theatre for a four-week period, during which he played Shylock on 30 June, partnered by the Portia of Miss Poole, an actress recently arrived from England to join Boston's Federal Street Theatre. According to the Canadian Courant critic (1 July 1811), Montreal theatregoers had 'seldom witnessed a more perfect personification of the inexorable Jew.' The audience, we are told, 'listened with rapture' to Miss Poole's 'elucidation of "the quality of mercy &c." which speech was delivered in an appropriate and truly impressive manner.' Mrs Young was a satisfactory Nerissa, if 'a little too much en bon point to assume the manly garb' (Canadian Courant, 1 July 1811).

Bernard's revival of The Merchant was the last Shakespeare production Montrealers were to see for almost seven years. The war of 1812 brought the city's commercial life close to a standstill; and public entertainment was an early casualty of the ensuing depression. Over the next few years Ormsby's theatre, already decrepit, fell into utter decay.

In 1817, as Montreal's economic health returned, William Johnson Holt erected a new playhouse, apparently as an investment property. 'It was situated,' according to Graham (p. 34),

at 2 College street, in a block of stone buildings bounded by St. Henry street and Longeuil lane .... The central portion was called the Mansion House. The theatre, which was itself a wooden structure, extended back of the main building about sixty feet, and, small as it was, was amply roomy in those days for the English population of 8,000, having a seating capacity of 700 or 800. ⁷

John D. Turnbull, actor and translator/adaptor of the popular melodrama Rudolph, acquired the lease and opened the theatre in November of 1817. No Shakespeare was staged until 4 May 1818 when Macbeth was presented, followed a week later by Romeo and Juliet with a Mr Baker and Frances Anne Denny (afterwards Mrs Drake) in the title roles. On 30 November Hamlet was revived with Baker as the morbid Dane.

Early in 1819, W. H. Dykes, earlier a member of the Boston company, leased the theatre and brought Frederick Brown, brother-in-law of Charles Kemble, into the company as leading man. For the next seven years Brown's contribution to the city's theatrical life, and to Shakespeare production in particular, was outstanding. On 11 January he played Othello, with Baker as Iago and Miss Denny as Desdemona. His Kemblesque approach instantly captivated local audiences, and the press recorded his interpretations in considerable detail. Some notion of Brown's style, sensitivity, and originality may be gleaned from a contemporary account of his Othello, usually conceded to be his best part.

The Senate scene was a highlight of his performance. Here, we are told in a vivid Canadian Courant notice,

He entered with an air of great complacency; not as an offender, but with marks of the firmest confidence in the integrity of his conduct, and the probity of his judges. He remembered 'the services he had done the seigniory,' and there was an obvious tranquil security that those advantages, and the honesty of his intentions, would 'out-tongue the complaints' of the offended Brabantio. While the discontented father was telling his tale of grief, Othello turned from the scene with native modesty, and conscious of his rectitude, he shrunk from the observation of a man who could impute to him such a dishonorable stratagem.

The novel business of turning downstage, with his back to Brabantio, allowed the audience to observe Othello's face closely. 'The various sentiments of love, honor, indignation, and the importance of his relations to the state, were blended in his countenance in the most expressive manner.' But there was more to come. 'His start,' the critic continues,

when Brabantio exclaimed, 'There is the man,' united all his complicated feelings, and conveyed more than language could have expressed. The vindication of his conduct, and his 'unvarnished story,' were delivered with that confiding ease which circumstances naturally inspired. When the Duke commanded that Desdemona should be brought, Othello's spirit seemed to have flown with the words - 'Ancient, conduct her.'

'The frantic madness of Othello, at his last private interview with Iago' (IV.i) was highly praised. Brown's hysteria came as a marked contrast to the air of reverie adopted in this sequence by his predecessors.

The play's tragic finale was as powerful as it was restrained and dignified. 'The general tremor, which shook his frame as he entered the chamber, proclaimed his extreme perturbation, and his horrid purpose. There was nothing of that obdurate and calm deliberation with which I had been offended in other performers of celebrity,' the reviewer recalls.

His was the work of death, and his magnanimity of soul was not yet extinguished. With an air of anguish and hesitation, he threw himself on a sofa, and appeared lost in a trance. Suddenly, his injuries rushed on his half-relenting mind, and roused him to his fell intent. - His delivery of the following line, was peculiarly apt -

'Put out the light, and then' -

a long pause intervening, and turning round to his wife, he proceeded, - 'put out the light.' . . . Instead of falling, as is usual, on Desdemona's bed, he approaches her for the purpose of a dying kiss; but the enormity of his offence, and the sight of the pallid corse, appal his soul, and he starts back with an expression of the most consummate horror.

The writer professes himself gratified to find that Brown assumed 'the complexion of the black Moor, in preference to that of the tawney, the former being obviously designed by the author' (Canadian Courant,16 January 1819).

During his visit, Brown played Shylock (13 January), Romeo (20 January), Richard III (25 January), Hamlet (1 February), and Macbeth (3 February) to virtually unanimous critical approval. After his departure, the theatre featured non-Shakespearian pieces until May when the house closed for the season and Dykes withdrew from the management. The only Shakespearian summer fare consisted of readings by J. W. Wallack (4, 9 August) and Mr and Mrs Bartley, 'Of the Theatres Royal Drury Lane and Covent Garden' (15 September).

In the Autumn Turnbull firmly re-assumed the direction of the Mansion House Theatre. 'Particular attention has been paid to the Scenic department,' he informed his public. 'During the recess the Stage has been new modelled, and every thing done to render the various movements compleat.' Moreover, he promised, 'Additional stoves will be introduced and so arranged as to diffuse a general warmth through the house' (Canadian Courant, 27 October 1819). Sizeable audiences, however, were not forthcoming. Late in December, as a last-ditch stratagem, Brown was recruited. He played Othello (30 December 1819), Hamlet (28 January 1820), Shylock (31 January), and Lear (7 February), all to disappointingly thin houses. Despite Turnbull's vows of adequate heat, the theatre's temperature was positively arctic. Shortly after Brown's final exit, Turnbull decided to accept the inevitable. 'After the performance of last Friday evening,' the Courant (16 February 1820) reported,

Mr. Turnbull came forward, and, after stating the efforts he had made to contribute to the public amusement and his utter incapacity longer to continue them from the want of support, announced that, after a few benefits intended for the relief of the performers, (who, we are sorry to learn, are in a state of absolute poverty, the receipts of the house having not admitted of the regular payment of their salaries) the Theatre would be closed till a more favorable time.

Save for performances of Romeo and Richard III at the Assembly Rooms of the Mansion House Hotel by the child prodigy George Frederick Smith (a lad of nine advertised as seven) in the Spring of 1822, the legitimate stage was dark until the Spring of 1824 when a makeshift company undertook a brief season at the Assembly Rooms of Roy's Hotel, christened the New-Market Theatre. The troupe was led by Emmanuel Judah, a melodrama actor well-known in New York's minor theatres, with a Mrs Smith as female 'lead.' Catherine and Petruchio was offered on 10 April and repeated on 24 April; and Romeo and Juliet was featured on 22 May.

Unfortunately the fledgling company was obliged to compete with Blanchard and West's equestrian troupe which monopolized public attention throughout the summer. In May Blanchard erected a stage, recruited a number of performers from the southern theatres, and added spectacular melodrama and opera to his displays of pole-vaulting and horsemanship. At some point the New-Market players threw in the towel and joined the competition. In July of 1825 the Royal Circus, as it now described itself, returned for a second season to more lavish premises on Craig Street. Here on 30 August 1825 Blanchard presented Othello with Frederick Brown as the Moor. On 14 September Brown was featured as Shylock in a revival of The Merchant.

While in the city Brown announced that he would be lessee of the new Theatre Royal, currently being constructed by subscription. 'The interior of the building,' he asserted,

will be finished in a style of elegance and comfort, not to be surpassed by any Theatre on this side the Atlantic. Mr. Brown is now in treaty with Performers of established talent and respectability, both in England and the United States: and he pledges himself that no endeavour shall be wanting on his part, to procure a good Company, and to establish a regular and well conducted Theatre, on a scale as extensive as the public patronage will allow him (Montreal Gazette, 24 September 1825).

The new theatre, built at a cost of $30,000 at the western end of Bonsecours Market on St Paul Street, was a splendid house, seating some 1000 persons. The stage, probably modelled on that of the Federal Street Theatre in Boston, was well-designed and well-equipped. Brown's company, however, was rather less impressive than his plant. Most of his actors and technical staff were recruited from the personnel of the Royal Circus at the conclusion of its season. A few minor players from American theatres on the Eastern seaboard completed the roster. The playhouse opened on 24 November 1825 with a company of fifty-three: thirty-two actors and actresses, two musical conductors, five stage technicians, and fourteen musicians.⁷[sic] Brown's establishment was absurdly large for the size of the community he served, but not for the type of repertoire he planned. Between the opening of the theatre and his withdrawal from management the following September, Brown staged twenty-nine Shakespeare performances, including four each of Richard III, Hamlet, and Macbeth; three of The Merchant; and two each of Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, Coriolanus, Much Ado, and Catherine and Petruchio. Julius Caesar and Henry VIII enjoyed one airing each.

Richard III, Brown's first Shakespeare production in the new theatre, was staged on 28 November and repeated on 12 December. Cibber's version was, of course, spoken. The Canadian Courant (14 December 1825) pronounced Brown's Gloucester 'so perfect, that we cannot expect to see it surpassed by any one whatever, unless some peculiar physical fitness (not to be desired in ordinary life) should be applied to personify it.' No inconsiderable novelty was the Duke of York, played 'by little Talbot (a child apparently not more than six years old) who exhibited such self possession, propriety of emphasis, tone, gesture and satirical mien as to draw repeated cries of bravo! bravo! from all the spectators present' (Ibid). As Hamlet on 5 December, Brown was particularly commended for his handling of 'the more impassioned passages, in which he was fearfully energetic.' Judah's Ghost, however, 'though faultles as to sepulchral tone and immobility of attitude and feature, was defective from the absence of that height of stature and length of stride required to represent appropriately the "majesty of Denmark" ' (Canadian Courant, 10 December 1825). Brown's Shylock on 9 December was judged just short of flawless. 'Had Shylock's tone and air been more expostulatory and less reproachful in his first conference with Antonio,' noted the Courant (14 December 1825) reviewer, the personfication would have been perfect.'

As if determined to tax his resources to the limit, Brown announced for 19 December a revival of Coriolanus as adapted by John Philip Kemble. Act II would feature the now-traditional 'Triumphal entry of Coriolanus into Rome, attended by Lictors, Soldiers with spoils, Priests, Virgins, Roman Ladies - Banners of "Volsci," "Antium," "Corioli," "Aufidius," "Marcius," "Coriolanus," "Roman Eagles." ' Handel's 'See the Conquering Hero comes!' would simultaneously be rendered by thirteen singers. According to the Montreal Gazette (21 December 1825), the production 'would have done credit to a London Theatre'. 'The dresses and scenery (many of which were new) were,' claimed the Courant (21 December 1825),

elegant and costly; especially in the scene where Coriolanus received the deputation of Roman matrons, which was very gorgeous and tasteful: the triumphal procession was most imposing in number, costume, and scenical effect - the standards designed with unusual elegance, - in a word, the eye was dazzled by constant glitter and satisfied by the appearance of a theatrical corps so numerous that, we believe, the public had previously had a very inadequate idea of its strength.

A production of King Lear followed on 28 December, with Brown as the mad monarch and Eliza Riddle as Cordelia; and on 4 January 1826 Brown staged a lavish revival of Kemble's version of Macbeth 'With all the Original Music, as composed by Locke; with the additional Overture, Symphonies, Marches, &c. &c. as now acted at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden - NEW SCENERY, DRESSES, AND DECORATIONS.' ⁸ The cast boasted three male speaking witches, and a dozen male and female singing witches. On 9 January Romeo and Juliet was revived, with Brown as Romeo and the touring star, Mrs Jack Barnes, as Juliet.

In February, while Brown fulfilled an engagement at the Quebec theatre, Robert Campbell Maywood, a Scottish actor currently enjoying some popularity as a star in America, played a few performances at the Theatre Royal. His Shylock (1 February) and Othello (6 February) were considerable critical successes, and his Lear (27 February) was reckoned a triumph. 'The Lear of this Gentleman,' gushed the Courant (1 March), 'was one of the most finished, and refined pieces of acting which we recollect to have witnessed on any stage.

If we take him from his regal state, when dividing the kingdom, throughout the subsequent acts of the play, he was equally great. The working of his feeling at the ingratitude, and undutiful conduct of his favoured daughters was finely exhibited, and when reduced to the pitiable situation of insanity, his manner was calculated to produce the tenderest sensations incident to the human mind. His was a natural picture of a degraded Monarch, whose wrongs were so strongly felt, as to drive reason from her throne, but he did not even then suffer himself to be carried before a whirlwind of passion, or to storm and rage with a violence which would have destroyed the sympathy universally felt by his audience. - In every stage of his misfortune, Lear did not for a moment forget his former dignity, but was, in his own words, 'every inch a King.' Mr. Maywood evinced a just conception of the Philosophical madness which Shakespeare has given to the character, and so admirably did he represent the phrensied King, that we could scarcely believe it was only illusive.

Twenty-six-year-old Thomas Hamblin followed in Maywood's wake. He managed to make a creditable showing as Hamlet (22 February) and Macbeth (11 March) without creating any marked stir.

Almost from the Theatre Royal's opening night it was apparent that Montreal theatregoers were insufficient in numbers and enthusiasm to support a theatrical plant and programme on the scale envisioned by Brown. As the novelty of the new playhouse wore off, audiences dwindled; and throughout the winter the press wondered openly how long Brown could stave off bankruptcy. Perhaps, speculated more optimistic souls, a visit by a star of the first magnitude might restore the theatre to solvency.

On 21 January 1826 The Montreal Gazette carried an open letter, signed 'Philo Euripides' and addressed to Edmund Kean, then on tour in the United States. 'The purpose of this is to invite you in your professional character to Canada,' it ran.

I can assure you that this invitation does not proceed from a solitary individual. It is the voice of both Provinces; which, if obeyed would hail you with a welcome that would resound from Niagara to Montmorency. In this city an elegant and convenient Theatre has lately been built. The present manager, Mr. F. BROWN, is a gentleman of professional and private respectability; and I venture to assure you, that your appearance on our boards would at once be gratifying to your feelings as a man, and to your expectations as an actor.

Coming on the heels of the Boston riots, this offer of homage and hospitality must have been well-nigh irresistible to the embattled tragedian. On 8 March the Gazette printed a dispatch from the New York Albion in which Kean acknowledged the letter of 'Philo Euripides' and indicated his willingness to receive a formal invitation to visit Montreal. An arrangement was speedily concluded, and Kean arrived in the city the last week in July.

On 31 July, fresh from a month's rest, he appeared as Richard III to an overflowing house and appreciative critics. The Montreal Herald reviewer (2 August 1826) thought he had 'all the physical qualities adapted to the character, - short stature, aquiline profile, gutteral tone, and dark eyes, set so prominently that every motion of them is conspicuous.' He was particularly impressed with Kean's 'power of modelling his features into a concentrated expression of sneering malice, the effect of which, if in real life, on the person to whom it were directed, might be perhaps illustrated by imagining the sensation produced by having a razor drawn over the flesh, & lemon-juice sprinkled on the incision.' Unlike his critical confrères, however, the Herald writer did not consider Kean's performance beyond improvement. 'We think,' he remarked, 'that he occasionally showed an abatement of animation & somewhat of erroneous conception, especially in the dream-scene, in which the tyrant's corporeal contortions while asleep, his sudden awakening, and agony of horror before he recovers his recollection, have been ... even in this city, represented so as to leave on the mind a sensation of fuller satisfaction.' His Shylock and Othello, however, were greeted with unqualified praise, as was his frail Lear. On the strength of his success to date, Kean's engagement was extended for a further five nights.

On 12 August Richard III was again in the bills, followed on 14 August by Macbeth and on 17 August by Hamlet. For Kean's final appearance Brown revived Kemble's spectacular version of Henry VIII with himself in the title role and Kean as Wolsey. Despite a 'Grand Banquet in the Cardinal's Palace' in Act I, a 'Procession to the Execution of Buckingham' and the 'Trial of the Queen of England' in Act II, and the 'Death of Catherine' to the accompaniment of Handel's 'Angels ever bright and fair' in Act IV, the evening was not a success. 'We are far from saying that Mr. Kean did not perform Cardinal Wolsey well,' sniffed the Herald critic. 'Our objections are to the play itself, which, unlike Shakespeare's other works, was evidently written only for the age in which he lived' (Montreal Herald, 23 August 1826).

While Kean went on to enrapture Quebec City audiences, Brown remained behind to contemplate fiscal disaster. It was by now apparent that even Kean could not forestall ruin. In September, after a visit by Lydia Kelly during which she played Beatrice to Brown's Benedick in Much Ado, the manager conceded defeat. His speech at his 'Farewell Benefit and last appearance' on 25 September 1826 was characteristically generous. 'When I first appeared upon your boards, 7 years ago,' he recalled,

the kindness and hospitality which I received, both in public and private, so endeared the citizens of Montreal to me, that my earnest wish was to establish a regular and well conducted theatre, fit for the representation of the legitimate Drama. If I have been the humble means of accomplishing that end I am fully rewarded; and, I hope, that in every way I have fulfilled my promises, and performed my duty. - I have no hesitation in saying that I am, for a time, a ruined man; and it must take years of my own professional exertions to free myself from the difficulties in which I am now involved. (Montreal Herald, 27 September 1826)

If Brown failed to put Montreal's legitimate theatre on its feet, it was not for want of trying; and his efforts, if unsuccessful in the short term, eventually proved to be more influential than he could have imagined. The range of Shakespearian plays he mounted, and the calibre of design and stage management he pioneered, created a standard by which Montreal managers were judged for decades thereafter. To that achievement must be added the recognition that his sensitive supervision of Kean's visit established the city as a major stop on the itineraries of touring Shakespearian stars for the remainder of the century.

The absence of Brown's managerial skills was overwhelmingly apparent when Kean returned to Montreal in October for a few performances at the Theatre Royal under the sponsorship of George Blanchard, proprietor of the Circus. 'Never,' asserted the Herald (28 October 1826) after the Macbeth revival, 'did we see a play worse performed.'

The Representative of the King resembled nothing connected with authority, save that useful personage, a sheriff officer, and the greater part of the Thanes seemed worthy of their monarch. Never was Royalty so caricatured. Kean himself, accustomed as he must be to command his countenance, laughed in the sovereign's face. This was bad enough; but while he was endeavouring to depict the remorse felt by Macbeth, after the murder of Duncan, the propensity to laugh got the better of his self command. While he was striving to gain composure, a dog made its appearance from the room where the murdered Duncan was supposed to be lying, and looking up in Mr. Kean's face, commenced howling and barking, and was followed by several others in various parts of the house. This addition to the dramatis personae, completely got the better of the tragedian, and the scene being nearly over, he left the stage laughing.

The stage management for Romeo and Juliet (featuring Kean and Mrs Barnes) threatened to turn that production into a similar farce. 'After Tybalt's death, which as every body knows took place in the street,' the Herald reported, 'the scene changed, behind the body, to an apartment, and the deceased was under the necessity of moving his head to make way for the sliding wall' (Montreal Herald, 1 November 1826). This time, however, the actors managed to transcend the maladroit stagecraft and gave a more than respectable performance.

After the departure of Kean and Mrs Barnes, the theatre remained tenantless for more than two years. 'A well selected small company, to play regularly three times a week in Montreal, under a judicious, and punctual Manager would, we have no hesitation in declaring, be productive of advantage,' argued the Courant (1 November 1826). No manager attempted to prove or disprove that contention until 1829 when Vincent De Camp took up the cudgels where his brother-in-law had dropped them in 1826. De Camp's encounters with Shakespeare and recalcitrant Montreal audiences is matter for another tale.
 

SHAKESPEARE ON THE MONTREAL STAGE 1805-1826

John Ripley

1 'Music and the Theatre in Canada,' Canada and Its Provinces, ed. Adam Shortt and Arthur G. Doughty, Toronto, 1914, XII, 661
Return to article

2 Three book-length historical studies of the nineteenth-century Montreal theatre exist, but only one is published. Franklin Graham's Histrionic Montreal (1902) provides a useful account of major events in the city's theatrical history, but it cannot be trusted in matters of detail. Dates are particularly problematical. Patricia Conroy's "A History of the Theatre in Montreal Prior to Confederation" (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of English, McGill University, 1936), although occasionally helpful, is marred by her uncritical reliance upon Graham's dates and her failure to consult one of Montreal's major newspapers, The Canadian Courant. A. Owen Klein's "Theatre Royal, Montreal 1825-1844" (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Departments of Speech and Theater, Indiana University, 1973) is a welcome addition to the earlier material, as is his article, "The Opening of Montreal's Theatre Royal, 1825", Theatre History in Canada/Histoire du Théâtre au Canada I,1 (Spring 1980), pp 24-38.
    I have consulted these authors, but have relied primarily upon my own examination of all available issues of The Montreal Gazette, The Montreal Herald, The Canadian Courant, The Canadian Spectator, and other primary sources in the libraries of McGill University and the Fraser-Hickson Institute.
Return to article

3 Graham p 17
Return to article

4 Travels Through Canada, and the United States of North America in the Years 1806, 1807 & 1808, 1813, I, 300-01
Return to article

5 Ibid I, 300
Return to article

6 Graham p 31
Return to article

7 Klein dissertation, p 58
Return to article

8 Canadian Courant 14 January 1826 McGill University
Return to article

SHAKESPEARE PERFORMANCES IN MONTREAL 1805-1826: A CHRONOLOGICAL HANDLIST

John Ripley