Actresses of the Restoration Period: Mrs Elizabeth Barry and Mrs Anne Bracegirdle

By Susan Margaret Cooper

The Restoration represents an exhilarating period of English history. With Charles II, the ‘Merry Monarch’ restored to the throne, the country saw artistic and literary talent flourish. Charles was an enthusiastic patron of the theatre and helped breathe new life into British drama, reopening the playhouses after the gray years of closure under Puritanical rule.

One of the most significant innovations in Restoration theatre was the introduction of actresses on the English stage. This exciting new history is dedicated to the life and times of two of the Restoration’s most celebrated actresses: Mrs Elizabeth Barry and Mrs Anne Bracegirdle. It details their family roots, the beginnings and progression of their London stage careers, their retirement from the limelight, and their eventual demise.

Their lives and work are set against the lively and often dangerous atmosphere that epitomized seventeenth-century London and its theaters, and the places where Mrs Barry and Mrs Bracegirdle lived and worked alongside their fellow players, dramatists and others of their times. There are references to the actresses’ admirers and lovers within and without the world of theatre. Along with more favorable critical appraisals, there are explicit and derogatory lines, satirically written, regarding their supposed reputations.

This insightful biography places Elizabeth and Anne back in the limelight, and includes transcriptions taken from contemporary works, letters, poems and wills, all adding depth and color to this fascinating subject.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pen and Sword
• Release date: Jan 24, 2023
• ISBN: 9781399064828

Susan Margaret Cooper

Susan Margaret Cooper has for many years held a curiosity for England's colorful history, with particular emphasis on the Restoration period. Her enthusiasm for this fascinating age has led her to scholarly research of these times resulting in some of her works being published in 2011 and 2013 volumes of Oxford University Press Notes and Queries Journal. Susan also has unpublished pieces archived in Blenheim Palace at Woodstock, Magdalene College in Cambridge, and in the Library Catalogue of Trinity College also in Cambridge. To date, she has published seven non-fiction titles on subjects born in the 17th century; including one on an 18th century London actor, her ancestor.

Book preview

Prologue

The cessation of England’s Commonwealth in 1660 brought about not only the restoration of an exiled, impoverished king, but at last an end to the drawn-out and bitter puritanical regime. Protector Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658) had cast his oppressive will over England’s green and once pleasant land for far too long and, following his demise in 1658 and the subsequent failure of his son Richard Cromwell (1626-1712) to govern as second Lord Protector, his reign lasting a mere two hundred and sixty-four days, the monarchy was once again restored. The coronation of King Charles II (1630-1685) was held on 23 April 1661. Among much jubilation, the king finally took his rightful place upon the throne as ruler of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Most of the populace embraced the change and the inhabitants of the Capital were no exception. The Londoners’ pursuit of amusement, drinking, gambling, and leisure was inherent. Their insatiable appetite for the barbaric spectacles of bull and bear-baiting or staged cock fights and their love of fairs, street entertainments, pleasure gardens, brothels and taverns had not been fully slaked during Cromwell’s miserable prohibitions. Even enjoying traditional Christmas celebrations and Twelfth Night festivities was seen as a sin.

The reality of Commonwealth tyranny must have really hit home when this intolerable order was read: Die Veneris, Septemb. The 2. 1642. Ordered by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, that this Ordinance concerning Stage-Playes be forthwith Printed and Published. John Browne Cler. Parliament:

Whereas the distressed Estate of Ireland, steeped in her own Blood, and the distracted Estate of England, threatened with a Cloud of Blood by a Civil War, call for all possible Means to appease and avert the Wrath of God, appearing in these Judgements; among which, Fasting and Prayer, having been often tried to be very effectual, having been lately and are still enjoined; and whereas Public Sports do not well agree with Public Calamities, nor Public Stage-plays with the Seasons of Humiliation, this being an Exercise of sad and pious Solemnity, and the other being Spectacles of Pleasure, too commonly expressing lascivious Mirth and Levity: It is therefore thought fit, and Ordained, by the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled, That, while these sad causes and set Times of Humiliation do continue, Public Stage Plays shall cease, and be forborn, instead of which are recommended to the People of this Land the profitable and seasonable considerations of Repentance, Reconciliation, and Peace with God, which probably may produce outward Peace and Prosperity, and bring again Times of Joy and Gladness to these Nations.¹

The closure of the playhouses, so dear to the citizens’ hearts, had been the meanest attack on their cruelly withheld liberties, as can be seen in this passage from dramatist, poet and musician, Richard Flecknoe (c.1600-1678):

RICHARD FLECKNOE, 1653.

From thence passing on to Black-fryers, and seeing never a Play-bil on the Gate, no Coaches on the place, nor Doorkeeper at the Play-house door, with his Boxe like a Church-warden, desiring you to remember the poor Players, I cannot but say for Epilogue to all the Playes were ever acted there:

Poor House, that in dayes of our Grand-sires

Belongst unto the mendiant Fryers:

And where so oft in our Fathers dayes

We have seen so many of Shakespears Playes.

A whimzey written from beyond seas, about the end of the year, 52, to a Friend lately returned into England.

Miscellania, or Poems of all sorts with divers other

Pieces. Written by Richard Fleckno. . . .

London, Printed by T. R. for the Author,

M.D.C.LIII. [8vo]. pp. 141, 2.²

Charles II was well-known for his love of science, the arts, flamboyant dress, his fondness for the playhouse and his most pleasurable wont, the company and moreover the bedding of beautiful females. These apparently free and easy times now brought expectation of a more liberated culture for those who approved of his morals.

On 15 January 1662, Letters Patent were granted by King Charles II to Sir William D’Avenant (1606-1668) and Thomas Killigrew Esq (1612-1683).

William Davenant, who was knighted in 1643 by Charles I (1600-1649), had a colourful life. He was born in Oxford in 1606 the son of John Davenant who ran the Salutation Tavern, later known as the Crown Tavern, at 3 Cornmarket Street in the town. William was one of eight children born in Oxford to the Davenants. Their first six children, born in London, had all died in infancy and were laid to rest in St James Garlickhythe. It was believed by some however that the famous playwright, poet, and actor William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was William Davenant’s godfather, and even rumoured that ‘the Bard’ could have been his father.

William Davenant left Oxford after a short period there as a student which came to nothing. He became a page to Frances Stewart (nee Howard), Duchess of Lennox and Richmond, Countess of Hertford (1578-1639). While in London, at the age of twenty-four, he became infected with syphilis. A common outcome of this disease was an erosion of the tissues of the nose, which in William’s case can be clearly seen in an engraving of him, but this apparently unsightly disfigurement didn’t exclude him from becoming Poet Laureate in 1638.

He was a great supporter of the Royalist cause during the English Civil Wars, joining the king’s army at the beginning of the conflict but, on the Monarch’s defeat, he fled to Paris where he was appointed Emissary to France and later made Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. However, he was captured at sea and sentenced to death in 1650, but apparently was reprieved with the intervention of John Milton (1608-1674) who at that time was serving as a civil servant under the Commonwealth. William Davenant spent a year incarcerated in the Tower of London, but was released the following year. Because of Parliament’s strict laws of censorship, he cleverly turned one of his rooms at his house in London into a private theatre where it is believed that the first performance of an English opera, The Siege of Rhodes, written by him, took place in 1656.

William was once again imprisoned in 1659, after taking part in the Cheshire uprising following the death of Oliver Cromwell and, on his release shortly after, he again fled to France. After the Restoration of Charles II, William returned to England where, along with Thomas Killigrew, he became a patentee on the reopening of two London theatres; the Duke’s under Davenant and the King’s under Killigrew.

Surprisingly, Thomas Killigrew’s life had taken a similar path to that of Davenant. He was born into a large family of twelve. His father, Sir Robert Killigrew (1580-1633), was a courtier and politician and had been knighted by King James I (1566-1625) in 1603. Thomas, at a young age, like William, became a page to King Charles I. Thomas followed Prince Charles, the future Charles II, into exile in 1647 and from 1649 to 1651 he travelled to Paris, Geneva and Rome, and later was appointed the exiled king’s representative in Venice.

At the Restoration, he returned to England and was made Charles II’s Groom of the Bedchamber and Chamberlain to Queen Catherine (1638-1705). At Court, Killigrew held the reputation of a wit, gaining the title of the king’s fool and jester. Nonetheless, Thomas did have the honour of being boxed on the ears at Court in an act of lese-majesty by the infamous John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (1647-1680). Rochester was banned from the Court but, as a favourite, was soon returned by the king.

The historic Letters Patent were a watershed for females to be given the right to act upon the stage in a professional capacity for, until this change, female roles were the privilege of male actors only. A favourite among these was Edward Kynaston (c.1640-1706), who apparently portrayed a very convincing woman. The famous diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) called him the loveliest lady that ever I saw in my life after watching him act in The Loyal Subject, a tragicomedy by playwright John Fletcher (1579-1625). Today’s remnants of the custom must surely be the Molly in traditional Morris sides and the Dame in pantomime. These innovative Letters Patent would allow theatre audiences an entirely different view of stage performances than the plays’ previous all-male counterparts, thus adding a certain amount of credible genteel elegance, sweetness of voice and natural beauty. Although not thought of as a respectable career for women, there were no shortages of females willing to enter the profession.

Although a lengthy document, the Letters Patent give such clear and precise conditions that must be adhered to in the building and running of Restoration theatre. Therefore, I feel that selected excerpts will set the scene suitably. Nevertheless, it is not until the penultimate paragraph that the permission for women to act on the stage is set out:

CHARLES the second, by the Grace of God, king of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. to all to whom all these presents shall come, greeting,

Whereas our royal father of glorious memory, by his letters patents under his great seal of England bearing date at Westminster the 26th day of March, in the 14th year of his reign, did give and grant unto Sir William D’avenant (by the name of William D’avenant, gent.) his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, full power, licence, and authority, That he, they, and every of them, by him and themselves, and by all and every such person and persons as he or they should depute or appoint, and his and their laborers, servants, and workmen, should and might, lawfully, quietly, and peaceably, frame, erect, new build, and set up, upon a parcel of ground, lying near unto or behind the Three Kings ordinary in Fleet-Street, in the parishes of St. Dunstan’s in the west, London: or in St. Bride’s, London; or in either of them, or in any other ground in or about that place, or in the whole street aforesaid, then allotted to him for that use; or in any other place that was, or then after should be assigned or allotted out to said Sir William D’avenant by Thomas Earl of Arundel and Surry, then Earl Marshal of England, or any other Commissioner for building, for the time being in that behalf, a theatre or playhouse, with necessary tiring and retiring rooms, and other places convenient, containing in the whole forty yards square at the most, wherein plays, musical entertainments, scenes, or other the like presentments might be presented… .

And whereas we did, by our letters patents under the great seal of England, bearing date the 16th day of May, in the 13th year of our reign, exemplifie the said recited letters patents granted by our royal father, as in and by the same, relation being thereunto had, at large may appear.

And whereas the said Sir William D’avenant hath surrendered our letters patents of exemplification, and also the said recited letters patents granted by our royal father, into our Court of Chancery, to be cancelled; which surrender we have accepted, and do accept by these presents… .

And we do hereby, for us, our heirs and successors, grant unto the said Sir William D’avenant, his heirs and assigns, full power, licence, and authority, from time to time, to gather together, entertain, govern, priviledge and keep, such and so many players and persons to exercise and act tragedies, comedies, plays, operas, and other performances of the stage, within the house to be built as aforesaid, or within the house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, wherein the said Sir William D’avenant doth now exercise the premises; or within any other house, where he or they can best be fitted for that purpose, within our cities of London and Westminster, or the suburbs thereof; which said company shall be the servants of our dearly beloved brother, James Duke of York, and shall consist of such number as the said Sir William D’avenant, his heirs or assigns, shall from time to time think meet… .

And that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Sir William D’avenant, his heirs and assigns, to take and receive of such our subjects as shall resort to see or hear any such plays, scenes and entertainments whatsoever, such sum or sums of money, as either have accustomably been given and taken in the like kind, or as shall be thought reasonable by him or them, in regard of the great expences of scenes, musick, and such new decorations, as have not been formally used.

And further, for us, our heirs, and successors, we do hereby give and grant unto the said Sir William D’avenant his heirs and assigns, full power to make such allowances out of that which he shall so receive, by the acting of plays and entertainments of the stage, as aforesaid to the actors and other persons imployed in acting, representing, or in any quality whatsoever about the said theatre, as he or they shall think fit; and that the said company shall be under the sole government and authority of the said Sir William D’avenant, his heirs and assigns. And all scandalous and mutinus persons shall from time to time be by him and them ejected and disabled from playing in the said theatre.

And for that we are informed that divers companies of players have taken upon them to act plays publicly in our said cities of London and Westminster, or the suburbs thereof, without any authority for that purpose; we do hereby declare our dislike of the same, and will and grant that only the said company erected and set up, or to be erected and set up by the said Sir William D’avenant, his heirs and assigns by virtue of these presents, and one other company erected and set up, or to be erected and set up by Thomas Killigrew, Esq. his heirs or assigns, and none other shall from henceforth act or represent comedies, tragedies, plays, or entertainments of the stage, within our said cities of London and Westminster, or the suburbs thereof; which said company to be erected by the said Thomas Killigrew, his heirs or assigns, shall be subject to his and their government and authority, and shall be styled the Company of Us and our Royal Consort.

…That no actor or other person employed about either of said theatres, erected by the said Sir William D’avenant and Thomas Killigrew, or either of them, or deserting his company, shall be received by the governor or any of the said other company, or any other person or persons, to be employed in acting, or in any matter relating to the stage, without the consent and approbation of the governor of the company, whereof the said person so ejected or deserting was a member, signified under his hand and seal. And we do by these presents declare all other company and companies, saving the two companies before mentioned, to be silenced and suppressed.

And forasmuch as many plays, formerly acted, do contain several profane, obscene, and scurrilous passages; and the womens parts therein have been acted by men in the habits of women, at which some have taken offence: for the preventing of these abuses for the future, we do hereby straitly charge and command and enjoyn, that from henceforth no new play shall be acted by either of the said companies, containing any passages offensive to piety and good manners, nor any old or revived play, containing any such offensive passages as aforesaid, until the same shall be corrected and purged, by the said masters or governors of the said respective companies, from all such offensive and scandalous passages, as aforesaid. And we do likewise permit and give leave that all the womens parts to be acted in either of the said two companies for the time to come, may be performed by women, so long as these recreations which, by reason of the abuses aforesaid, were scandalous and offensive may by such reformation be esteemed, not only harmless delights, but useful and instructive representations of humane life, to such of our good subjects as shall resort to see the same.

…In witness whereof, we have caused these our letters to be made patents. Witness our self at Westminster, the fifteenth day of January, in the fourteenth year of our reign.

By the King. HOWARD.³

The permission for females to act in their natural roles, and indeed at times even to don men’s attire, must have caused resentment in some of their male counterparts. And no doubt, at the outset, women actresses were looked upon with great suspicion, not only by the actors themselves, whose careers were somewhat in jeopardy, but by much of the audience who viewed these newcomers as no more than women of easy virtue. But in time they rivalled their opposite numbers, not only in roles of tragedy and comedy but they also enjoyed the added advantages of a natural beauty, a sweet singing voice and their captivating dancing of jigs. Such cavorting was a favourite among audiences and in particular with rakes, bucks, debauchers and wits who craved sight of the dancers’ legs, and who off-stage lusted after them. In turn, such lechers proffered rich gifts of jewels and money to any who may be willing to accept them. And for a lucky few who caught the eye of the king, dukes, earls and wealthy men of quality, a luxury lodging or even the offer of a good marriage was the reward for such sexual favours. Two examples are pretty, witty, Nellie Gwyn (1650-1687), who relinquished the stage for the royal bed and moved into a fashionable house in Pall Mall which boasted a silver bed for her troubles and the actress Margaret (Peg) Hughes (c.1645-1719), who became the mistress of Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Count Palatine, Duke of Cumberland (1619-1682), cousin to Charles II. Peg and their only child, Ruperta (Hughes) Howe (1671-1726), reaped vast wealth heaped upon them by the dashing cavalier.

***

This work is the story of two celebrated Restoration actresses and close friends; Mrs Elizabeth Barry (1658-1713) and Mrs Anne Bracegirdle (1671-1748), whose early family circumstances and stage careers were very similar. In later life however, their reputations took very different paths and so that is where their similarity ends.

PART ONE

Mrs Elizabeth Barry

(1658–1713)

Chapter One

Restoration Theatre and Its Environs

Now, for the difference betwixt our Theaters and those of former times, they were but plain and simple, with no other Scenes, nor Decorations of the Stage, but onely old Tapestry, and the Stage strew’d with Rushes, (with their Habits accordingly) whereas ours now for cost and ornament are arriv’d to the heighth of Magnificence.

Richard Flecknoe: A short Discourse of the English Stage, 1664.

Seventeenth-century London was a dangerous place, its streets and alleyways fraught with danger from many quarters for the unwary, especially after dark. After the playhouses closed for the evening, the ‘better sort’ of the audience made their way swiftly by coach to the safety of their homes. But for those that were on foot, the lack of street lighting made the city’s walkways very menacing indeed. This was the often undesirable atmosphere of Restoration London in which the actresses Mrs Elizabeth Barry and Mrs Anne Bracegirdle, with many of their contemporaries, lived and worked.

The theatre districts, particularly those of Drury Lane and Covent Garden, were famous for their prostitutes, jilts, nightwalkers, whores, doxies, call them what you will, who took advantage of potential clients emerging from the theatres; here were found the wits in the afternoon, and rakes at night. These areas were well-known too for common thieves, pickpockets and for drunken unruly behaviour on the streets and in the drinking establishments, where all manner of unsavoury characters loitered.

Irish writer, playwright, and politician, Sir Richard Steele (1672-1729), co-founder of The Spectator along with his friend, essayist, poet, playwright and also politician, Joseph Addison (1672-1719), had this to say of Drury Lane in Volume 1 of The Tatler, 1709.

White’s Chocolate-house, July 25.

There is near Covent Garden a street known by the name of Drury, which, before the days of Christianity, was purchased by the Queen of Paphos, and is the only part of Great Britain where the tenure of vassalage is still in being. All that long course of building is under particular districts or ladyships, after the manner of lordships in other parts, over which matrons of known abilities preside, and have, for the support of their age and infirmities, certain taxes paid out of the rewards for the amorous labours of the young. This seraglio of Great Britain is disposed into convenient alleys and apartments, and every house, from the cellar to the garret, inhabited by nymphs of different orders, that persons of every rank may be accommodated with an immediate consort, to allay their flames, and partake of their cares. Here it is, that when Aurengezebe thinks fit to give a loose to dalliance, the purveyors prepare the entertainments; and what makes it more august is, that every person concerned in the interlude has his set part, and the prince sends beforehand word what he designs to say, and directs also the very answer which shall be made