Abstract
This article examines a previously unrecognised business relationship between a London theatre and a toy-theatre publisher. William Barrymore, the manager of the Royal Coburg (now the Old Vic) in 1822–23, seems to have given William Hodgson, the head of Hodgson & Co., exclusive rights to publish prints based on the Coburg's productions, in return for unprecedented coverage of them. This claim is based on circumstantial evidence, namely, the large number of Hodgson & Co. publications associated with dramas staged at the Coburg. It is explored through an analysis of twenty-seven twopence actor portraits, drawn and etched by Piercy Roberts, for Coburg productions. Twenty-three portraits publicised three new plays which were based on English history; they were intended to show that the Coburg could rival the ‘legitimate’ dramas of the patent theatres. Moreover, some of the actor portraits reflect the Radical and Foxite-Whig political ideas held by Barrymore and Hodgson.
Introduction
This article presents circumstantial evidence to argue that William Barrymore, manager of the Royal Coburg Theatre (now the Old Vic) from 25 June 1822 to 19 April 1823, encouraged William Hodgson, a bookseller, stationer and printer already active as a publisher of toy-theatre prints, to produce a series of superior-quality actor portraits based on current Coburg productions. Barrymore wanted these prints to promote the Coburg as a fashionable venue that would attract higher-paying customers to its boxes. Further, some of these actor portraits would disseminate the political ideas that he and Hodgson shared, and that were promoted in several of the plays that Barrymore produced. No documentary proof of this connection can be adduced. The plausibility of the argument rests on careful attention to the portraits themselves; to the actors selected and the roles in which they were depicted; and to the theatrical and political circumstances in which the portraits were published. To understand the significance of the portraits, four contexts need to be considered: the Coburg itself, and the attempts made by its managers to raise its status; the political situation about 1820, as it affected the London theatres; Barrymore's own political leanings, and the probable reasons for his alliance with Hodgson; and the contemporary practice of theatrical portraiture, from which these prints differed in their method of production, primary market and aim. A list of Robert's twopence portraits for the Coburg is provided in the Appendix (see online Supplemental Material).
The Royal Coburg Theatre
The Royal Coburg Theatre opened on 11 May 1818, in an unfashionable district south of the Thames. There, it was in competition with two other minor theatres, Astley's Amphitheatre (or the Royal Amphitheatre), at the east end of Westminster Bridge, and the Surrey Theatre (formerly the Royal Circus), near the Obelisk (now St. George's Circus, Lambeth). The Coburg's ambitions went beyond surpassing its local rivals. Its proprietor, Francis Glossop (1743‒1835) financed its transformation into an elegant, comfortable theatre which staged a varied programme, year-round. His youngest son, Joseph Glossop (1793‒1850), rejecting a career in his father's chandler's shop, selling candles and oil for lighting, became the Coburg's manager. Backed by his father's money, he rapidly set about making the Coburg's repertoire resemble that of the patent theatres. 1 However, the Coburg faced a hostile press that initially ignored it and then denigrated its pretensions.
Glossop provided a varied programme of the traditional fare allowed at minor theatres: melodramas, ballets, pantomimes and variety acts. As theatres could not perform on Fridays during Lent, during this period in 1819, 1820 and 1822, Glossop scheduled weekly concerts of excerpts from Handel oratorios and modern operas. In 1820, the new organ, distinguished soloists, and over 100 vocal and instrumental performers attracted an ‘Overflowing Audience’. 2 Glossop annually employed about 100 actors, some on short-term contracts. 3 He poached some performers and backstage staff from the Surrey, the Royal Amphitheatre and the Sans Pareil, but also hired actors from provincial theatres. 4 For three consecutive winter seasons, the Coburg melodramas benefitted from the fame and expertise of Thomas Potter Cooke (1786‒1864). 5 The Drama, published monthly from May 1821, considered the Coburg to be London's ‘most elegant minor theatre’. It praised the drop curtain, the magnificent scenery, special effects, costumes and combats, and commended the acting of T. P. Cooke, Mr LeClercq (the ballet-master), and Bradley (who organised the combats). 6 Glossop's own personality and lack of experience managing a theatre created discontent among the actors, some of whom sought employment at the Surrey. William Thomas Moncrieff (1794‒1857), hired as the Coburg's in-house dramatist and stage-manager early in November 1819, found Glossop so erratic and unreasonable that he left his employ by February 1821. 7 Glossop himself withdrew from managing the Coburg about June 1822, when his position was taken by William Barrymore (1789‒1847). By September, Glossop was known to be in serious financial difficulties; by November, he had left Britain to escape his creditors. 8
The Coburg's financial viability depended on attracting affluent theatregoers from the West End and the City to its boxes. 9 With this audience in mind, Francis Glossop funded annual improvements to make the Coburg more attractive, comfortable and luxurious. The famous looking-glass curtain and a ceiling of mirrors had been installed by 26 December 1821 and 4 April 1822 respectively. The etching, ‘Theatrical Reflection; or, A Peep at the Looking Glass Curtain at the Royal Coburg Theatre’, shows well-dressed people in the lower boxes. The women wear plumes in their hair. 10 Early in April 1822, the auditorium was redecorated. Playbills in November 1822 advertised a ‘magnificent new saloon, which can hold 600 persons and costing almost £1000’. The saloon had burnished gold ornaments, mirrors, casts of statues by Canova, and panoramic views painted by the Coburg's head scene-painter, Clarkson Frederick Stanfield. George Alexander Macfarren (1813‒87) remembered the Coburg at this time as ‘a place of high esteem and elegant resort’. 11
There is further evidence that the Coburg attracted a fashionable crowd. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attended the theatre on 16 July 1818, for a performance of Barrymore's spectacular North Pole; or, The Arctic Expedition and Usher's pantomime, Harlequin's Honeymoon. The Duke and Duchess of Kent came to hear the opera, The Travellers; or, Music's Fascination and Barrymore's oriental spectacle, The Tiger Horde, on 14 August 1819. 12 Mr Rorauer, the box-office manager, secured the patronage of the Austrian ambassador, Prince Esterhazy, and his wife, a lady patroness of Almack's, for his benefit night on 19 March 1821, and again on 23 March 1823. As well, Queen Caroline visited the Coburg on 26 June 1821, accompanied by Alderman Wood, an influential Whig M.P. for the City of London, and Lord and Lady Hood. 13
Soon after he hired T. P. Cooke in November 1819, Glossop signed Junius Brutus Booth (1796‒1852), a promising Shakespearean actor who had performed at Covent Garden and Drury Lane. Eager to capitalise on this acquisition, Glossop staged a version of King Richard the Third, on 27 December 1819. The patent theatres took out an injunction, citing their monopoly on Shakespeare. The production closed after five performances (for which the Coburg was fined £50 for a documented performance). 14 Unable to perform Shakespeare, the Coburg tried other historical plays. The Horatii and the Curiatii, by George Macfarren, had Booth playing the noble Roman, Horatius (3‒22 January 1821). This was followed by The Judgment of Brutus! Or, Tarquin and Lucretia, with Booth as Brutus (24‒29 January; the theatres were closed until 24 February due to the death of George III). Edmund Kean had been successful in the title role of J. H. Payne's tragedy of Brutus; or, the Fall of Tarquin, which had opened on 3 December 1818 at Drury Lane; he felt that this role, like Richard III, should be uniquely his. Booth, who resembled Kean physically and had a similar acting style, was a potential rival. Kean's supporters were determined to reduce Booth to playing supporting and minor roles. Predictably, William Hazlitt (1778‒1830), a committed admirer of Kean's genius, denigrated Booth's performance as Brutus at the Coburg, in an article in The London Magazine. 15 While maintaining a pose of impartiality, Hazlitt also criticised the performance of the three other actors he named, Higman and Henry Kemble, both formerly at Covent Garden, and Stanley, from the Theatre Royal, Bath. Hazlitt claimed that however well they had acted at the patent theatres, they were unable to keep in character, and ‘slurred their parts’ at the Coburg. The reason was an insuperable one, the hostility of the audience. When seated in the pit at the Coburg, ‘You felt yourself in a bridewell, or a brothel, amidst Jew-boys, pickpockets, prostitutes, and mountebanks, instead of being in the precincts of Mount Parnassus’. According to Hazlitt, this rude, petulant, ignorant, cockney audience, which was incapable of appreciating spoken-word theatre or good acting, therefore limited the Coburg to the traditional fare of minor theatres. Hazlitt also dismissed the play text (presumably both the anonymous The Judgment of Brutus and W. T. Moncrieff's Ivanhoe; or, the Jew of York) as ‘indifferent’ and the theatre itself as ‘diminutive’. 16
Hazlitt's criticism set the pattern for those defending the patents against the encroachments of the minors. According to Planché, at a performance of Edward Fitzball's William the Conqueror; or, the Days of the Curfew Bell, which opened on 17 May 1824, the Coburg attracted only a local audience, ‘the dingy denizens of the New Cut and St. George's Fields’. 17 Despite Planché's contempt for the costumes and props, he admits that ‘the house was crammed to the ceiling’. In general, critics claimed that at the minors, actors who were competent at a lower level of drama, could not speak their lines properly when playing upper class or royal characters. Furthermore, the plays were immoral and badly written, because they were the work of lower-class, uneducated writers. When actors from the patents took short contracts at the minors, critics justifiably ignored their performances there, but would notice them favourably when they returned to the patent theatres. These critics implied that theatregoers of genteel, educated taste and superior cultural judgment should only attend performances at the patent theatres. These attitudes form the backdrop to criticisms of the history plays which Barrymore staged at the Coburg.
Glossop did not again attempt Shakespeare or any serious drama set in England, except for Moncrieff's Ivanhoe (24‒29 January, 24‒26 February 1820). However, soon after Barrymore became manager, he commissioned a drama centred on a famous event in English history, the battle of Poitiers. The Drama, which occasionally praised the Coburg's spectacles and melodramas (particularly the visual aspects that an unsophisticated audience could appreciate), attacked Macfarren's Edward the Black Prince! or, The Glories of England in 1356, claiming that it was an unjustifiable production, evidence of Barrymore's incompetent management. The play was written in uninspired, ungrammatical prose; its dialogue was ‘vile common-place and turgid bombast, with stale jests and puns’ and occasional obscure words to create an impression of learning. The play had ‘no poetry, plot, incident, situation, or interest’. As the play was not published, one cannot judge its dialogue. Some of the plot was based on William Shirley's Edward the Black Prince; or, the Battle of Poitiers: An Historical Tragedy, attempted in the Manner of Shakespear (1750; republished 1800). The dramatist Richard Cumberland (1731/32‒1811) thought that lower-middle-class playwrights, lacking first-hand experience of upper-class life, could write sentimental comedies only about characters of their own class; when attempting genteel and fashionable characters, they would fall back on stereotypes and caricatures. 18
Whatever its defects, Edward the Black Prince was a box-office success. It ran from 19 August to 26 October (and at half price, on 28 October, and with changes to the cast, 18‒23 November 1822). Moreover, when Barrymore omitted Macfarren's name on the playbills for another drama based on English history, Guy Fawkes; or, the Gunpowder Plot, The Drama praised it as the best written and best acted piece that it had seen at the minor theatres for some time: the incidents were striking and interesting, the language was adapted to the characters, and it was well cast. 19 The third play about English history, Magna Charta; or, The Eventful Reign of King John, which opened on 28 May 1823, was also billed as anonymous, rather than acknowledging that it was by the prolific playwright, H. M. Milner.
Theatre and Politics
British politics and current events influenced the plays staged from about 1790 to 1830. The Tory government expected the Theatres Royal to uphold traditional (conservative) values, the monarchy, and the current social hierarchy. Audiences were adept at interpreting the political message being promulgated by rewritten classic plays and new ones. Not just the dialogue and the plot, but even the set could refer to the contemporary political situation. 20 These patent theatres had a monopoly on the staging of spoken-word drama, but had to submit new plays to government censorship. John Larpent, the Lord Chamberlain's examiner of plays, 1778‒1824, removed any criticism of the ruling classes and government policies, and any reference to popular, radical opposition to government decrees, even in plays set in the past. 21
By 1818, there were seven minor theatres within walking distance of Covent Garden. Legally, these theatres could stage only entertainments that had no spoken dialogue, namely pantomimes, ballets, music, song, acrobatics and performing animals, such as the equestrian showmanship offered at Astley's Amphitheatre. However, the minors had developed a repertoire of ‘illegitimate’ drama: melodramas or burlettas, whose dialogue was accompanied by orchestral music (sometimes nearly inaudible), interspersed with songs. In some venues, even this background music was omitted. Jane Scott, manager of the Sans Pareil (from 1819, the Adelphi) on the Strand, staged her melodrama, The Old Oak Chest; or, The Smuggler's Sons and the Robber's Daughter, from 5 February 1816, with spoken dialogue. 22 Although the plays performed at minor theatres did not have to pass the censor, these theatres practiced a careful self-censorship, as they had to have their licences renewed annually by the local magistrate. The licence could be withdrawn if their plays were judged immoral (leading to dissipation, indiscipline or criminal activity) or could be construed as libellous, unpatriotic, or inciting political unrest. 23
The Coburg's early productions have been recognised as being anti-Tory. 24 Its plays reflected the views of the audience from Southwark, Westminster and the City of London. In 1818, the City had voted for Whigs for all four of its seats; the long-standing Tory M.P., Sir William Curtis, lost his seat for two years. In 1818, Westminster elected a Whig (Samuel Romilly) and a Radical (Francis Burdett); in 1820, it voted for two Radicals, Burdett and John Cam Hobhouse. In the autumn of 1820, most Londoners sympathised with Queen Caroline against George IV's use of a Bill of Pains and Penalties to divorce her. Caroline was actively supported by Alderman Wood, former Lord Mayor of London and Whig M.P. of the City of London, 1817‒43, and Henry Brougham, also a Whig M.P., and the lawyer who led the Queen's legal defence team. The actor Joseph Cowell noted the vehement support for the Queen's cause at the Coburg and at the Adelphi Theatre. The latter's performers and audience repeatedly cheered the Queen on the evening of 9 November 1820 when the government conceded defeat and the Bill was dropped. 25
These London Whigs tended to be more populist than the majority of the Whigs in Parliament. The latter, who were mostly wealthy, aristocratic landowners, opposed policies aimed at social mobility and ‘democracy’ in the sense of giving all male citizens a vote in elections. How to make Parliament more representative and which tax-payers should be enfranchised were divisive issues. Most Whigs feared that political movements led by members of the middle-class and artisan working-class would soon degenerate into anarchy (as in the French Revolution), resulting in aristocrats losing their property, wealth and entitlement. They were suspicious of the Whig's radical wing (middle-class professionals such as Brougham), who co-operated with Radicals, most of whom had modest social backgrounds, as manufacturers and shopkeepers. The Whigs interpreted the Glorious Revolution of 1688‒89 as a demonstration of aristocratic leadership: they had replaced an unsatisfactory Catholic, Stuart king, with a Protestant, constitutional monarch. They were suspicious of the Hanoverian dynasty, as one set on accumulating more executive power, to become an absolutist monarchy like those of continental Europe. The Foxite-Whigs thought that the Hanoverians were ‘fundamentally undesirable’. 26
The plays staged at the Coburg for its first six years reflect these socially conservative views. In particular, many of the heroes of these melodramas, who defeat tyrannical rulers and the wicked, are aristocrats. They are helped by lower-class servants and soldiers, who expect no recognition for their contribution. These plays endorse the existing social hierarchy, rarely recognise the existence of the middle class, and present the working class as loyal, deferential, and committed to the same values as their aristocratic leaders. These characteristics are enhanced in many of the Juvenile Dramas published by Hodgson & Co. of plays staged by both the patents and the minors. 27
The Whig creed was ‘civil and religious liberty all over the world’. 28 However, the Whigs were largely ineffectual as an opposition until 1830. In some cases, they supported Tory government legislation. During and after the Napoleonic wars, the government curbed political dissent by passing and renewing the Six Acts. These limited free speech, freedom of the Press, freedom to associate and debate, and freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. The government also prosecuted radical publishers, paid satirists to refrain from producing political caricatures that ridiculed the monarch, and employed a large number of government spies, who infiltrated radical groups. Some Whigs supported liberal causes, such as the abolition of slavery, reform of the legal code and removing legislation that penalised non-conformist Protestants and Roman Catholics, thus enabling them to take part in civil life. Some Whigs had opposed the war as leading to higher taxes, impoverishing the population and augmenting the coercive power of the government. By 1820, they could see that the absolutist regimes in continental Europe had emerged stronger than before the war.
One of the Whig factions was centred around Henry Vassall-Fox, Lord Holland (1773‒1840), the nephew of the great Whig politician, Charles James Fox. This group, the Foxite-Whigs, was known for its admiration of French culture and of Napoleon, as a brilliant general who had initially defeated the absolute monarchies of continental Europe. As well as the usual liberal causes (a free Press, a limited monarchy), they supported revolutionary struggles in Spain and Greece. Their interests are reflected in some of the plays staged by the Coburg.
William Barrymore as a Radical or Radical Whig, and His Collaboration with William Hodgson and Piercy Roberts
When he became the manager of the Coburg in June 1822, Barrymore had at least eight years of experience as a stage-manager at the Coburg and two other minor theatres. He was known for his impressive staging of spectacle and pantomimes. Although he was not an actor, his father and wife were. The former had been employed from 1782 to 1807 at Drury Lane as a comedian, and subsequently at provincial theatres. 29 Mrs Barrymore was a popular actress at minor and provincial theatres in Britain, and later in America. Barrymore wrote at least fourteen plays, of which eight were published, though only after 1828, by publishers such as John Duncombe and Cumberland. These plays provide evidence of Barrymore's political views.
One of Barrymore's earliest melodramas was Wallace, the Hero of Scotland, first staged in Astley's Amphitheatre on 6 October 1817, again on 3 January 1820, and at the Coburg from 8 June 1818. In it, the Scottish troops democratically elect Wallace as Regent, as ‘Protector of our rights and liberty’. 30 The idea that the people have the right to elect their sovereign (rather than considering a sovereign as someone having the divine right to rule) was held by Whigs and Radicals. The catch-phrase ‘ancient rights and liberties’ was used by Radicals from the 1770s and was popularised by John Cartwright (1740‒1824, called Major Cartwright). He looked to a mythical Anglo-Saxon past, when ancient Britons were free to voice their opinions and determine how they would be governed, as a model for the nineteenth century. He supported universal manhood suffrage, annual parliaments, Catholic Emancipation, and separation of Church and State (the disestablishment of the Church of England). From 1819, he subsidised an influential Radical periodical, Thomas J. Wooler's Black Dwarf. 31
Barrymore wrote Trial by Battle; or, Heaven Defend the Right! for the Coburg's opening. In this melodrama, a cruel noble was brought to justice by invoking the ‘Gothic’ rights of Appeal of Murder and Wager of Battle. These traditional rights were supported by Radicals, against a recent ruling by the (Tory) Lord Chief Justice, Ellenborough, which set them aside. 32 On 20 August 1818 the (Whig) Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of the City of London attended a performance of Trial by Battle.
Barrymore's political sympathies are also indicated by his choice of other writers' plays. From 31 March 1823, in the weeks following Easter Monday (when families were likely to attend the theatre) he scheduled George Bennett's The Siege of Saragossa; or, Spanish Patriots in 1808, a dramatisation of the concerted effort of all classes (including heroic working-class individuals) to defeat the French invaders during the initial siege of Saragossa, 25 May to 4 August 1808. When this unpublished play was first staged, on 13 January 1813 at Norwich, it would have reminded the audience of the bravery of their Spanish allies, and the declaration of a Spanish constitution ten months earlier. This constitution abolished the absolute monarchy and the Inquisition, and established universal male suffrage, freedom of the Press and a constitutional monarchy. At the Coburg, the play ran from 31 March to 26 April 1823 (at half-price from 14 April). It was advertised on the playbill as being of interest to all classes in Britain, due to the imminent ‘Unprincipled Aggression threatened by France’, the French invasion of Spain at the request of the Bourbon king, Ferdinand VII. Having reneged on his oath to uphold the constitution and backed by the French Bourbon government, he was able to crush the Parliament, defeat the liberals, and reinstate the Jesuits and the Inquisition. Barrymore advertised the play with a double-sized playbill describing the siege that had taken place fifteen years previously. He employed a large cast (nineteen named characters, plus a chorus of seventeen and an unknown number of supernumeraries), and provided it with fourteen scenes, based on ‘accurate prints published by the Spanish government’and costumes ‘from authentic drawings’. The occasion for the play would have resonated with supporters of the Foxite-Whigs, such as Hodgson. Lord Holland had a long-standing interest in Spain and had corresponded with Spanish liberals about their constitution. 33
In 1821, the Coburg had staged plays supporting the struggle for Greek independence, another cause associated with the Whigs. Amherst's The Greeks and the Turks; or, The Intrepidity of Jemmy, Jerry, and a British Tar, ran 20 November‒8 December 1821. According to the playbill, it featured two English schoolboys (the Heartmouse brothers, played as a comic duo by John Sloman and Henry R. Beverley), their grandmother, Fan Fireproof, ‘ardent in the cause of Greece and universal Liberty’, and a freedom-loving British sailor, played by T. P. Cooke, who liberated a Greek leader, ‘a Prisoner against the Law of Nations’, and defeated the Turks at Salonika. The play was not published; the list of scenes suggests a series of humorous and melodramatic episodes ending in a sea battle. In contrast, The Siege of Saragossa shows a more serious, propagandistic approach. As with his other productions, Barrymore is concerned to convince the audience that it is seeing an historically accurate dramatisation of events, in this case an inspiring tale of collective and individual courage defeating a superior, invading force.
Barrymore's opposition to the monopoly on spoken-word drama held by the patent theatres was part of the Radical opposition to corporate privilege. The minors argued that this monopoly prevented them staging Shakespearean and other classic plays by which the audience would learn to appreciate good drama. As well, such drama taught moral behaviour. This function of drama, promoted by Garrick, was reiterated by James Boaden in his Biography of the actor-manager John Philip Kemble, published 1825. 34 Barrymore showed that the Coburg could fulfil the role of a moral instructor at least as well as the patents. He commissioned a version of George Lillo's The London Merchant; or, The History of George Barnwell (first staged at Drury Lane in 1731), which was performed at the Coburg from 26 December 1822 to 17 January 1823. Patent theatres traditionally gave a single performance of this cautionary tale for London apprentices just before Christmas. At the Coburg, Macfarren's Barnwell, the London Apprentice; or, Fatal Love, played for three weeks of the holiday period, with the added attraction of historically accurate costumes and scenery.
Before Barrymore decided to make Hodgson & Co. the Coburg's favoured toy-theatre publisher, he would have assessed their future financial viability and commitment to Coburg productions. Hodgson & Co., although new, was headed by William Hodgson, who had a background in the book trade. In March 1822, the firm had moved to premises at 10 Newgate Street; later it also rented a warehouse off nearby Warwick Lane. Hodgson combined his Theatrical Print Warehouse with a printing business and a bookshop catering primarily to young people (particularly boys) aged three to fifteen. It stocked all sorts of entertaining and informative booklets, joke books and songsters, drawing manuals, etchings, lithographs, sporting prints and a sporting magazine, illustrated books and maps, schoolbooks and stationery. The price of some of these items indicated that they were aimed at boys from genteel families, the group that Barrymore wanted to attract to the Coburg. Toy-theatre publishers printed their copper plates in-house. Hodgson & Co.'s ten rolling presses would ensure that a large number of prints could be produced rapidly. 35 Hodgson & Co. was prepared to produce the usual toy-theatre publication extras: actor portraits and combats, processions, pantomime tricks, theatre fronts and wooden theatres. Partly due to its printing capacity, the firm could increase the number of character sheets for each play it produced. The firm's innovation, the provision of Juvenile Dramas, allowed boys who had not seen the play to stage it accurately, thus encouraging more purchases.
In choosing Hodgson, Barrymore rejected the previous toy-theatre publisher with some kind of business relationship with the Coburg management, William West (1783‒1854). From late 1818 to 1822, West had published toy-theatre characters and scenes for eleven Coburg productions, starting with William Barrymore's El Hyder, the Chief of the Gaut Mountains, which opened on 16 November 1818, as well as actor prints and combats. 36 These plates were lettered ‘with Permission of J. Glossop, Esqr.’ 37 West showed his resentment at Barrymore's decision by lettering his sheets of characters for Macfarren's Edward the Black Prince: or the Glories of England in 1356, ‘Done without the Permission of Mr W. Barrymore’. West's shop, at 13 Exeter House, just north of the Strand, was in a good location, but he shared the premises with his mother's haberdashery business and a circulating library. He was sometimes slow to issue prints, suggesting a lack of money. West, even in his most prosperous days, boasted of only three rolling presses. 38
Barrymore's faith in Hodgson paid off. From April 1822 to August 1823, Hodgson & Co. produced the following items based on current productions at the Coburg: ten Juvenile Dramas, of which at least seven had accompanying sheets of characters and scenes; at least seventeen 1d and twenty-seven 2d actor portraits; and at least twenty-two prints of combats. 39 The firm published an additional two Juvenile Dramas of earlier, unpublished Coburg plays. Hodgson likely borrowed these scripts from Barrymore. The Juvenile Drama of Barrymore's melodrama, Wallace, Hero of Scotland was registered at Stationers’ Hall on 6 November 1822. The one for Amherst's spectacle, Napoleon Buonaparte, General, Consul and Emperor, was registered on 2 December 1822. 40 Hodgson & Co.'s commitment to Coburg productions did not last beyond August 1823, when it published a Juvenile Drama of Edward Fitzball's Thalaba the Destroyer, which ran 11 August‒6 September 1823 (at half-price the final week).
Barrymore's political inclinations were similar to those of Hodgson, a long-standing supporter of the Foxite-Whigs, with a Radical background. Hodgson, who had started his career as an apothecary's assistant, had been a prominent member of the London Corresponding Society from early 1793. He was arrested on 30 September 1793 on a charge of seditious libel, tried, and imprisoned for more than two years in Newgate. 41 He wrote a pamphlet for the LCS, The Commonwealth of Reason, and also translated d’Holbach's treatise, The System of Nature; both were sold by the Radical publisher H.D. Symonds, Paternoster Row, in 1795. Hodgson's portrait, drawn and engraved by Henry Richter, published 6 March 1796, shows a thoughtful intellectual. 42 Subsequently, Hodgson probably taught French while living at Stoke Newington, as he published a hefty (744-page) French grammar there in 1817. In 1821, he printed broadsides ridiculing George IV and lamenting the death of Queen Caroline.
Another important consideration for Barrymore may have been Hodgson's employment of a superior engraver, Piercy Roberts (1772‒1834). 43 As well as more than twenty years of experience in the print trade, Roberts had long-standing links to the theatre community (see Figure 1). When Pierce Egan interviewed the showman, Mr Richardson, the latter remembered Roberts fondly as one of a group of performers who in the early 1790s enjoyed convivial evenings of singing and drinking during Bartholomew Fair at Smithfield. Egan praised Roberts for his buoyant personality, genteel appearance and affable manners. 44 Before settling to a career as an engraver, Roberts had been sufficiently talented and well-known to perform as a clown at Carlo Delpini's benefit night at the Haymarket. From 1801 until the spring of 1806, he leased a print shop at 28 Middle Row, High Holborn. One of his prints shows him standing in the shop doorway, smiling at the appreciative crowd looking at the window display. 45 After business failures, he moved south of the Thames. Baptisms of his three youngest children locate him at Blackfriars (1815) and his wife's death at Camberwell (1816). 46 By mid-1821, he was regularly employed engraving actor portraits for periodicals such as The British Stage, and for the publisher T. Hughes. As artist-engravers habitually devised projects to keep themselves regularly employed, he may have approached Hodgson and facilitated the latter's negotiations with Barrymore. He was one of the witnesses when Hodgson registered his presses on 6 March 1822. 47 Roberts worked consistently for Hodgson & Co. from July 1822 to August 1823. As well as at least fifty, 2d actor portraits of performers at Covent Garden, Drury Lane, the Coburg, the Surrey and Sadler's Wells, he engraved fourteen ‘histrionic’ portraits, mostly of performers at the patent theatres. 48 He also engraved Hodgson & Co.'s show-card (to be placed in the windows of shops that sold its theatrical publications) from a drawing by Isaac Robert Cruikshank, and a series of portraits of pugilists, from 14 October 1822 to 13 January 1823. 49
Charles Incledon, in the character of a sailor singing ‘The Storm’, drawn by John Emery, an actor at the Theatre Royal, Covent Garden. Etched and published by Piercy Roberts about 1801; from 1806, published by Laurie & Whittle. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, 22.5 × 21 cm.
For Barrymore, who was intent on raising the status of the Coburg, Hodgson & Co. was therefore a more promising firm than West. The connection between Barrymore and Hodgson is never explicitly acknowledged, as West's had been. Presumably, both thought the prints would provide better publicity for the plays and the actors if they did not seem to be promoted by the Coburg management.
Actor Portraits
Early nineteenth-century performers used portraits as part of their publicity campaigns. Actors such as J. P. Kemble and his sister Sarah Siddons could afford portrait painters whose oil paintings of them would be shown at a Royal Academy exhibition. Print publishers would then buy the copyright, and have it engraved in an appropriate size and at a price they thought would suit the actor's admirers. 50 Iconic portraits cost money. Only a few performers could aspire to the number and kind of portraits that immortalised Sarah Siddons.
The comedian John Liston (1776‒1846), at the beginning of his career at the patents, commissioned a portrait of himself in character only after he was given a favourable notice in a theatre review. He then wrote to Thomas Hill, the editor of The Monthly Mirror, offering to lend him the painting so that it could be engraved at the end of October 1805. The actor portrait and a brief biography appeared in the periodical at the end of December. 51 Although the theatre where Liston was performing (in this case, the Haymarket) would have welcomed the publicity, it was not involved. However, there seems to have been some understanding between theatres and publishers that most of their portraits would be of actors at the patent theatres, not at the minors.
The British public had become accustomed to inexpensive, full-length actor portraits, as they were popular as frontispieces in cheap (6d) reprint series such as Bell's British Theatre (1776‒78). Some of these portraits were unreliable; they copied stock poses and typical costumes from more expensive prints. 52 Drama periodicals provided portraits of actors who were currently on the London stage; those for The Theatrical Inquisitor; or, Literary Mirror were of sufficient quality to be sold as separate prints. These frontispieces represent the taste of adult theatregoers. They are almost exclusively of performers at the patent theatres; about one-third are of actresses. In contrast, the toy-theatre actor portraits reflect the preferences of schoolboys, evidence that this group formed a separate market. Only about one in seven of the portraits are of actresses, and about half are of performers from the minor theatres.
When an actor commissioned a portrait painting, done while he posed in the artist's studio, he could ask for a specific look, and possibly request flattering changes to his pose, facial expression and costume. The prints made from these paintings recorded the names of the artist and engraver, as a guarantee of an authentic but enhanced, compelling likeness and an aesthetically pleasing work of art. The actor portraits produced by toy-theatre publishers were made more rapidly and cheaply. Artists who were accustomed to work for toy-theatre publishers attended theatres staging popular dramas to sketch the series of figures needed for toy-theatre character sheets. Experienced artists could make these pencil drawings while sitting in the pit during the performance. These and larger, full-length portraits of the lead actors were subsequently rendered as pen and ink and watercolour drawings to show the publisher. Having chosen the portraits he wanted, the toy-theatre publisher gave the artist the copper plates so he could do the etchings. 53 The resultant 1d portraits were drawn in a graphic style, similar to that used for the character sheets and for illustrations in inexpensive children's books.
Thomas Kendrick, the editor of The British Stage and Literary Cabinet, explained that to obtain the portraits he wanted for its frontispieces, he had his artists sketch actors while they were performing on stage. He explained that these artists were expert at seizing a likeness; besides, he could not afford highly finished engravings. 54 The resultant frontispieces were superior to the 1d actor portraits of the toy-theatre publishers, in that they had the face and sometimes hands and arms carefully modelled in dots, some included an evocative background and all were issued hand-coloured. 55 They influenced the 2d actor portraits published initially by Jameson and by West from 1818, and those by Piercy Roberts in 1822‒23. 56 The drawings were based on sketches made of an actor's performance on a single night, but supplemented by the artist's trained visual memory, his extensive stock of other actor portraits and perhaps his familiarity with the actor in previous roles. The process allowed the publisher and possibly the theatre manager to ask for changes to be made to the sketch before it was etched and engraved. Toy-theatre actor portraits promoted the actor they depicted, but did not necessarily reflect the actor's preferred image of himself.
In general, toy-theatre publications reflected the enthusiasms of schoolboys aged eight to fifteen years. Although these publishers produced portraits of performers from all the London theatres, their best-sellers were of combatants in melodramas at the minor theatres. West, in his interview in 1850, listed those particularly requested by schoolboys: Francis Huntley, Thomas Bradley, Thomas Blanchard and T. P. Cooke, all of whom acted at the transpontine theatres. 57 Hodgson & Co.'s 1d and 2d actor portraits confirm this: it published at least ten of Huntley (see Figure 2), five of Bradley, four of Blanchard (see Figure 3), and seven of T. P. Cooke.
Huntley as the Black Prince, in his second dress, in Edward the Black Prince. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #54. (Private collection) Etching, 24 × 19 cm.
Mr Blanchard as a medieval Danish knight in a fencing pose in Henry M. Milner's Temple of Death. By William Heath. Hodgson & Co. 1d portrait #46. (V&A, E.7077A-1905 (album 93.C.153)) Hand-coloured etching. 23 × 18.5 cm.
Altogether, Hodgson & Co. published about 110 1d portraits and 100 2d ones. The penny portraits (2d hand-coloured) rely on line, with a minimum of shading. There is usually only a ground line or a scribbled cast shadow behind the figure (see Figure 3). Most of the firm's 1d portraits published after March 1822 were drawn by William Heath, who also drew sheets of characters and combats for both West and Hodgson & Co. The 2d portraits (4d hand-coloured), usually have the face, and sometimes the neck and hands, modelled in dots. The figure looks more three-dimensional and the costume is more detailed than on the 1d portraits. Areas may be cross-hatched to indicate a dark colour, and embroidery and patterns on cloth may be exactly depicted. Usually, appropriate objects or landscapes are sketched in the background (see Figure 4). Almost all the firm's 2d actor portraits published from mid-July 1822 to the end of July 1823 are either signed with Piercy Roberts’ initials or are in his style.
O. Smith as Obi; or, Three finger’d Jack, in Obi. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #79. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, cropped to platemark, 22 × 19 cm.
‘Combats’ brought together the heroes and villains of the actor portraits. They depicted the duels, on foot and on horseback, that were a popular feature of many melodramas (see Figure 5). Hodgson & Co.'s combats were available in a wide price range, from 1d plain to a shilling plain, half-a-crown hand-coloured. These were desirable items. ‘Hodgson's New Combat in Raymond and Agnes’ was probably based on the Coburg's production of H. W. Grosette's Raymond and Agnes; or, The Travellers Benighted, which opened at the Coburg as The Robber's Wife; or, the Bleeding Nun of Lindenburg. It ran 28 August‒8 September 1821 (at half-price on 17 September, the benefit night for Monsieur and Madame LeClercq) (see Figure 6). 58 It shows Mr Blanchard as the hero Don Raymond, and Henry Stephen Kemble and Mr Collingbourne as the ‘Ruffians’, Robert and Jacques respectively, the sons of the robber chief, Baptiste. The copy illustrated is an example of the attention some boys paid to these penny prints. The owner coloured it, then pasted on the verso two layers of paper, carefully cut so that when the print is held up to a light source, the figures (which have no backing paper) appear to be illuminated against a black background, as though the scene occurred at night. Such involvement would reinforce the boy's memory of the scene and implies his identification with the hero's desperate struggle. The combat effectively publicises the melodrama. It also shows that the schoolboy owners of toy-theatre prints were interested in a print's subject rather than its aesthetic qualities.
West's equestrian combat, Mr Huntley as Wallace and Mr Gallot as Mentieth, in Barrymore's ‘grand historical melodrama’, Wallace, the Hero of Scotland. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, 26.5 × 21 cm.
Combat in Raymond and Agnes, Mr Blanchard as the hero Don Raymond, and Henry Stephen Kemble as Robert, the robber. Hodgson & Co. combat. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, 19 × 23 cm, height extended by a backing sheet to 22 cm.
Hodgson & Co.'s 2d Actor Portraits of Coburg Productions
More than a quarter (twenty-seven of the seventy-seven Hodgson & Co. 2d prints that I have seen), of a probable total of about 100, depict Coburg performers. No other theatre has so many portraits associated with it. I have seen only eighteen of Covent Garden performers, and fourteen of Drury Lane actors (of which ten are of Edmund Kean), even though later collectors have probably preferred portraits of the well-known actors from the patents to the unknowns from the minors.
These portraits associated with the Coburg can be divided into two groups. Four are of leading actors in three plays. These include the two earliest 2d portraits for Coburg productions, #40, of Thomas Bradley, and #42, of Joseph Grimaldi, published on 13 and 14 July 1822 respectively (see the Appendix (online Supplemental Material) and Figure 7). A further two seem to be a souvenir pair: #76 of Mrs Barrymore as Rosa, and #79 of O. Smith as Obi (see Figure 4), when they performed together in a version of J. Fawcett's Obi; or, Three fingered Jack on 18 and 21 September 1822. The 21st was Mrs Barrymore's final night at the Coburg before she left for Edinburgh; Smith was described as from the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. This pairing was a repeat of their performance when the play was first staged at the Coburg, 2‒13 August and 4‒9 September 1820. 59
Mr Grimaldi as Clown. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #[42]. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, 24 × 19.5 cm.
The second group of 2d actor portraits is associated with three, new, history dramas. Fourteen portraits depict eleven actors in Macfarren's Edward the Black Prince; or, the Glories of England in 1356. Three of the same actors got portraits for their roles in Macfarren's Guy Fawkes; or Gunpowder Treason. Six are from Milner's Magna Charta; or, The Eventful Reign of King John. There are no 1d actor portraits associated with these productions. Providing fourteen actor portraits for any production, let alone one at a minor theatre, was unprecedented. Hodgson & Co. published at least ten 2d actor portraits for Richard Brinsley Sheridan's Pizarro (1799), but they were of established performers who would be expected to play the same or similar roles for years. Drury Lane gave a dozen performances of the play in 1823, six in 1823, and five in 1824.
The eleven actors from Edward the Black Prince who were given 2d portraits were not the best actors in the production. In reviewing the production, The Drama praised the acting of Huntley, O. Smith, Gomersal and Mrs Barrymore (described as ‘elegant’), and the combat skills of Bradley. Anderton, as King John of France, looked ‘as stupid as the historical king must have been’ to have lost the battle. The comics (Sloman, Beverley, Davidge and Harwood) were, as usual, ‘limited’. 60 Cooper as King Edward (see Figure 8), and Gale as Prince Charles of France, were not mentioned. In the past, Cooper and Gale had often appeared at the bottom of cast lists on Coburg playbills, sometimes in the chorus, or as one of a band of robbers. Anderton habitually played small named parts, and Harwood mainly comic servants and peasants. Since Macfarren's text was never published, only the Juvenile Drama provides a rough guide to the importance of minor characters. In it, Cooper, Gale, Anderton and Harwood each speak only a few lines. Hodgson & Co. published no portrait of them in a different role.
Mr Cooper as King Edward III in Edward the Black Prince. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #72. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, 23 × 18 cm.
The portraits as a group may have advertised the talents of the Coburg's new head of its costume department, Mr Smythers (or Smithers), appointed by 29 July 1822. The Drama admitted that the costumes for Edward the Black Prince were (as usual) lavish: they ensured that the scenes were ‘gaudy and glittering, magnificent and showy’ (p. 155). The critic praised the elegant dress of O. Smith as Sir James Audley, that displayed his figure to advantage. But surcoats over a complete suit of armour did not flatter all actors. S. H. Chapman as the Earl of Salisbury was reminiscent ‘of a hog in armour, or a chimney-sweep on May-day’ (pp. 154‒55). Chapman was not one of the actors favoured with a 2d portrait, and his name disappeared from the following day's playbill. Although not historically accurate (as claimed on the playbill), costumes such as those for Edward the Black Prince (see Figure 2) and King Edward (see Figure 8) would have looked medieval to an audience that expected Richard III to appear in Elizabethan doublet and hose.
The women's dresses were made by Mrs Cross and Mrs Follet. They combine a nod to historical dress with contemporary fashion and theatrical conventions. Mrs Barrymore in a breeches role (see Figure 9) wears a knee-length tunic with a fashionable high waist over an embroidered shirt, an ensemble as attractive as those on actresses in the patent theatres. Mrs Stanley as Lady Constance in Magna Charta (see Figure 10) wears a costume resembling that of Mrs Siddons playing Queen Katherine in Henry VIII at Covent Garden: an impressive Tudor-style gown with a square neckline, embroidery on the stomacher, hem and bell-shaped sleeves (lined with ermine), a pearl necklace and bracelets, and a coif with a band beneath the chin. 61 This resemblance would have reminded the audience of Lady Constance's royal status, and associated this serious history play with Shakespearean drama staged at Covent Garden. The politically minded might have connected the sufferings of Constance with those of Queen Katherine and Queen Caroline.
Mrs. W. Barrymore, as Edward's page in Edward the Black Prince. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #59. (Private collection). Etching, height 26 cm. cropped at sides.
Mrs Stanley as Lady Constance, in Magna Charta. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #96. (Private collection) Etching, 26 × 20 cm.
One problem with analysing the 2d portraits is that some have not survived, or not survived with the imprint intact so that they can be identified as having been published by Hodgson & Co. This may be the case with one of those for Guy Fawkes; or, Gunpowder Treason. The three extant actor portraits are of favourites with the Coburg audience, Huntley, Sloman and Beverley (see Figure 11) but there is none for O. Smith, in the role of Guy Fawkes. The Drama praised his acting, as showing his demon-like, ‘dark, designing, unbending ferocity’, and revengeful, saturnine disposition. 62 Surely schoolboys would have wanted a portrait of this villain.
H. Beverley, as King James I, in Guy Fawkes. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #77. (Private collection) Etching, 25 × 18.5 cm.
Milner's Magna Charta opened a week after Barrymore had left the Coburg, but like the previous two, challenges the patent theatres’ exclusive claim to staging serious historical drama. Almost certainly, Barrymore had been involved in its commissioning and production, as it required thirty-six named performers, plus supernumeraries for the scenes at court, a banquet illustrative of ‘feudal splendour’, a battle (foot and horse), and long processions with horses, banners and historically accurate costumes. 63 The play was partly based on Shakespeare's The Life and Death of King John. Charles Kemble had staged the Shakespeare play at Covent Garden less than two months before the Coburg opened Magna Charta, emphasising by its title the event Shakespeare omits. 64 The actor portrait of the hero, Baron Falconbridge, played by Rowbotham, may be among the portraits I have not found. 65 Four other actors are Coburg favourites: Huntley as King John (see Figure 12), O. Smith as the villain Herbert de Burgh, Sloman as a comic Frenchman and Mrs Stanley as the implacable Lady Constance (see Figure 10). T. Hill played Henrique, Baron Falconbridge's heroic French squire, a character designed to appeal to schoolboys. The portrait of Howell in the small part of Robert de Fitzwalter (see Figure 13) may be due to his taking the more prominent role of Baron Falconbridge for two weeks. Due to Huntley's illness 12‒24 May 1823, Rowbotham was allocated the part of King John, and his former part was taken by Howell.
Huntley as King John in Magna Charta. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #94. (Private collection) Hand-coloured etching, 24 × 20 cm.
Mr Howell as Robert de Fitzwalter in Magna Charta. Hodgson & Co. 2d portrait #97. (Private collection) Etching, 23 × 18 cm.
The political views of Barrymore and Hodgson are reflected in the history dramas, and reinforced by some of the actor portraits. The way royal characters are depicted indicates which ones are admirable (dedicated to serving their people), and which ones tyrannically wield arbitrary executive power (but will be defeated by concerted aristocratic opposition).
In the Juvenile Drama of Edward the Black Prince, the Prince is a courageous, young army commander and a model of chivalry. He treats his nobles as friends, consults them, acknowledges their steadfast loyalty and fighting skills, and rewards them generously. The four portraits emphasise various aspects of his admirable character: #54, as a combatant; #58, as a magnanimous host at the banquet after the battle; #65, as modest in victory, acknowledging the cheers of the London populace; #61, as taking part in royal ceremonies in his Garter robes. The politically minded in the audience would have contrasted him with the former Prince of Wales, now King George IV. Forbidden by his father to take an active part in the Napoleonic wars, the Prince had raised a regiment, but remained in England. He was satirised as being more interested in the design of uniforms than in winning the war. Whereas the Black Prince had the common touch, energy and purpose, George was afraid to attend public events in London and was known to be fat, lazy, self-centred and extravagant.
The play is patriotic. Edward III turns the suspicions of one of his nobles into a moral lesson with the founding of the Order of the Garter. However, the portrait of Cooper as King Edward (#72, see Figure 8) suggests a weak character, whose authority has been undermined by Lord Salisbury's suspicion of his integrity and by court intrigues. The sumptuous robes, large crown and long sceptre present him as a tired figurehead. For Whigs and Radicals, the crown and sceptre do not confer a divine right to rule. Power resides with the people, whose loyalty the king must earn. Whatever his importance in the stage play, in the Juvenile Drama, King Edward appears in only three scenes (14, 17, 20). The emphasis is on the Prince, not the King, as a role model.
In assessing Roberts’ portraits, it is useful to contrast them with imagined, idealised ones that enhance the actor and the role. In Guy Fawkes, the text presents King James as ineffectual, crass, puny and cowardly. The portrait subtly ensures that this is how he is remembered. Since Beverley usually played comic roles, including cross-dressed parts, by casting Beverley as James, Barrymore had prepared the audience to laugh at the King. His costume was probably based on seventeenth-century engravings of portraits of James, such as one published by Peter Stent and John Overton. However, Beverley's costume exaggerates the length of the feathers on his hat and of the ties at his knees, both of which could be used for comic effect. James's costume is more elaborate than that worn by the pathetic Sir Tristram Collywobble, but the doublet and hose are similar. As a result, Beverley's James looks less dignified, assured and authoritive than he could have, had the costume department followed Sir Anthony Van Dyck's more flattering portrait of James, wearing a dark doublet and hose. (see Figure 11). 66 Instead, the costume makes him look small. A sympathetic pose might show him instituting Bonfire Night. Instead, James is considering the letter forwarded by Lord Monteagle, in a pose that shows him as weak and hesitant.
The third play, Magna Charta, features a king who (as in Shakespeare) is a devious, ambitious tyrant, who has usurped the throne and ruthlessly plots to murder his nephew. As the play shows King John signing (in fact, affixing his seal to) the Magna Carta at Runnymede, Huntley could have been depicted enthroned under a canopy of state. This ceremony was interpreted by later historians as confirming traditional rights and liberties for all Englishmen, not just the barons. Such a print might have appealed as an independent, historical portrait. Roberts could have chosen to emphasise the king's strong, villainous character. The frontispiece for King John in Cumberland's British Drama, depicts William Charles Macready in the title role, as apprehensive but dignified, calmly determined to oppose his barons. 67 Instead, Roberts has chosen the moment of John's defeat, when he realises that he has drunk poison (see Figure 12). John confesses: ‘Then I am sacrificed at last: … Well, well, I deserve it’ (scene 18, p. 24, in the Juvenile Drama). Huntley's grimace, however effective on stage, loses much of its emotive power in the print. Sir Joshua Reynolds warned that viewers cannot look too long at a person with his face contorted in a violent expression. They prefer perfect symmetry and grace. 68 By focusing on this moment, Roberts diminishes King John, and reminds viewers of the concerted, orderly forces opposing him. The barons refuse to punish Falconbridge and Henrique for regicide, as they (following orders from Constance) have ensured that John was justly punished for ordering the murder of Prince Arthur. As well, Falconbridge had played a vital political role in organising them into the cohesive armed force necessary to curb John's tyrannical power. King John's face shows weakness, whereas details of the costume and poses of the aristocratic opposition imply strength. The lion on Baron Robert de Fitzwalter's helmet symbolises courage (see Figure 13). Mrs Stanley as Lady Constance (see Figure 10) is depicted in a commanding pose. As a group, the 2d actor portraits of these history plays reinforce the ideal of a strong and active aristocracy.
Conclusion
The patent theatres dominate most theatre histories of the period. Contemporary critics were not impartial; they had a vested interest in maintaining the supremacy of the patents and denigrating the minors. They sought to enforce a hierarchy of taste in the drama, audiences and actors. This article has relied on the Coburg playbills and toy-theatre publications, sources that have hitherto been under-utilised, to supplement contemporary sources and modern scholarship on the Regency theatre and on toy theatres.
Analysis of the Coburg playbills contributes to a more complex but balanced assessment of the plays that it staged. Barrymore was a consistent promoter of serious, historical drama, often containing a political message. While he was the manager, he was willing to work with a toy-theatre publisher to publicise Coburg productions to the younger members of the audience. His exact business relationship with William Hodgson remains unknown, but it was based on a shared political viewpoint, and a desire to inculcate Whig and Radical values. Hodgson & Co.'s 2d actor portraits associated with Coburg productions show that such portraits are not always straightforward; they need to be considered in context.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-nct-10.1177_17483727251360406 - Supplemental material for Promoting the Royal Coburg Theatre, 1822–1823: William Barrymore, William Hodgson and the Actor Portraits of Piercy Roberts
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nct-10.1177_17483727251360406 for Promoting the Royal Coburg Theatre, 1822–1823: William Barrymore, William Hodgson and the Actor Portraits of Piercy Roberts by Margaret Lock in Nineteenth Century Theatre and Film
Footnotes
Supplemental Material
Notes
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
