The Tricks of Lun: Mimesis and Mimicry in John Rich's Performance and Conception of Pantomimes

{ 148 } \ The Tricks of Lun Mimesis and Mimicry in John Rich’s Performance and Conception of Pantomimes —MARC MARTINEZ The sharp rivalry between the two patent theatres of Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Drury Lane and the influence of that rivalry on the rise of the pantomime in the early eighteenth century has been thoroughly investigated by theatre historians who focused on the commercial function of these entertainments in the managerial system of the 1720s.1 In their desire to account for John Rich’s superiority at Lincoln’s Inn Fields,critics have mainly concentrated on the two Faustus afterpieces, which started the craze for pantomimes: they probed the reasons for the tremendous success of Rich’s version, The Necromancer (December 20, 1723), which outshone Thurmond’s Harlequin Doctor Faustus (November 26, 1723) at Drury Lane.2 But theatre scholars have highlighted, almost exclusively, the commercial reasons that prompted the manager of Lincoln’s Inn Fields to promote illegitimate drama in his shaping of the repertory. From this strongly biased perspective, they have been tempted to regard Rich as the representative of a fresh breed of professional entrepreneurs at the head of a new rising leisure industry who could not but pander to the uneducated tastes of his patrons. From an examination of the performance records over the whole period of Rich’s tenure as manager of Lincoln’s Inn Fields (1714–32) and Covent Garden (1732–61), a distinctive pattern seems to emerge. Between the creation of the two Faustus afterpieces and 1750, Rich produced eight new pantomimes, as opposed to twenty at Drury Lane.3 Five were devised in the 1720s;4 The Royal Chace (January 23, 1736) and Orpheus and Eurydice (December 12, 1739) were staged in the 1730s; and his last piece, The Fair, opened on February 7, 1750. Lin- { 149 } THE TRICKS OF LUN coln’s Inn Fields and Covent Garden, unlike Drury Lane, relied on a restricted stock of pantomimes that were constantly revived and revised, sometimes with extensive alterations. The managerial pattern that dominated the 1720s was renewed between 1750 and 1757, a time of intensified competition between the rival companies. At Drury Lane, Henry Woodward mounted seven new pantomimes while Rich capitalized on five surefire draws repeated from earlier seasons : The Necromancer, which had been performed regularly but was dropped after the 1752–53 season; Perseus and Andromeda, Apollo and Daphne, The Royal Chace, and Harlequin Sorcerer, the last of which, after twenty years, was magnificently revamped on February 11, 1752.5 Furthermore, Rich’s pantomimes, which had the longest opening runs, totaled more performances between 1723 and 1760: they played 777 nights at Lincoln’s Inn Fields and Covent Garden, compared to 508 at Drury Lane.6 These differing policies prove that the audience was content to see the same pieces over and over again at Rich’s theatres while Drury Lane tried desperately to produce new shows whose popularity never reached the phenomenal records at the rival house. Rich’s undeniable business acumen, however, did not preclude aesthetic motivations. In actual fact, Rich straddled the roles of entrepreneur and performer , and his double capacity is symbolized by his dual identity, assuming the function of theatre manager under his patronymic name of Rich and featuring as Harlequin under the pseudonym of Lun.7 I argue that Rich’s theatrical flair and Lun’s performing talent as a mime combined to devise a specific type of entertainment : the dynamics and aesthetics of his spectacular afterpieces, which brought together an operatic, mythological plot and a dumb harlequinade, provided the perfect vehicle for his acting style and the ideal format for his conception of the theatrical show. In a gesture of irreverence, Rich hoisted Harlequin onto the legitimate stage and gave him a prominent place in the dramatic repertory of the period. The ambivalence of Harlequin, an offspring of the fairs fostered by the manager of a patent theatre, is duplicated in the ambivalent response generated by Rich, both lambasted for the absurdity of his shows and praised for the excellence of his acting.8 The promotion of an acting style that was grounded in popular entertainment could not be achieved without upsetting the...