Thomas Betterton and the Management of Lincoln’s Inn Fields 1695–1708 by Judith Milhous (review)

Reviews 189 wright himself; it seems to have provided difficult copy for the com­ positors. The remaining plays—Monsieur Thomas (c. 1612) and The Chances (c. 1617)—are lively comedies of misunderstanding and con­ fusion. The former was apparently unsuccessful in the theater, whereas the latter has a long theater history with adaptations by the Duke of Buckingham and David Garrick. Monsieur Thomas has been edited by Hans Walter Gabler from the quarto edition of 1639, which was prob­ ably printed from “a fair copy in Fletcher’s hand” (p. 418); the play was omitted from the 1647 Folio, and the 1679 Folio text is based on the quarto. The Chances, edited by George Walton Williams, was printed in the 1647 Folio from copy whose nature remains undetermined. As in Bowers’ editions of Thomas Dekker’s Dramatic Works (4 vols., 1953-61) and Christopher Marlowe’s Works (2 vols., 1973), the Beau­ mont and Fletcher edition maintains a sharp focus on textual matters. Each play is preceded by a “Texual Introduction” of from four to thirteen pages. Notes at the bottom of each page of text are limited to recording the facts of substantive departures from the copy-text. Each play is followed by ‘‘Textual Notes” (from one page—three notes— for Bonduca to twelve pages for Valentinian) that provide glosses or his­ torical information only as part of a texual discussion (although Turner’s note on the song “Care charming sleep,” pp. 389-90, seems to date Valentinian earlier than has been supposed). The notes are followed by lists of press-variants (if any) among copies of the copy-text and emen­ dations of accidentals in the present text, as well as by an historical collation of important editions. The editorial job is done with elegant and restrained precision. CHRISTOPHER SPENCER University of North Carolina at Greensboro Judith Milhous. Thomas Betterton and the Management of Lincoln’s Inn Fields 1695-1708. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1978. Pp. xvi + 287. $18.95. In 1694 most of the leading players in the United Company, the only important acting group in London, became thoroughly unhappy with their tyrannical and close-fisted manager, Christopher Rich. They rebelled and eventually gained a license to produce plays on their own. Their venture was co-operative, the chief actors being the only shareholders. Their natural leader was Thomas Betterton, an experienced man of the theatre, today regarded as the greatest English actor between Burbage and Garrick. The group installed themselves in a small theatre in Lin­ coln’s Inn Fields, not nearly as well-equipped as their old house in Drury Lane, which now became the home of their rivals. Competition between the two companies lasted essentially till 1708, when a fresh regrouping brought a united dramatic company to the new royal theatre in the Haymarket. This episode of stage history has drawn attention before in chapters and in articles. Professor Milhous devotes a book to it. 190 Comparative Drama The period has significance for theatre history beyond the unusual organization of the actors’ company and their competition with their old associates. The years 1694-1708 span such important developments as the attack on the stage which found its principal voice in Jeremy Collier, the increase in auxiliary attractions ranging from singers and dancers to animal acts, and important transformations in the composition of the audience. The very nature of drama changed radically—by what fits and starts and from what a complex web of conditions this book helps to demonstrate. Professor Milhous concentrates on “the importance of theatre man­ agement and company history to English drama” (p. ix). So wars and the deaths of sovereigns are quite properly off-stage noises. Intriguing characters disapptar around corners: “the drunken, jealous Powell” and “a troublemaker like Jo Haynes” (p. 69) are individualized just sufficiently for their relevance to problems of management. Betterton himself, for all his top billing and half-share in the title, is but partially revealed; anyone who wants to know about his domestic life or financial problems or acting talents can look elsewhere. The plays of the period occupy print in somewhat the same ratio as they preoccupied the theatrical manage­ ments...