Killigrew And Davenant: A Study Of Rivalry In The Age Of Restoration
Butcher 1
Colton Butcher
Trevin Cooper
Theatre History II
14 November 2014
Killigrew and Davenant: A Study of Rivalry in the Age of Restoration
“Look around. There are no enemies here. There’s just good, old fashioned rivalry.” –Bob Wells. Some experiences and emotions are the same no matter what country, race, or religion, we can find some way to connect with others. One of these is jealousy. We can understand how people can be jealous of one another because we were/are/will be jealous of someone somewhere down the road. Sometimes out of this jealousy can forge the idea of a rivalry. Now sometimes rivalry can destroy everything around it, but not necessarily all the time.
In a few cases rivalry can make bitter …show more content…
enemies try and outdo each other, leading to the betterment of their craft. The latter is what happened from the rivalry of one Thomas Killigrew and one Sir
William Davenant. “The competition between the two patent acting troupes, the King 's Company and the Duke 's Company, and their respective managers, Thomas Killigrew and Sir William
Davenant, had an enormous influence on the types of plays produced during the Carolean period” (Miyoshi, Carolean Stage Rivalry). I plan on discussing what theatre was at the time, who they were, and what their rivalry was.
During the time of Killigrew and Davenant, theatre was going through the period known as the restoration period. Philosophical ideals were prominent, especially those of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. They both believed in natural law and that, as humans, everyone has
Butcher 2
certain rights that can be discerned logically. In England, monarchs believed that they were upholding this ideal and returned to England after being driven out by Puritans. Theatre at their time had just been restored, hence
Restoration
, and things were kind of returning to normal, or mostly. At the time right before this “the Puritans closed the theatres ... and theatrical activity was severely curtailed” (Wilson, Edwin, Goldfarb 233). “Restoration theatre became a way to celebrate the end of Puritan rule, with its strict moral codes. To celebrate the opening of the theatres Restoration plays were lavish, often immoral by Puritan standards” (Ferreira, Kristy,
O’Berry). But once the monarchy returned, theatre was back with some new trends. Some of the bigger changes were that theatre is now for the upperclass. The English monarchy had spent a great deal in France and after seeing the grand spectacle of their theatre, they wanted the same for themselves when they returned to England. This allowed them to spend money on innovations they had seen in the France and Italy, and to allow for the next trend to happen. The trend that most affected Killigrew and Davenant was that of licensing theatre and theatrical rights. Permits were created to restrict the operation of theatre. The monarchy wanted great theatre and created a way to make sure that’s all they would get, great theatre. “In the beginning, several entrepreneurs attempted to reestablish theatrical activity in England, but their efforts were beaten back by two figures who emerged to take control of theatre: William Davenant and
Thomas Killigrew” (Wilson, Edwin, and Goldfarb 233). These two guys were going to take theatre in England and completely revitalize it, since they were one of the only ones permitted to do anything. This is due to their involvement before the Puritanical rule and during the exile of the monarchy. The royals trusted them and thus gave them permission to provide expert theatre.
Butcher 3
They will grow to have an intense rivalry and completion with each other, thankfully for us that means great things were coming.
Sir William Davenant is an “English dramatist and poet, born in Oxford. Davenant (or
D’Avenant) claimed to be Shakespeare’s son, but was actually the son of an innkeeper, although
Shakespeare may have been his godfather” (Funk and
Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia). According to
Schoenbaum,
author
of
Shakespeare’s
Lives
“Davenant led a flamboyant life” (59). He was very loyal to the cause of the royals, as mentioned before, and with such support came backfire from those who opposed him. “After the King’s execution he was captured in the Isle of Wight as he prepared to set sail for the New World, and held by Parliament as a scapegoat exception to its act of amnesty”
(Schoenbaum 5960). This particular time in prison is where he wrote his epic poem
Gondibert
.
He spent a few other times in prison but was always released in the end. His love life was also a little different as he “contracted syphilis, and the resulting disfigurement after mercury treatment—he lost his nose—provided the wits with matter for scurrilous jesting” (Schoenbaum
60). He eventually married though and had great success in his career. “After reestablishment of the court, Davenant … was still recognized as poet laureate, and the holder of a patent from
Charles I” (Harbage 142). Although he technically had the patent still he did have to travel all the way to France to gain permission for a new patent from Charles II. He did receive the patent
Butcher 4
along with soon to be rival, Killigrew. Davenant did many firsts in his time one of the most notable is
The Siege of Rhodes
, England’s first opera. Another new addition to theatre Davenant was a proponent of was women on stage in England. Although women have been on stage in
Spain, Davenant was the first to have it put on an English stage. The biggest success of
Davenant’s though was that of the Duke’s men. The troupe of actors that eventually became the best around. Davenant had a rougher start than Killigrew, but with the Duke’s Men, he was able to completely put his place as the better of the two in history books. Killigrew was the King’s favorite at the time and thus was able to get first pickings, more about this later. And so
Davenant had to use the second’s, but luckily for him Killigrew had chosen wrong.
Thomas Killigrew was “six years younger than Davenant, of better family, and personally a good deal closer to Charles II—Pepys, on board a ship with him in the Channel in the days immediately preceding the Restoration, describes him as a “merry droll, but a gentleman of great esteem with the
King” (Edmond 142). “Davenant and Killigrew were not close friends: indeed while they were both at the exiled
Court in the 1650s, Killigrew once listed himself…as one of the dire foes of Davenant…” (Edmond 142). The King did favor Killigrew more so than Davenant and that has to do with what Killigrew did. Yes they both were loyal to the royalist cause but while Davenant decide to stay behind in England while the royals went away to France, Killigrew went with them. He was able to in the exile time get close to Charles
II and experience the same things. This brownnosing from Killigrew eventually helped him out
Butcher 5
when it was time for Charles II to be put back on England’s throne. Killigrew was able to get the patent first without any hesitation, whereas Davenant had to travel to the King and get
permission.
Also when it came time for Killigrew to start his own company, he had first choice and of course picked all the older, wellknown, wellestablished actors because that would leave his rival all alone with the young, “unworthy” actors. So Killigrew established the King’s Men, which even sounded more prestigious than Davenant’s Duke’s Men. When the rivalry started
Killigrew basically had the setup to become the greater of the two. He would go on to have success, at first, but soon after he saw that Davenant was actually a worthy rival. And though
Killigrew was close to the King and even master of revels, he “was often in financial difficulties”
(Wilson, Edwin, and Goldfarb 234).
“Davenant and Killigrew have been described in recent years as a ‘pair of scheming adventurers’, and as having indulged in ‘bribery, skullduggery and force’ in their pursuit of monopoly” (Edmond 144). These two men were of the mindset of doing anything to get what they wanted. This made them great rivals, as they were matched in resolve if nothing else.
A quote from Harbage will sum up how the two were treated differently in society, “So long as his favorite, Killigrew, was given preference, King Charles, however much he might disapprove of
Davenant as a courtier, was not averse to using his talents as an entertainer” (146). This is why
Killigrew had the older, more “official” actors. “With such actors as Killigrew had left him, young men for the most part” (Harbage 147) Davenant had to take things a little slower to build up his credibility. “Killigrew had secured a monopoly of almost all existing plays—including, ironically, Davenant’s own—on the ground that his company was the successor to the prewar
King’s Men” (Edmond 146). This left Davenant out in the dust with almost nothing to put on for
Butcher 6
a while. It was a little over a month before Davenant “secured exclusive rights from the Lord
Chamberlain’s office to a certain number of plays, no doubt after pressing for some justice”
(Edmond 148). However, despite these setbacks against him he masterfully crafted a future where he could become the dominant of the two.
His company was organized on the old actorsharer basis, with this distinction, that once he was established at the new theatre, he was to hold ten out of a total of
15 shares….a curious clause in his agreement with his actors indicates to what degree his rival patentee had been given precedence over him: Killigrew was to have a free box seating six persons at Davenant’s theatre, although no corresponding convenience was offered him at Killigrew’s theatre (Harbage 147).
“The terms of agreement between Davenant and his actorsharers had set the Duke’s company on a stable footing, with the manager in undisputed control and closely involved in daytoday business” (Edmond 156). Killigrew was able to start fast and quick but just as he started so too did he finish. Killigrew fell in financial troubles and he had disputes with his actors, this created a problem within the King’s Company. He was losing the control he had so graciously been given. “The King’s Company, wracked by dissension, greed, and bad management, eventually disintegrated, to be ‘swallowed alive’ by the rival Duke’s Company” (Edmond 156). So as the
King’s company, once proud and strong, withered away the Duke’s Company gained might and precedence as the greater of the two. Another idea as to why one had more success in the end than the other is that Killigrew had a foul temperament and Davenant did not. Killigrew was known to be a bit saucier to people knowing he has the King’s favor and protection, whereas
Butcher 7
Davenant was not so much. They were both theatre crazies though, don’t get me wrong.
Davenant had,
…great theatrical expertise and no doubt his qualities of character, ensured that his company was infinitely more successful than Killigrew’s: his rival neither possesses nor developed managerial skills, never lived on his premises as
Davenant did, and delegated most of his functions to his leading actors (Edmond
156).
Another idea behind Davenant’s success is his use of more exciting stage ideas. They both converted tennis courts to house their theatres but they chose a difference in what they would use as the stage. Killigrew went with the idea of the Elizabethan era and chose a raised platform stage. Davenant, however, decided to choose the new idea of the proscenium arch and scenic art like those found in France at the time. Other modifications of Davenant’s “included alterations and enlargements such as would permit the manager to live in an annex adjoining the building…he made these adjuncts, with further elaborations, a permanent feature of the public theatre” (Harbage 148). Another success of Davenant’s was the gaining of Thomas Betterton,
“universally remembered as one of the great actors of all time” (Harbage 151). Thomas Betterton once “paid a noble tribute to his old director as a disciplinarian: When I was a young Player under
Sir William Davenant
, we were obliged to make our Study our Business” (Edmond 156).
This shows you how involved Davenant was in the inner workings of his theatre and company.
But “teaching and controlling his numerous actors was the least of his Davenant’s tasks; as a
Restoration theatre manager, he had the more delicate problem of governing actresses” (Harbage
153). At the time of Restoration theatre actresses were gaining success in their field. Still far
Butcher 8
from where it should’ve been, it was a crucial stepping stone at the time. But Davenant wasn’t the only one with female actors, Killigrew also employed females in his troupe and theatre. It was the treatment of the two that made one stand out from the other. Killigrew treated them as pawns in his theatre, they were still property to him. In general, Killigrew did not garner much respect from his actors. Davenant was not anywhere like that, in fact “one of Davenant’s patents stipulates that actresses be employed because formerly the female parts ‘have been played by men in the habits of women, at which some have taken offence’ (Harbage 153). So “unlike the more abrasive Killigrew, Davenant won the respect and affection of his actors” (Harbage 156).
Killigrew obviously fell through the cracks of history as the loser and Davenant as the winner. But I would like to point out that even though Killigrew was not the greatest if not for him who knows if Davenant would have had the drive to succeed as much as he did. Without competition would he be able to spur himself to innovate theatre the way he did.
Davenant took his business seriously, and we can see in many directions the badge of his professional conscience. He strove to give his audiences the best…and the prologues and epilogues of his own plays express how earnestly he desired to please. Moreover he strove to preserve order and decency in his house.
He protected the actors, treated them generously, and encouraged the efforts of those who were learning their trade (Harbage 160161)
Eventually as Davenant’s company reached the peak and Killigrew’s kept shambling downwards, the King wanted to put the two groups together.
Butcher 9
By 1682 the King 's Company at Drury Lane had declined to a very parlous condition, and on 4 May of that year Charles Killigrew entered into an agreement with Charles Davenant and his principal associates at Dorset Garden for the union of the two establishments (Sheppard).
The rivalry between these two men is something theatre practitioners and goers should not take lightly. They will go down as two men who in their selfish intent to better their reputation over the other helped bring some of the greatest ideas on changes to theatre in its entire history. The effects of the patents given to these two men are still in effect today, something no other theatre can lay claim to.
Alone among the theatres of
London, the Theatre Royal,
Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, enjoy the distinction of deriving their rights to present theatrical entertainments not from licenses issued by the Lord Chamberlain or the local authority, but by direct grant from the Crown. These rights are of great antiquity. They were conferred by Charles II by two letters patent granted on 25 April
1662 to Thomas Killigrew and on 15 January 1662/3 to Sir William
Davenant. Drury Lane Theatre exercises its rights under Killigrew 's patent, the original document being now in the possession of the present
Butcher 10
lessees, Theatre Royal Drury Lane Limited. The rights of the Royal Opera
House stem from Davenant 's patent, but the original document is now lost
(Sheppard).
As seen in this picture above, Davenant’s architecture of the theatre heavily influenced those around him to the point where, even in modern times, theatres are built to a similar design.
Another proponent that has stood the test of time is women in theatre.
Though now women have a more prominent position than in the beginning, it’s hard to think that without these two men using women in their employ we don’t know when women would have gained any voice in theatre. Killigrew and Davenant were ahead of their time and truly made some huge gains in the time that they were alive and their influence spread even after their death, especially
Davenant’s.
After researching these two men I have found a new respect for them, yes even Killigrew.
I mean what other people or theatres can lay claim to having their original patents from the King in use. That’s an amazing feat for the ones that were able to originally get the contract. Without their rivalry, some of the things we now take for granted might not have happened to happened too late or in the wrong time, we will never know. And we won’t have to because what they did
Butcher 11
for theatre has lived on, continues to live, and will live for the time to come. There’s an old
Hebrew proverb that goes, “Rivalry of scholars advances wisdom.” How true.
Butcher 12
Works Cited
"Davenant, Sir William."
Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia
. N.p.: World Book, 2014.
1p. 1. Web.
<https://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=funk&AN=DA014500&site=edslive&scope=site>.
Edmond, Mary.
Rare Sir William Davenant: Poet Laureate, Playwright, Civil War General,
Restoration Theatre Manager
. New York: St. Martin 's, 1987. Print.
Ferreira, Kristy, and Shanna O’Berry. "Politics, Literary Culture, & Theatrical Media in London:
16251725 | Restoration Theatre."
Politics, Literary Culture, & Theatrical Media in
London: 16251725 | Restoration Theatre
. University of Massachusetts Boston, n.d.
Web. 05 Nov. 2014.
Harbage, Alfred.
Sir William Davenant: Poet Venturer, 16061668
. Ann Arbor, MI: U
Microfilms, 1974. Print.
Miyoshi, Riki. "Thomas Killigrew 's Early Managerial Career: Carolean Stage Rivalry in London,
16631668."
Restoration & 18th Century Theatre Research 27.2 (2012): 1333. Web.
5 Nov. 2014.
<https://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=ibh&AN=93363240&site=edslive&scope=site>.
Schoenbaum, Samuel.
Shakespeare 's Lives
. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Print.
Sheppard, F.H.W. "Survey of London: Volume 35: The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the
Royal Opera House, Covent Garden."
The Killigrew and Davenant Patents
. N.p., n.d.
Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Butcher 13
Wilson, Edwin, and Alvin Goldfarb. "Chapter 10."
Living Theatre: History of the Theatre
. New
York: McGrawHill, 2012. N. pag. Print. IMAGES http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/William_Davenant.jpg/250px William_Davenant.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Thomas_Killigrew_by_Sir_Anthony_Van _Dyck_cropped.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Drury_Lane_Theatre__August_1808.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Microcosm_of_London_Plate_027
__Covent_Garden_Theatre.jpg/1280pxMicrocosm_of_London_Plate_027__Covent_Garden_
Theatre.jpg
Colton Butcher
Trevin Cooper
Theatre History II
14 November 2014
Killigrew and Davenant: A Study of Rivalry in the Age of Restoration
“Look around. There are no enemies here. There’s just good, old fashioned rivalry.” –Bob Wells. Some experiences and emotions are the same no matter what country, race, or religion, we can find some way to connect with others. One of these is jealousy. We can understand how people can be jealous of one another because we were/are/will be jealous of someone somewhere down the road. Sometimes out of this jealousy can forge the idea of a rivalry. Now sometimes rivalry can destroy everything around it, but not necessarily all the time.
In a few cases rivalry can make bitter …show more content…
enemies try and outdo each other, leading to the betterment of their craft. The latter is what happened from the rivalry of one Thomas Killigrew and one Sir
William Davenant. “The competition between the two patent acting troupes, the King 's Company and the Duke 's Company, and their respective managers, Thomas Killigrew and Sir William
Davenant, had an enormous influence on the types of plays produced during the Carolean period” (Miyoshi, Carolean Stage Rivalry). I plan on discussing what theatre was at the time, who they were, and what their rivalry was.
During the time of Killigrew and Davenant, theatre was going through the period known as the restoration period. Philosophical ideals were prominent, especially those of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. They both believed in natural law and that, as humans, everyone has
Butcher 2
certain rights that can be discerned logically. In England, monarchs believed that they were upholding this ideal and returned to England after being driven out by Puritans. Theatre at their time had just been restored, hence
Restoration
, and things were kind of returning to normal, or mostly. At the time right before this “the Puritans closed the theatres ... and theatrical activity was severely curtailed” (Wilson, Edwin, Goldfarb 233). “Restoration theatre became a way to celebrate the end of Puritan rule, with its strict moral codes. To celebrate the opening of the theatres Restoration plays were lavish, often immoral by Puritan standards” (Ferreira, Kristy,
O’Berry). But once the monarchy returned, theatre was back with some new trends. Some of the bigger changes were that theatre is now for the upperclass. The English monarchy had spent a great deal in France and after seeing the grand spectacle of their theatre, they wanted the same for themselves when they returned to England. This allowed them to spend money on innovations they had seen in the France and Italy, and to allow for the next trend to happen. The trend that most affected Killigrew and Davenant was that of licensing theatre and theatrical rights. Permits were created to restrict the operation of theatre. The monarchy wanted great theatre and created a way to make sure that’s all they would get, great theatre. “In the beginning, several entrepreneurs attempted to reestablish theatrical activity in England, but their efforts were beaten back by two figures who emerged to take control of theatre: William Davenant and
Thomas Killigrew” (Wilson, Edwin, and Goldfarb 233). These two guys were going to take theatre in England and completely revitalize it, since they were one of the only ones permitted to do anything. This is due to their involvement before the Puritanical rule and during the exile of the monarchy. The royals trusted them and thus gave them permission to provide expert theatre.
Butcher 3
They will grow to have an intense rivalry and completion with each other, thankfully for us that means great things were coming.
Sir William Davenant is an “English dramatist and poet, born in Oxford. Davenant (or
D’Avenant) claimed to be Shakespeare’s son, but was actually the son of an innkeeper, although
Shakespeare may have been his godfather” (Funk and
Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia). According to
Schoenbaum,
author
of
Shakespeare’s
Lives
“Davenant led a flamboyant life” (59). He was very loyal to the cause of the royals, as mentioned before, and with such support came backfire from those who opposed him. “After the King’s execution he was captured in the Isle of Wight as he prepared to set sail for the New World, and held by Parliament as a scapegoat exception to its act of amnesty”
(Schoenbaum 5960). This particular time in prison is where he wrote his epic poem
Gondibert
.
He spent a few other times in prison but was always released in the end. His love life was also a little different as he “contracted syphilis, and the resulting disfigurement after mercury treatment—he lost his nose—provided the wits with matter for scurrilous jesting” (Schoenbaum
60). He eventually married though and had great success in his career. “After reestablishment of the court, Davenant … was still recognized as poet laureate, and the holder of a patent from
Charles I” (Harbage 142). Although he technically had the patent still he did have to travel all the way to France to gain permission for a new patent from Charles II. He did receive the patent
Butcher 4
along with soon to be rival, Killigrew. Davenant did many firsts in his time one of the most notable is
The Siege of Rhodes
, England’s first opera. Another new addition to theatre Davenant was a proponent of was women on stage in England. Although women have been on stage in
Spain, Davenant was the first to have it put on an English stage. The biggest success of
Davenant’s though was that of the Duke’s men. The troupe of actors that eventually became the best around. Davenant had a rougher start than Killigrew, but with the Duke’s Men, he was able to completely put his place as the better of the two in history books. Killigrew was the King’s favorite at the time and thus was able to get first pickings, more about this later. And so
Davenant had to use the second’s, but luckily for him Killigrew had chosen wrong.
Thomas Killigrew was “six years younger than Davenant, of better family, and personally a good deal closer to Charles II—Pepys, on board a ship with him in the Channel in the days immediately preceding the Restoration, describes him as a “merry droll, but a gentleman of great esteem with the
King” (Edmond 142). “Davenant and Killigrew were not close friends: indeed while they were both at the exiled
Court in the 1650s, Killigrew once listed himself…as one of the dire foes of Davenant…” (Edmond 142). The King did favor Killigrew more so than Davenant and that has to do with what Killigrew did. Yes they both were loyal to the royalist cause but while Davenant decide to stay behind in England while the royals went away to France, Killigrew went with them. He was able to in the exile time get close to Charles
II and experience the same things. This brownnosing from Killigrew eventually helped him out
Butcher 5
when it was time for Charles II to be put back on England’s throne. Killigrew was able to get the patent first without any hesitation, whereas Davenant had to travel to the King and get
permission.
Also when it came time for Killigrew to start his own company, he had first choice and of course picked all the older, wellknown, wellestablished actors because that would leave his rival all alone with the young, “unworthy” actors. So Killigrew established the King’s Men, which even sounded more prestigious than Davenant’s Duke’s Men. When the rivalry started
Killigrew basically had the setup to become the greater of the two. He would go on to have success, at first, but soon after he saw that Davenant was actually a worthy rival. And though
Killigrew was close to the King and even master of revels, he “was often in financial difficulties”
(Wilson, Edwin, and Goldfarb 234).
“Davenant and Killigrew have been described in recent years as a ‘pair of scheming adventurers’, and as having indulged in ‘bribery, skullduggery and force’ in their pursuit of monopoly” (Edmond 144). These two men were of the mindset of doing anything to get what they wanted. This made them great rivals, as they were matched in resolve if nothing else.
A quote from Harbage will sum up how the two were treated differently in society, “So long as his favorite, Killigrew, was given preference, King Charles, however much he might disapprove of
Davenant as a courtier, was not averse to using his talents as an entertainer” (146). This is why
Killigrew had the older, more “official” actors. “With such actors as Killigrew had left him, young men for the most part” (Harbage 147) Davenant had to take things a little slower to build up his credibility. “Killigrew had secured a monopoly of almost all existing plays—including, ironically, Davenant’s own—on the ground that his company was the successor to the prewar
King’s Men” (Edmond 146). This left Davenant out in the dust with almost nothing to put on for
Butcher 6
a while. It was a little over a month before Davenant “secured exclusive rights from the Lord
Chamberlain’s office to a certain number of plays, no doubt after pressing for some justice”
(Edmond 148). However, despite these setbacks against him he masterfully crafted a future where he could become the dominant of the two.
His company was organized on the old actorsharer basis, with this distinction, that once he was established at the new theatre, he was to hold ten out of a total of
15 shares….a curious clause in his agreement with his actors indicates to what degree his rival patentee had been given precedence over him: Killigrew was to have a free box seating six persons at Davenant’s theatre, although no corresponding convenience was offered him at Killigrew’s theatre (Harbage 147).
“The terms of agreement between Davenant and his actorsharers had set the Duke’s company on a stable footing, with the manager in undisputed control and closely involved in daytoday business” (Edmond 156). Killigrew was able to start fast and quick but just as he started so too did he finish. Killigrew fell in financial troubles and he had disputes with his actors, this created a problem within the King’s Company. He was losing the control he had so graciously been given. “The King’s Company, wracked by dissension, greed, and bad management, eventually disintegrated, to be ‘swallowed alive’ by the rival Duke’s Company” (Edmond 156). So as the
King’s company, once proud and strong, withered away the Duke’s Company gained might and precedence as the greater of the two. Another idea as to why one had more success in the end than the other is that Killigrew had a foul temperament and Davenant did not. Killigrew was known to be a bit saucier to people knowing he has the King’s favor and protection, whereas
Butcher 7
Davenant was not so much. They were both theatre crazies though, don’t get me wrong.
Davenant had,
…great theatrical expertise and no doubt his qualities of character, ensured that his company was infinitely more successful than Killigrew’s: his rival neither possesses nor developed managerial skills, never lived on his premises as
Davenant did, and delegated most of his functions to his leading actors (Edmond
156).
Another idea behind Davenant’s success is his use of more exciting stage ideas. They both converted tennis courts to house their theatres but they chose a difference in what they would use as the stage. Killigrew went with the idea of the Elizabethan era and chose a raised platform stage. Davenant, however, decided to choose the new idea of the proscenium arch and scenic art like those found in France at the time. Other modifications of Davenant’s “included alterations and enlargements such as would permit the manager to live in an annex adjoining the building…he made these adjuncts, with further elaborations, a permanent feature of the public theatre” (Harbage 148). Another success of Davenant’s was the gaining of Thomas Betterton,
“universally remembered as one of the great actors of all time” (Harbage 151). Thomas Betterton once “paid a noble tribute to his old director as a disciplinarian: When I was a young Player under
Sir William Davenant
, we were obliged to make our Study our Business” (Edmond 156).
This shows you how involved Davenant was in the inner workings of his theatre and company.
But “teaching and controlling his numerous actors was the least of his Davenant’s tasks; as a
Restoration theatre manager, he had the more delicate problem of governing actresses” (Harbage
153). At the time of Restoration theatre actresses were gaining success in their field. Still far
Butcher 8
from where it should’ve been, it was a crucial stepping stone at the time. But Davenant wasn’t the only one with female actors, Killigrew also employed females in his troupe and theatre. It was the treatment of the two that made one stand out from the other. Killigrew treated them as pawns in his theatre, they were still property to him. In general, Killigrew did not garner much respect from his actors. Davenant was not anywhere like that, in fact “one of Davenant’s patents stipulates that actresses be employed because formerly the female parts ‘have been played by men in the habits of women, at which some have taken offence’ (Harbage 153). So “unlike the more abrasive Killigrew, Davenant won the respect and affection of his actors” (Harbage 156).
Killigrew obviously fell through the cracks of history as the loser and Davenant as the winner. But I would like to point out that even though Killigrew was not the greatest if not for him who knows if Davenant would have had the drive to succeed as much as he did. Without competition would he be able to spur himself to innovate theatre the way he did.
Davenant took his business seriously, and we can see in many directions the badge of his professional conscience. He strove to give his audiences the best…and the prologues and epilogues of his own plays express how earnestly he desired to please. Moreover he strove to preserve order and decency in his house.
He protected the actors, treated them generously, and encouraged the efforts of those who were learning their trade (Harbage 160161)
Eventually as Davenant’s company reached the peak and Killigrew’s kept shambling downwards, the King wanted to put the two groups together.
Butcher 9
By 1682 the King 's Company at Drury Lane had declined to a very parlous condition, and on 4 May of that year Charles Killigrew entered into an agreement with Charles Davenant and his principal associates at Dorset Garden for the union of the two establishments (Sheppard).
The rivalry between these two men is something theatre practitioners and goers should not take lightly. They will go down as two men who in their selfish intent to better their reputation over the other helped bring some of the greatest ideas on changes to theatre in its entire history. The effects of the patents given to these two men are still in effect today, something no other theatre can lay claim to.
Alone among the theatres of
London, the Theatre Royal,
Drury Lane, and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, enjoy the distinction of deriving their rights to present theatrical entertainments not from licenses issued by the Lord Chamberlain or the local authority, but by direct grant from the Crown. These rights are of great antiquity. They were conferred by Charles II by two letters patent granted on 25 April
1662 to Thomas Killigrew and on 15 January 1662/3 to Sir William
Davenant. Drury Lane Theatre exercises its rights under Killigrew 's patent, the original document being now in the possession of the present
Butcher 10
lessees, Theatre Royal Drury Lane Limited. The rights of the Royal Opera
House stem from Davenant 's patent, but the original document is now lost
(Sheppard).
As seen in this picture above, Davenant’s architecture of the theatre heavily influenced those around him to the point where, even in modern times, theatres are built to a similar design.
Another proponent that has stood the test of time is women in theatre.
Though now women have a more prominent position than in the beginning, it’s hard to think that without these two men using women in their employ we don’t know when women would have gained any voice in theatre. Killigrew and Davenant were ahead of their time and truly made some huge gains in the time that they were alive and their influence spread even after their death, especially
Davenant’s.
After researching these two men I have found a new respect for them, yes even Killigrew.
I mean what other people or theatres can lay claim to having their original patents from the King in use. That’s an amazing feat for the ones that were able to originally get the contract. Without their rivalry, some of the things we now take for granted might not have happened to happened too late or in the wrong time, we will never know. And we won’t have to because what they did
Butcher 11
for theatre has lived on, continues to live, and will live for the time to come. There’s an old
Hebrew proverb that goes, “Rivalry of scholars advances wisdom.” How true.
Butcher 12
Works Cited
"Davenant, Sir William."
Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia
. N.p.: World Book, 2014.
1p. 1. Web.
<https://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=funk&AN=DA014500&site=edslive&scope=site>.
Edmond, Mary.
Rare Sir William Davenant: Poet Laureate, Playwright, Civil War General,
Restoration Theatre Manager
. New York: St. Martin 's, 1987. Print.
Ferreira, Kristy, and Shanna O’Berry. "Politics, Literary Culture, & Theatrical Media in London:
16251725 | Restoration Theatre."
Politics, Literary Culture, & Theatrical Media in
London: 16251725 | Restoration Theatre
. University of Massachusetts Boston, n.d.
Web. 05 Nov. 2014.
Harbage, Alfred.
Sir William Davenant: Poet Venturer, 16061668
. Ann Arbor, MI: U
Microfilms, 1974. Print.
Miyoshi, Riki. "Thomas Killigrew 's Early Managerial Career: Carolean Stage Rivalry in London,
16631668."
Restoration & 18th Century Theatre Research 27.2 (2012): 1333. Web.
5 Nov. 2014.
<https://login.ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/login?auth=shibb&url=http://search.ebscohost.com/
login.aspx?direct=true&db=ibh&AN=93363240&site=edslive&scope=site>.
Schoenbaum, Samuel.
Shakespeare 's Lives
. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Print.
Sheppard, F.H.W. "Survey of London: Volume 35: The Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, and the
Royal Opera House, Covent Garden."
The Killigrew and Davenant Patents
. N.p., n.d.
Web. 11 Nov. 2014.
Butcher 13
Wilson, Edwin, and Alvin Goldfarb. "Chapter 10."
Living Theatre: History of the Theatre
. New
York: McGrawHill, 2012. N. pag. Print. IMAGES http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/William_Davenant.jpg/250px William_Davenant.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Thomas_Killigrew_by_Sir_Anthony_Van _Dyck_cropped.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Drury_Lane_Theatre__August_1808.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Microcosm_of_London_Plate_027
__Covent_Garden_Theatre.jpg/1280pxMicrocosm_of_London_Plate_027__Covent_Garden_
Theatre.jpg