Wroughton

Richard Wroughton (1748-1822)


 * Intro:**

Richard "Wroughton" Rotton (1748-1822) was a 17th century actor in the British theatre. He can be considered an early version of the blockbuster actor years before the phenomena of Hollywood celebrity. Theatre was an incredibly important part of British life, even during the 17th century, when the average British life expectancy was 40 years old (Oats, 4). You would think that people in such desperate circumstances wouldn’t have the time or means to see a play. But it was the opposite. The theater was something that even poor and common people took part in and there were many popular plays that had the same effect on culture that a popular movie might have today.

Richard Wroughton is an example of a popular actor during the time. He was widely popular despite being derided by critics. We see plenty of similar actors today in Hollywood and mass media. In this way, Wroughton would have been like Tom Cruise: an incredibly popular star who got snubbed by the critics but still wielded an incredible amount of soft power as a result of his popularity which in turn translated into financial success at record levels. Wroughton also happened to be one of the best paid actors in the London theater circuit during the late 18th century. As an actor, Wroughton exemplified the actor as businessman and even the actor as bon-vivant. He was successful in a number of business endeavors outside of the theater enough so to be considered a respected businessman in his own right. So Wroughton can be considered the equivalent of a rich Hollywood actor turned businessman in present times.

Wroughton was someone who utilized his success within the theater to leverage success outside of theater. He did so in financially, demonstrating an ability to demand high salaries as an actor and scoring lucrative investors as a businessman (Highfill). And he did so despite the fact that many preeminent London theater critics thought he couldn’t act. This makes Wroughton’s career quite a feat, considering how critics were often gatekeepers and kingmakers in the theater. The power of the review could make or break an entire production. Wroughton’s success and longevity speaks to the level that he must have appealed to the popular masses with his performances. For him to have enjoyed such a career at such a highly paid level probably speaks to the fact that even centuries ago, some of the most popular stories and characters were embodied by actors that highbrow audiences hated the most. For an example, Tom Cruise. And Richard Wroughton.




 * Biography:**

Richard Wroughton was many things. He began as an actor in the British theatre. He was also later a proprietor and manager among other things. Scholars are still not certain as to his parentage. According to Haslewood’s contemporary account //The Secret History of the Green-Room//, Wroughton was the son of a British military officer (Haslewood, 151). He was born into a relatively distinguished family. He was to be a surgeon and he was educated accordingly from a young age. He even served an apprenticeship under “Mr. Simpson of Bath” (Haselwood, 151). He was well set to embark on a lucrative career in medicine. But according to this same account, Haslewood also mentions that Richard had changed his surname from Rotton to Wroughton so that no one would know his real birth name. Haslewood almost implies that Wroughton had something to hide. A name change certainly does call into question the narrative of a high-pedigree family. One would think that a proud family name would be flaunted and not hidden.

Nevertheless, according to Haslewood, Richard Wroughton was born in the town of Bath in the year 1748 as Richard Rotton, Richard’s father was Colonol Rotton (Haslewood, 151). It was only after Richard’s appearance in the Theatre circuit that his surname “Rotton” would be changed to “Wroughton”. This change was attributed by Haslewood to the fact that Richard did not like the way the name “Rotton” looked on the bill (Haslewood, 152). Perhaps it looked too similar to Rotten. Richard forwent the military career of his father. According to Haslewood, Richard was never intended for the military because he had been groomed as a surgeon. But according to some accounts, Richard’s brother followed in their father’s footsteps and joined the British military. According to //A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London,// Highlife claims that Wroughton had a brother who was a major in the British forces. He served in a post in India with the 11th Light Dragoons and he served in this capacity up until the mid 19th century (Highfill, 297).

If we are to believe that Wroughton’s prescribed path was medicine, then somewhere along the way in his coming of age into manhood, he decided to step onstage in the London theatre. Exactly what made Richard decide to do this is unclear. But either way, it can be said that Richard Wroughton’s career in British theatre officially began in October 24th, 1768 when the 20-year-old Richard Wroughton appeared onstage with a speaking role for the first time at the Covent Garden Theatre. His debut role was Zaphna, a character in the play //Mahomet//. He was billed as “A Young Gentleman” to the audience (Highlife, 298). In the following season, Wroughton would act in eight other speaking roles. He played Nerestan in //Zara//, Tressel in //Richard III//, Creon in //Medea//, Frederick in //the Miser//, Altamont in The //Fair Penitent//, Malcolm in //Macbeth//, and Richmond in //Richard III//. It would be the first busy season in a long and storied career. And by his second appearance, Richard would be named in the playbill for the first time as Richard Wroughton. And Richard Rotton would be known from then on as Richard Wroughton, which he is still referred to as today.


 * Acting Career:**

Richard Wroughton would stay on at the Covent Garden for 15 seasons. It was where he would establish himself as a reputable actor (Highfill, 298). By the years 1785-86m Wroughton was nearing the ranks of the A-list of British theatre. He was amongst the upper echelon of actors and performers. To illustrate this, one only needs to look at Wroughton’s pay. In 1768, Richard received a weekly wage of 3 pounds a week and he was in disputes with his management over this wage constantly (Highlife, 298). But by 1786, he had a weekly salary of 12 Pounds, a top tier paycheck, matched only by the salaries of John Edwin, Mrs. Bannister, and Mrs. Billington. Wroughton made so much money that he began going into other businesses as an investor. For an example, he was an investor in Sadler’s Wells, where he had a stake of about 12,000 pounds (Highfill, 299).

Richard Wroughton would eventually leave Covent Garden on bad terms after an internal dispute led to his dismissal from the theatre. The news made the papers and //The London Stage// published a sensationalized story about Wroughton’s dismissal (Highfill, 299). The story featured a fist fight between Richard and the manager of the Covent Garden. It isn’t clear how accurate the article is. But after Wroughton’s dismissal, he disappeared from the public eye for some time. Historians still know very little about those years of Wroughton’s life. Richard Wroughton returned to London in 1787 and resumed his career in theater without a hitch. But when he did, he circumvented his old stomping grounds at the Covent Garden and instead began performing at Drury Lane. He still commanded a very high salary for his performances. In the season of 1795-96, he even achieved his top salary of 12 pounds a week again (Highfill, 300). And in the season of 1796-97, he was made the general manager of Drury Lane. This was an incredibly lucrative position. Wroughton was offered “15 guineas a week for acting and £200 a season for managing, plus £100 in lieu of a benefit” (Highfill, 298). But Wroughton renegotiated this sum to an even higher amount. This salary would have made Wroughton a wealthy man. Unfortunately for him, he had a hard time getting paid. By 1797, Wroughton’s salary payments were so late that he was suing the theater.

Wroughton wrapped up a long career in 1798 when he announced his retirement. He then settled down in his hometown of Bath. He attempted a comeback in 1800 at the failing Drury Theater. This effort was an uphill climb but nevertheless, Wroughton launched an encore to his earlier career as an actor and manager. During this time, he spent a considerable time in a lawsuit trying to recoup his unpaid wages. But to his credit, in the 1814-15 season, Wroughton reached a new peak and was getting paid 12 pounds a week again, top dollar in London theatre at the time.


 * Scholarly Discussion: **

Much of the scholarship on Wroughton in modern times revolves his later career as a manager more so than his earlier prime as an actor. There is considerable literature that rotates around questions of the degree in which changes were made to the scripts in productions when Wroughton managed the Drury Lane In London. Some of these changes may have had an impact on the manner in which those works are still being produced. For an example, in //The Stage History of King Richard the Second,// Lawrence makes the claim that while managing the production for Shakespeark’s //Richard II//,Wroughton made changes to the play’s script numerous times (Lawrence, 106). Wroughton deleted up to 200 lines from //Richard II// alone and replaced them with cut and stitched lines from Shakespeare’s other works. This was done for a number of reasons. According to Shewring in //King Richard II//, Wroughton was appealing to “the audience’s aesthetic” meaning that he was willing to make complex material more palatable for a wider audience (Shewring, 38). In this case, that wider audience was the peasantry. And so Wroughton’s production of Richard II was one that became more wrought in personal tragedy than in the political tragedy of play. Wroughton’s rendition of //Richard II// was widely panned by contemporary theater critics (Shewring, 39). Despite that, his adaption was a success commercially especially with the lower classes. Wroughton’s willingness to water down the intellectually denser material of the plays he produced to appeal more to a broader audience may be the answer to how his unique dichotomy of mass appeal and critical panning worked successfully in his long career.


 * Acting Style: **

Wroughton’s according onstage has been described in a number of ways. According to one such description, “Wroughton excelled (or was adequate) in a wide variety of young tragic heroes and men of fashion: rakes, beaux, and leads in sentimental comedy until late in his career—too late, some thought” (Highfill, 302). He acted frequently in works of Shakespeare, in roles including Malcolm in Macbeth, Don Pedro in Much Ado about Nothing, Laertes and the Ghost in Hamlet, Romeo in Romeo and Juliet, the title role in Othello, and Ford in The Merry Wives of Windsor. Wroughton even continued to act in some capacity as Romeo in //Romeo and Juliet// into his late 40’s with a Juliet played by an actress who was more than 10 years younger. And so Shakespeare seemed to have a place close to Wroughton’s heart because he never strayed far from the bard’s work throughout his career even when he began managing plays more than acting in them.


 * Critics:**

Contemporaries critics were especially harsh on Wroughton’s acting abilities. An observation by Haslewood wasted no time in skewering Wroughton’s acting skills: “his voice was hoarse, his face inexpressive, and he was slightly knock-kneed” (Haslewood, 155). It is a wonder that he was still somehow considered one of the more successful actors of his generation. Wroughton was rarely on good terms with his theatrical critics and reviewers. In fact, the critics seemed to hate him. His early years in theater were especially harsh in the reviews. A critic wrote of one early performance by Wroughton as “not often been so ill performed in a London theatre" (Theatrical Journal, 3). Another critic wrote of Wroughton’s role in //The Early Censor// in harsher terms: “Mr. Wroughton has of late been most cruelly obtruded upon the public, cruelly for himself and the audience” (Drury Lane Theatre, 231). Wroughton’s long and robust career was due to his popularity with mass audiences, not critics. And his steady presence in London theatre demonstrates a successful career. But it seems to defy logic that someone’s career could survive such lashings from reviewers. But it demonstrates that the audience it the ultimate kingmaker in the entertainment industry, even in the late 18th century. Is there any correlation between animosity from reviewers and success? Not necessarily. But Richard Wroughton’s career does demonstrate a sort of charmed life. He succeeded against the blessings of his industry’s gatekeepers.



**Works Cited:**

Haslewood, Joseph. //The Secret History of the Green-Room: Containing Authentic and// //Entertaining Memoirs of the Actors and Actresses in the Three Theatres Royal//. A new ed., J. Owen, 1795.

Highfill, Philip H, et al. //A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers,// //Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660-1800.// Volume 16, W. West to Zwingman, Southern Illinois University Press, 1993.

Lawrence, W. J. “The Stage History of King Richard the Second." //The Gentleman's// //Magazine,// 283 (1999), 85-89.

Oats, Debrah. “Raising Children in the Early 17th Century: Demographics.” //New England// //Historic Genealogical Society//, Institute for Museum and Library Services, 2012.

Shaughnessy, Robert. "Wroughton, Richard [real name Richard Rotten] (1748–1822), Actor and Theatre Manager." //Oxford Dictionary of National Biography//, 2004.

Shewring, Margaret. //King Richard II//. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1996.

"Drury Lane Theatre." //Theatrical inquisitor, and monthly mirror//, Feb.1813 - June 1819, 6 (1815): 229-31.

"Theatrical Journal." //The European magazine, and London review// 21 (1792): 65-7.

– Benedict Kim