Mrs.+Thurmond

=Mrs. Thurmond: Eighteenth-Century Actress, Singer, and Performance=

**__Personal Life of Mrs. Thurmond :__** Mrs. Thurmond, born Sarah Lewis, was a well accomplished actress and singer of the eighteenth century with an expansive repertoire. She was born in Epsom, Surrey and acted for most of her life. She met her husband in Dublin while she was there acting from 1712-1718. John Thurmond, her eventual husband, was a popular dancer and choreographer at this time. They married in 1713 while still in Dublin. The couple had possibly three children: Lewis, Mary, and Catherine. After returning from Dublin, they lived in London for the rest of their lives, acting in various theaters. She completed her acting career in 1737 and lost her husband John Thurmond in 1754. He left half of his estate to Sarah and split the other half between his two daughters. She lived as a widow for eight years before she died in London in 1762. She was buried at St. Paul, Covent Garden on May 18, 1762 and left everything to her daughter, Catherine.

**__Mrs. Thurmond’s Acting Career:__** Throughout Sarah Lewis/Mrs. Thurmond’s acting career, she became a well-known actress, singer, and speaker of epilogues and prologues. Her first known appearance on the stage in with Pinkethman’s Troupe at Greenwich in 1711. After that, she travelled to Dublin in 1712 to act and stayed through 1715. Her list of roles in Dublin was much shorter than will be later in London, but nevertheless includes Evandra in //Timon of Athens//, Arpasia in //Tamerlane//, and Ruth in //The Committee.// She returned to London with her family in 1715. Once she returned to London she began acting in Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theater. She began there in 1715 and stayed there throughout the 1717-1718 season. Her time there substantiated her repertoire of plays largely acting in plays such as //The Doting Lovers, The Jew of Venice, The False Court, The Wife’s Relief, The Provok’d Wife, The Pilgrim, The Woman Captain, The Artful Husband, Hamlet, The Unhappy Favorite, The Old Bachelor,// and //Don Quixote//. From there she went to the popular Drury Lane Theater for the 1718-1719 season and remained there through the 1731-1732 season. Her first appearance at Drury Lane was on November 8, 1718. She appeared in an extensive number of plays at Drury Lane and fulfilled an extensive number of roles some of which include: Aspasia in //The Maid’s Tragedy//, Almeria and Zara in //The Mourning Bride//, Hypolita in //She Wou’d & She Wou’d Not//, Countess of Rutland in //The Unhappy Favorite,// Eliza in //The Earl of Warwick,// Angelica in //Love for Love//, Desdemona in //Othello,// Maria in //Don Jon//, Imoinda in //Oroonoko//, Gertrude in //Hamlet//, Narcissa in //Love’s Lost Shift,// Isabella in //The Conscious Lovers//, and Mrs. Marwood in //The Way of the World.// Because of a conflict that occurred with her and her husband while there in 1732, they both left Drury Lane in favor of Goodman’s Field Theatre. She first performed there on October 18, 1732 and went on to reprise eight previous roles she had played in other theaters, but also performed in new plays: Anne Bullen in //Vertue Betray’d,// Lady Easy in //The Careless Husband//, and Polly in //The Beggar’s Opera//. In the 1733-1734 season, she played a number of new roles as well including Elizabeth in //The Unhappy Favorite// and Lady Sharlot in //The Funeral.// After the issues at Drury Lane had been resolved, Mrs. Thurmond and her husband returned to Drury Lane on September 7, 1734. She continued at Drury Lane through the 1736-1737 season, appearing in many new roles, until her last appearance on the stage on May 5, 1737 as Lady Wronghead in //The Provok’d Husband//. She was well renowned in London Theater, so much that she had benefits performed by other actors in her name. In addition, it has been claimed that Mrs. Thurmond received training in tragedy and acting from the well-renowned Barton Booth (Highfill). He also acted at Drury Lane Theater, granted before Mrs. Thurmond, but nevertheless built a “reputation as a formidable player of weighty and tragic roles” (Girdham). Because of this formidable and impressive training, it is no surprise that Mrs. Thurmond excelled as an actress and singer and built her own reputation.

**__Actresses in the Seventeenth & the Eighteenth Century:__** Despite her long list of acting credits, Mrs. Thurmond is not an actress that has a lot of current or scholarly work written about her. In fact, her entry in the //Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,// it is stated that “contemporary comments on Sarah Thurmond's performances are scarce” (Girdham). However, it is crucial to understand the social climate of the time in regards to female actresses at to better understand Mrs. Thurmond. The Restoration was one of the first times that women characters in plays were actually played by women. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond began acting relatively recently to when women first began in acting. Although women were allowed to act at this time, it was still quite difficult for them and difficult for theaters to find women to play the roles. For women acting from 1660-1700, “The recruitment of actresses was more problematic because no woman with serious pretensions to respectability would countenance a stage career, and yet the profession demanded more than women of the brothel class. An actress had to be able to read and memorise lines at speed, to sing and dance at some degree and to emulate a lady’s behavior. This left only a narrow middle stratum of society from which actresses could be drawn” (Howe 8). While this was written about actresses between 1660 and 1700 and Mrs. Thurmond began acting right after the turn of the century, she still endured these thoughts about women that dominated this time period. However, as the eighteenth century progressed, so did women in theater. In the London theater, “women were vital participants in its success as actresses, playwrights, patrons, orange girls and pawnbrokers, costume makers, and vendors,” according to the book //Rival Queens: Actresses, Performance, and the Eighteenth-Century British Theater// (Nussbaum 31). Therefore, as the century progressed, women became more and more vital in the theater—right in the midst of Mrs. Thurmond’s acting career. In this relatively new period of women on the stage, “early actresses afford a dynamic cultural site for examining unequivocally public women in a period that ostensibly fostered domesticity as an ideal” (Nussbaum 31). Therefore, although Mrs. Thurmond was acting outside of the very beginning of women actresses (1660-1700), she was still very much subjected to many challenges as a woman on the stage in a male-dominated society. Overall, this was a very interesting time for women on the stage. Mrs. Thurmond was acting during the early days of actresses, but not so much so that she was one of the very first. Because of this, she wasn’t subjected to as much of the problematics of being a female actress, as in the earlier times it was not well respected. However, acting in the eighteenth century as a women was still difficult. As seen in //Royal Queens//, women in the early eighteenth century still struggled to find a balance between “woman” and “actor,” as the two together were still not widely accepted. Overall, then, Mrs. Thurmond was an actress at a very interesting time for women—too late to be one of the first, but too early for actresses to be normalized in London society.

**__Eighteenth Century Public Reception & Reviews of Mrs. Thurmond’s Acting & Her Plays:__** Despite Mrs. Thurmond’s quite extensive repertoire in numerous theaters in both Dublin and London, there is surprisingly very little critique and commentary written during the eighteenth century about her. Her husband, John Thurmond, received a lot of acclaim for being the dancing-master, but she, presumably as a woman actress, received less attention. This could be fitting for the time, seeing as that women were still very much subjected to patriarchal and hierarchal values in the eighteenth century. Despite this, her name was widely put out to the public as an actress in these many plays. A few newspapers in London, England at this time such as //The Daily Courant// and //Daily Post// advertised many plays during the eighteenth century//.// They publicized the plays as well as the actors and actresses in it. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond appears numerous times in this newspaper within those announcements. Her name being in publication repeatedly and her acting for the public frequently gave her a popularity in London at this time and led to a few reviews on her person and her performances. Just after Mrs. Thurmond and her husband left Drury Lane the first time and traversed to Goodman’s Field Theater, a review was written in October 1732, commenting on the theater itself rather than a particular play. //The Comedian,// or //The Philosophical Enquirer,// based in London, England, featured this review of Goodman’s Fields Theater. The review stated that “the Theatre next in Reputation to that of //Drury-lane// is that //in Goodman’s-fields;// the Success of which, against the Opposition that has been made to it, discovers, in Part, the Spirit of Liberty now prevailing, and is likewise some Indication of Taste in a Part of the Town” (//Some Observations..//). Therefore, the author believed that this theater was one of the more reputable in London, second only to Mrs. Thurmond’s previous theater Drury Lane. In regards to Mrs. Thurmond herself, //The Comedian// states “Mrs. Thurmond is preferable to the other Women there, and indeed, in some Parts, is a good Player…I believe that House to be capable of entertaining a reasonable Audience with some Plays” (//Some Observations…//). Because this review was written in October 1732, it can be assumed that the review was based on Mrs. Thurmond’s first appearance at Goodman’s Fields Theater as Almeria in //The Mourning// Bride. Overall, then, according to //The Comedian//, Mrs. Thurmond was a good actress and served in part as one of the reasons the theater was “capable of entertaining a reasonable Audience.” There have been other reviews about Mrs. Thurmond as an actress and singer, both positive and negative, which had been published and circulated in the eighteenth century. On December 27, 1734, Aaron Hill wrote in the issue of //The Prompter// about Mrs. Thurmond’s voice unfavorably. He wrote ”I Take this public Opportunity to beg Pardon of a celebrated Actress, who begins the Tragedy of //The Mourning Bride//, with this extraordinary Encomium on the Power of Musick. Mu-u-sick has Cha-a-arms, to so-o-oth a savage Breast, To so-o-ooften Rocks, or be-e-end the Knotted Oak. I must confess, I was under the Mistake of supposing this Lady affected when I heard her //whining// out good Verses, in a Drawl so unpleasingly extended: Little dreamt I, while, that she was //topping// her Character, and deriving her Ideas of Musick, from the fashionable Present State of the Art, as it //flourished// under Royal Encouragement” (Highfill). Clearly, Hill did not enjoy Mrs. Thurmond’s presence and her singing was not received favorably by him. He felt that she was whining the well-written verses, and in a sense ruining them, even mocking her in his writing. He states that he mistook this lady (Mrs. Thurmond) as “affected,” and clearly thought something was wrong with her singing. Therefore, reviews of Mrs. Thurmond were not always favorable. However, in 1749, W.R. Chetwood included in his //General History// positive comments about Mrs. Thurmond, her person, her presence, her singing, and her acting. He wrote that Mrs. Thurmond had “’an amiable Person and good Voice: She wisely left the Bustle and Business of the Stage, in her full and ripe Performance; and, at that time, left behind her but few that excell’d her’” (Highfill). Therefore, Chetwood not only viewed her positively for her acting and her voice, but also because she knew the business well enough to know when to step aside, which left not many who could surpass her. Clearly, Chetwood viewed her as not only talented as an actress, but also wise. Similar to the positive review of Mrs. Thurmond above, she was again viewed as wise and talented in //The Grub Street Journal// on December 30, 1736. In this publication, it stated that “Mrs. Thurmond has surrendered her part of Desdemona to Mrs. Cibber; not that it is supposed Mrs. Cibber’s judgement is the greater or near to great; but merely because the simplicity of her looks was thought to fair the part rather better. Mrs. Thurmond will always have her admirers particularly in such sprightly parts as Sylvia Balance, or in such grand parts as Arpasia in //Tamerlane”// (Haberdasherus). Although Mrs. Thurmond gave up her part, she was still viewed positively with her admirers and in this review based on her past performances. In addition, she is represented as very wise, seeing as we are not to suppose that “Mrs. Cibber’s judgement is the greater or near to great [than Mrs. Thurmond’s].” Mrs. Thurmond was featured as Mrs. Marwood in William Congreve’s popular and complex play //The Way of the World,// as well as //The Mourning Bride//. There are reviews written on Congreve’s plays as they were performed, and on Congreve’s cunning writing in general, most of which are positive. It was written in The Edinburgh Magazine that “In English comedy Congreve…stands without a rival. His plots have great depth and art…his characters are new and strong…” (//On Comedy//). Clearly, Congreve’s writing and specifically the characters he creates are very complex and strong and must be played by actors and actresses as such. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond’s ability to succeed and receive positive reviews in Congreve’s plays is very impressive and shows how accomplished she was as an actress. Overall, it is clear that Mrs. Thurmond achieved enough popularity in the London theater world to receive reviews and commentary on her and her performances—both good and bad, although mainly positive, viewed as a strong and wise actress that succeeded well on the London stage. Mrs. Thurmond in the Dramatis Personae as Lucy in //The Lover's Opera.//

**__Scandal Surrounding Mrs. Thurmond:__** Although a very successful actress, Mrs. Thurmond was not a stranger to scandal. It is rumored that she was a heavy drinker and potentially had a drinking problem (Highfill). In fact, it is suggested that shows had to be cancelled due to Mrs. Thurmond’s sudden illness, supposedly from alcohol. Reported in the //London Evening Post// (London, England) on February 11, 1729 was an announcement about the cancellation of the play //The Village Opera.// It states, “Last night //The Village Opera// was defferr’d being acted at the Theatre Royal in Drury-lane, by Reason of the sudden illness of Mrs. Thurmond; //The Way of the World// was performed instead of it” (“London News”). Many claims have been made to assert that this “sudden illness” was brought on by her heavy drinking. The fact that she was a heavy drinker most likely didn’t go unnoticed by the population surrounding London theater. Once Mrs. Thurmond returned to the stage in //The Village Opera// on February 27 of the same year, according to //The Flying Post,// she was “met with ‘a Serenade of cat Calls, Penny-Trumpets, Clubs, Canes, Hoarse Voices, whistling in Keys, Heels, Fists; and Vollies of whole Oranges…When Mrs. T[hurmond] appeared, they call’d out for a Quarten of Gin, to chear up her Spirits’” (Highfill). Clearly, it was no secret to the audience of this performance that Mrs. Thurmond had her dealings with alcohol prior and they made it clear in the theater. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond caused quite an uproar, specifically in this performance, but in general as well.

**__Mrs. Thurmond on the Stage: How Would She Perform?__** Many actors and actresses of this time belonged to theaters and performed in a number of roles. At this point in theater history, actors and actresses tended to be closely associated with their characters, and typically cast by their “type.” Because Mrs. Thurmond’s acting career continued on the stage for quite a while (1711-1737) her type most likely changed as she aged. Being a young woman in her earliest plays, she played many younger roles. Then, as she aged, she matured into older and fittingly more mature characters. This transition is very clear in her acting in the same play years apart. At Lincoln’s Fields Theater in London during the 1717-1718 season, Mrs. Thurmond assumed the role of Ophelia in Shakespeare’s //Hamlet.// Then, after her return to Drury Lane from 1719 to 1732, she assumed the role of Gertrude in the same play in her later years there. There is a vast difference in the characters of Ophelia—the young and distressed love interest to Hamlet—and Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother. Nevertheless, there is still a certain type that Mrs. Thurmond would have played—both young and old. In her earlier years, Mrs. Thurmond played many roles of young women, typically the love interest; in her later years, she obviously played older women, sometimes love interests, sometimes mothers, etc. Based on the types of characters she played, both young and old, it is interesting to look at what type of woman and actress she possibly could have been based upon her characters. In //Love for Love// she played the young woman Angelica. She was a very clever and cunning young woman, dealing with her love’s faults and eventually marrying him. Moving forward into her older years, in Congreve’s //The Way of the World,// Mrs. Thurmond played Mrs. Marwood. This character is the mistress of the very distasteful and married man, Mr. Fainall. This seems fitting for Mrs. Marwood, seeing as she is a rather bitter woman herself, mainly because the unreciprocated feelings she possesses for Mirabell. While it is not pleasant to view Mrs. Thurmond in this way—a bitter woman and a mistress— we are not entirely sure what she would have been like. However, playing stern women like Mrs. Marwood, or Gertrude in //Hamlet//, does seem fitting. Furthermore, Angelica in //Love for Love// is also very clever and can be seen as stern as well. As she matured in her actual life, the characters she played definitely evolved as well; however, they seem to take the same basic stance of clever, stern, or something of the sort. While seemingly a talented actress, receiving mostly positive reviews for her performances, she was not a stranger to scandal or bad reviews. It is also quite possible she could have been a stern woman, just like some of the characters she successfully fulfilled in her lengthy career as an actress.

All factual information included in the sections “Personal Life of Mrs. Thurmond” and “Mrs. Thurmond’s Acting Career” was retrieved from two biographical sources: //The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography// and //The Biographical Dictionary of Actors//.

Works Cited Girdham, Jane. “Thurmond, Sarah (d. 1762).” Jane Girdham, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Sept. 2013. 3 Nov. 2016

HABERDASHERUS. "INSTANCES of Actors Condescending to Give Up Parts, in which they had been Well Received, Entirely to Promote the General Interest of the Theatre." The Grub-Street journal.366 (1736) ProQuest. Web. 3 Nov. 2016.

Highfill, Philip H., Kalman A. Burnim, and Edward A. Langhans. A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660-1800. Volume 14, Siddons to Thynne /. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991. Web.

Howe, Elizabeth. The First English Actresses: Women and Drama, 1660-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print. Web.

"London News." London Evening Post 11 Feb. 1729, 184th ed. 17th and 18th Century Burney Collection: UK Newspapers. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

"MEMOIRS of the LIFE and CHARACTER of WILLIAM CONGREVE, Esq; the Celebrated Poet. by Dr Samuel Johnson." The Edinburgh magazine, or, Literary amusement, 1779-1782 55 (1782): 1-6. ProQuest. Web. 3 Nov. 2016.

Nussbaum, F..Rival Queens: Actresses, Performance, and the Eighteenth-Century British Theater. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Project MUSE. "On Comedy." The Edinburgh magazine, or Literary miscellany, 1785-1803 (1785): 62-5. ProQuest. Web. 3 Nov. 2016.

"Some Observations in the Present State of Theaters in London." The Comedian, or the Philosophical Enquirer 7 (1732): 37-41. Eighteenth Century Journals. Web. 1 Nov. 2016.

Images Cited Chetwood, W. R. (William Rufus). The lover's opera. As it is performed at the Theatre-Royal, by His Majesty's servants. By Mr. Chetwood, prompter to the Theatre. London, MDCCXXIX. [1729]. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. University of Maryland College Park. 3 Nov. 2016.

"Classified Ads." Daily Journal [London, England] 17 May 1723, Issues 723 ed. 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.

"Drury Lane Theatre." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica. Web. 03 Nov. 2016.  **__Mrs. Thurmond’s Acting Career:__** Throughout Sarah Lewis/Mrs. Thurmond’s acting career, she became a well-known actress, singer, and speaker of epilogues and prologues. Her first known appearance on the stage in with Pinkethman’s Troupe at Greenwich in 1711. After that, she travelled to Dublin in 1712 to act and stayed through 1715. Her list of roles in Dublin was much shorter than will be later in London, but nevertheless includes Evandra in //Timon of Athens//, Arpasia in //Tamerlane//, and Ruth in //The Committee.// She returned to London with her family in 1715. Once she returned to London she began acting in Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theater. She began there in 1715 and stayed there throughout the 1717-1718 season. Her time there substantiated her repertoire of plays largely acting in plays such as //The Doting Lovers, The Jew of Venice, The False Court, The Wife’s Relief, The Provok’d Wife, The Pilgrim, The Woman Captain, The Artful Husband, Hamlet, The Unhappy Favorite, The Old Bachelor,// and //Don Quixote//. From there she went to the popular Drury Lane Theater for the 1718-1719 season and remained there through the 1731-1732 season. Her first appearance at Drury Lane was on November 8, 1718. She appeared in an extensive number of plays at Drury Lane and fulfilled an extensive number of roles some of which include: Aspasia in //The Maid’s Tragedy//, Almeria and Zara in //The Mourning Bride//, Hypolita in //She Wou’d & She Wou’d Not//, Countess of Rutland in //The Unhappy Favorite,// Eliza in //The Earl of Warwick,// Angelica in //Love for Love//, Desdemona in //Othello,// Maria in //Don Jon//, Imoinda in //Oroonoko//, Gertrude in //Hamlet//, Narcissa in //Love’s Lost Shift,// Isabella in //The Conscious Lovers//, and Mrs. Marwood in //The Way of the World.// Because of a conflict that occurred with her and her husband while there in 1732, they both left Drury Lane in favor of Goodman’s Field Theatre. She first performed there on October 18, 1732 and went on to reprise eight previous roles she had played in other theaters, but also performed in new plays: Anne Bullen in //Vertue Betray’d,// Lady Easy in //The Careless Husband//, and Polly in //The Beggar’s Opera//. In the 1733-1734 season, she played a number of new roles as well including Elizabeth in //The Unhappy Favorite// and Lady Sharlot in //The Funeral.// After the issues at Drury Lane had been resolved, Mrs. Thurmond and her husband returned to Drury Lane on September 7, 1734. She continued at Drury Lane through the 1736-1737 season, appearing in many new roles, until her last appearance on the stage on May 5, 1737 as Lady Wronghead in //The Provok’d Husband//. She was well renowned in London Theater, so much that she had benefits performed by other actors in her name. In addition, it has been claimed that Mrs. Thurmond received training in tragedy and acting from the well-renowned Barton Booth (Highfill). He also acted at Drury Lane Theater, granted before Mrs. Thurmond, but nevertheless built a “reputation as a formidable player of weighty and tragic roles” (Girdham). Because of this formidable and impressive training, it is no surprise that Mrs. Thurmond excelled as an actress and singer and built her own reputation. **__Actresses in the Seventeenth & the Eighteenth Century:__** Despite her long list of acting credits, Mrs. Thurmond is not an actress that has a lot of current or scholarly work written about her. In fact, her entry in the //Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,// it is stated that “contemporary comments on Sarah Thurmond's performances are scarce” (Girdham). However, it is crucial to understand the social climate of the time in regards to female actresses at to better understand Mrs. Thurmond. The Restoration was one of the first times that women characters in plays were actually played by women. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond began acting relatively recently to when women first began in acting. Although women were allowed to act at this time, it was still quite difficult for them and difficult for theaters to find women to play the roles. For women acting from 1660-1700, “The recruitment of actresses was more problematic because no woman with serious pretensions to respectability would countenance a stage career, and yet the profession demanded more than women of the brothel class. An actress had to be able to read and memorise lines at speed, to sing and dance at some degree and to emulate a lady’s behavior. This left only a narrow middle stratum of society from which actresses could be drawn” (Howe 8). While this was written about actresses between 1660 and 1700 and Mrs. Thurmond began acting right after the turn of the century, she still endured these thoughts about women that dominated this time period. However, as the eighteenth century progressed, so did women in theater. In the London theater, “women were vital participants in its success as actresses, playwrights, patrons, orange girls and pawnbrokers, costume makers, and vendors,” according to the book //Rival Queens: Actresses, Performance, and the Eighteenth-Century British Theater// (Nussbaum 31). Therefore, as the century progressed, women became more and more vital in the theater—right in the midst of Mrs. Thurmond’s acting career. In this relatively new period of women on the stage, “early actresses afford a dynamic cultural site for examining unequivocally public women in a period that ostensibly fostered domesticity as an ideal” (Nussbaum 31). Therefore, although Mrs. Thurmond was acting outside of the very beginning of women actresses (1660-1700), she was still very much subjected to many challenges as a woman on the stage in a male-dominated society. Overall, this was a very interesting time for women on the stage. Mrs. Thurmond was acting during the early days of actresses, but not so much so that she was one of the very first. Because of this, she wasn’t subjected to as much of the problematics of being a female actress, as in the earlier times it was not well respected. However, acting in the eighteenth century as a women was still difficult. As seen in //Royal Queens//, women in the early eighteenth century still struggled to find a balance between “woman” and “actor,” as the two together were still not widely accepted. Overall, then, Mrs. Thurmond was an actress at a very interesting time for women—too late to be one of the first, but too early for actresses to be normalized in London society. **__Eighteenth Century Public Reception & Reviews of Mrs. Thurmond’s Acting & Her Plays:__** Despite Mrs. Thurmond’s quite extensive repertoire in numerous theaters in both Dublin and London, there is surprisingly very little critique and commentary written during the eighteenth century about her. Her husband, John Thurmond, received a lot of acclaim for being the dancing-master, but she, presumably as a woman actress, received less attention. This could be fitting for the time, seeing as that women were still very much subjected to patriarchal and hierarchal values in the eighteenth century. Despite this, her name was widely put out to the public as an actress in these many plays. A few newspapers in London, England at this time such as //The Daily Courant// and //Daily Post// advertised many plays during the eighteenth century//.// They publicized the plays as well as the actors and actresses in it. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond appears numerous times in this newspaper within those announcements. Her name being in publication repeatedly and her acting for the public frequently gave her a popularity in London at this time and led to a few reviews on her person and her performances. Just after Mrs. Thurmond and her husband left Drury Lane the first time and traversed to Goodman’s Field Theater, a review was written in October 1732, commenting on the theater itself rather than a particular play. //The Comedian,// or //The Philosophical Enquirer,// based in London, England, featured this review of Goodman’s Fields Theater. The review stated that “the Theatre next in Reputation to that of //Drury-lane// is that //in Goodman’s-fields;// the Success of which, against the Opposition that has been made to it, discovers, in Part, the Spirit of Liberty now prevailing, and is likewise some Indication of Taste in a Part of the Town” (//Some Observations..//). Therefore, the author believed that this theater was one of the more reputable in London, second only to Mrs. Thurmond’s previous theater Drury Lane. In regards to Mrs. Thurmond herself, //The Comedian// states “Mrs. Thurmond is preferable to the other Women there, and indeed, in some Parts, is a good Player…I believe that House to be capable of entertaining a reasonable Audience with some Plays” (//Some Observations…//). Because this review was written in October 1732, it can be assumed that the review was based on Mrs. Thurmond’s first appearance at Goodman’s Fields Theater as Almeria in //The Mourning// Bride. Overall, then, according to //The Comedian//, Mrs. Thurmond was a good actress and served in part as one of the reasons the theater was “capable of entertaining a reasonable Audience.” There have been other reviews about Mrs. Thurmond as an actress and singer, both positive and negative, which had been published and circulated in the eighteenth century. On December 27, 1734, Aaron Hill wrote in the issue of //The Prompter// about Mrs. Thurmond’s voice unfavorably. He wrote ”I Take this public Opportunity to beg Pardon of a celebrated Actress, who begins the Tragedy of //The Mourning Bride//, with this extraordinary Encomium on the Power of Musick. Mu-u-sick has Cha-a-arms, to so-o-oth a savage Breast, To so-o-ooften Rocks, or be-e-end the Knotted Oak. I must confess, I was under the Mistake of supposing this Lady affected when I heard her //whining// out good Verses, in a Drawl so unpleasingly extended: Little dreamt I, while, that she was //topping// her Character, and deriving her Ideas of Musick, from the fashionable Present State of the Art, as it //flourished// under Royal Encouragement” (Highfill). Clearly, Hill did not enjoy Mrs. Thurmond’s presence and her singing was not received favorably by him. He felt that she was whining the well-written verses, and in a sense ruining them, even mocking her in his writing. He states that he mistook this lady (Mrs. Thurmond) as “affected,” and clearly thought something was wrong with her singing. Therefore, reviews of Mrs. Thurmond were not always favorable. However, in 1749, W.R. Chetwood included in his //General History// positive comments about Mrs. Thurmond, her person, her presence, her singing, and her acting. He wrote that Mrs. Thurmond had “’an amiable Person and good Voice: She wisely left the Bustle and Business of the Stage, in her full and ripe Performance; and, at that time, left behind her but few that excell’d her’” (Highfill). Therefore, Chetwood not only viewed her positively for her acting and her voice, but also because she knew the business well enough to know when to step aside, which left not many who could surpass her. Clearly, Chetwood viewed her as not only talented as an actress, but also wise. Similar to the positive review of Mrs. Thurmond above, she was again viewed as wise and talented in //The Grub Street Journal// on December 30, 1736. In this publication, it stated that “Mrs. Thurmond has surrendered her part of Desdemona to Mrs. Cibber; not that it is supposed Mrs. Cibber’s judgement is the greater or near to great; but merely because the simplicity of her looks was thought to fair the part rather better. Mrs. Thurmond will always have her admirers particularly in such sprightly parts as Sylvia Balance, or in such grand parts as Arpasia in //Tamerlane”// (Haberdasherus). Although Mrs. Thurmond gave up her part, she was still viewed positively with her admirers and in this review based on her past performances. In addition, she is represented as very wise, seeing as we are not to suppose that “Mrs. Cibber’s judgement is the greater or near to great [than Mrs. Thurmond’s].” Mrs. Thurmond was featured as Mrs. Marwood in William Congreve’s popular and complex play //The Way of the World,// as well as //The Mourning Bride//. There are reviews written on Congreve’s plays as they were performed, and on Congreve’s cunning writing in general, most of which are positive. It was written in The Edinburgh Magazine that “In English comedy Congreve…stands without a rival. His plots have great depth and art…his characters are new and strong…” (//On Comedy//). Clearly, Congreve’s writing and specifically the characters he creates are very complex and strong and must be played by actors and actresses as such. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond’s ability to succeed and receive positive reviews in Congreve’s plays is very impressive and shows how accomplished she was as an actress. Overall, it is clear that Mrs. Thurmond achieved enough popularity in the London theater world to receive reviews and commentary on her and her performances—both good and bad, although mainly positive, viewed as a strong and wise actress that succeeded well on the London stage. **__Scandal Surrounding Mrs. Thurmond:__** Although a very successful actress, Mrs. Thurmond was not a stranger to scandal. It is rumored that she was a heavy drinker and potentially had a drinking problem (Highfill). In fact, it is suggested that shows had to be cancelled due to Mrs. Thurmond’s sudden illness, supposedly from alcohol. Reported in the //London Evening Post// (London, England) on February 11, 1729 was an announcement about the cancellation of the play //The Village Opera.// It states, “Last night //The Village Opera// was defferr’d being acted at the Theatre Royal in Drury-lane, by Reason of the sudden illness of Mrs. Thurmond; //The Way of the World// was performed instead of it” (“London News”). Many claims have been made to assert that this “sudden illness” was brought on by her heavy drinking. The fact that she was a heavy drinker most likely didn’t go unnoticed by the population surrounding London theater. Once Mrs. Thurmond returned to the stage in //The Village Opera// on February 27 of the same year, according to //The Flying Post,// she was “met with ‘a Serenade of cat Calls, Penny-Trumpets, Clubs, Canes, Hoarse Voices, whistling in Keys, Heels, Fists; and Vollies of whole Oranges…When Mrs. T[hurmond] appeared, they call’d out for a Quarten of Gin, to chear up her Spirits’” (Highfill). Clearly, it was no secret to the audience of this performance that Mrs. Thurmond had her dealings with alcohol prior and they made it clear in the theater. Therefore, Mrs. Thurmond caused quite an uproar, specifically in this performance, but in general as well. **__Mrs. Thurmond on the Stage: How Would She Perform?__** Many actors and actresses of this time belonged to theaters and performed in a number of roles. At this point in theater history, actors and actresses tended to be closely associated with their characters, and typically cast by their “type.” Because Mrs. Thurmond’s acting career continued on the stage for quite a while (1711-1737) her type most likely changed as she aged. Being a young woman in her earliest plays, she played many younger roles. Then, as she aged, she matured into older and fittingly more mature characters. This transition is very clear in her acting in the same play years apart. At Lincoln’s Fields Theater in London during the 1717-1718 season, Mrs. Thurmond assumed the role of Ophelia in Shakespeare’s //Hamlet.// Then, after her return to Drury Lane from 1719 to 1732, she assumed the role of Gertrude in the same play in her later years there. There is a vast difference in the characters of Ophelia—the young and distressed love interest to Hamlet—and Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother. Nevertheless, there is still a certain type that Mrs. Thurmond would have played—both young and old. In her earlier years, Mrs. Thurmond played many roles of young women, typically the love interest; in her later years, she obviously played older women, sometimes love interests, sometimes mothers, etc. Based on the types of characters she played, both young and old, it is interesting to look at what type of woman and actress she possibly could have been based upon her characters. In //Love for Love// she played the young woman Angelica. She was a very clever and cunning young woman, dealing with her love’s faults and eventually marrying him. Moving forward into her older years, in Congreve’s //The Way of the World,// Mrs. Thurmond played Mrs. Marwood. This character is the mistress of the very distasteful and married man, Mr. Fainall. This seems fitting for Mrs. Marwood, seeing as she is a rather bitter woman herself, mainly because the unreciprocated feelings she possesses for Mirabell. While it is not pleasant to view Mrs. Thurmond in this way—a bitter woman and a mistress— we are not entirely sure what she would have been like. However, playing stern women like Mrs. Marwood, or Gertrude in //Hamlet//, does seem fitting. Furthermore, Angelica in //Love for Love// is also very clever and can be seen as stern as well. As she matured in her actual life, the characters she played definitely evolved as well; however, they seem to take the same basic stance of clever, stern, or something of the sort. While seemingly a talented actress, receiving mostly positive reviews for her performances, she was not a stranger to scandal or bad reviews. It is also quite possible she could have been a stern woman, just like some of the characters she successfully fulfilled in her lengthy career as an actress.

All factual information included in the sections “Personal Life of Mrs. Thurmond” and “Mrs. Thurmond’s Acting Career” was retrieved from two biographical sources: //The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography// and //The Biographical Dictionary of Actors//.