Richard+Wroughton

Richard Wroughton (1748-1822) was an actor and theater manager who starred as Fainall in Congreve’s The Way of the World. Despite his training to be a surgeon, Wroughton felt called to the stage, changing his name from Rotten to Wroughton and moving to London to join the Convent Garden troupe. A son of a colonel and a brother of a major in the British army, Wroughton was born in Bath and fell in love with a milliner who nursed him back to health from illness. In 1769, Wroughton married Joanna Townley, one year after his first performance as Zaphna in Mahomet. Fuelled by hard work and perseverance, Wroughton rose to prominence at Convent Garden and petitioned for a salary that matched his successes. Wroughton successfully bargained for a raise to £12 and also earned income from a part-share in the Sadler’s Wells theater he managed. His determination pushed him into leading roles on the stage and in the theatrical business (Highfill, Kalman, & Langhans, 1993 ) ). However, Wroughton’s career was fraught with tensions about unjust treatment at the Convent Garden that only continued to escalate, resulting in a violent quarrel between Wroughton and a co-worker that led to his dismissal. After fifteen seasons at Convent Garden, Wroughton transferred his talents to the Drury Lane theater, where he worked the winter seasons for a decade. He announced his retirement in 1798, but returned to Drury Lane as manager in 1800 in an attempt to salvage the theater’s declining fortune. However, in 1802, Wroughton was entrenched in a legal dispute over unpaid salaries. Further straining his relationship with Drury Lane, Wroughton united with a group of actors to persuade George III to establish a third patent theater in London. The plan dissolved and despite his attempted desertion, Wroughton stayed with Drury Lane until 1815. After 37 years and over 200 roles in the London theater, Wroughton passed away in his home in February 1822 (Highfill, et al. 1993 ).
 * Biography **

Richard Wroughton’s roster of roles, salary, and steady employment indicate that he had a sufficient amount of audience approval. Appearing in The Morning Post on February 12, 1822, Wroughton’s obituary, written by an anonymous friend, lauded his acting prowess and upstanding moral character. The friend detailed how he “never knew a human being more completely clear of vanity than Wroughton was” (“The Life of Wroughton,” 1822, para.2). He also detailed how Wroughton was initially infatuated with ambitions of fame, but was ultimately humbled by a man named Garrick’s performance in Macbeth. This friend called Garrick’s performance the “extinguisher of Mr. Wroughton’s theatrical ambition;” the impetus for Wroughton to solemnly state, “I merely follow the profession as a means of eating, without a feeling for the life to come, in many an actor’s creed” (para.3). Despite Wroughton’s deflated ego, his friend affirms that he was a talented actor, mastering extremely difficult roles, like Hotspur andOld Norval in Henry IV and Douglas respectively. The obituary also expresses that Wroughton surpassed many of his contemporaries, even in the face of obstacles like a “face and figure [that] were not heroic,” a “bad utterance,” and an unpleasant voice (para.2). Wroughton’s friend explains that this unexpected acting merit stems from his mind and character. He summarizes Wroughton’s integrity with one sentence: “I never heard a foolish or a malicious word from Richard Wroughton” (para.2). Strangely, the obituary deviates from Wroughton’s life with a tangent about the inferiority of English theater to French performance. Sadly, the tribute ends with a comment about Garrick’s “transcendent superiority” (para.4). While the obituary consistently affirms another actor’s talent, it does acknowledge Wroughton’s moral righteousness and theatrical aptitude. Wroughton’s friend’s comments attest to Wroughton’s determination, good-heartedness, and outstanding talent, even if he was not one of the very best performers. While Wroughton was beloved by his friends, his critical reception was mixed and often negative. Echoing sentiments from the aforementioned obituary, an article from a 1796 edition of the English periodical TheMonthly Mirror describes Wroughton with ambivalence. While the article commends Wroughton’s work ethic, it explains that he lacks any “natural advantages,” as “his person [is] inelegantly formed, his voice inharmonious and confined, his face rotund and insipid, and his features void both of flexibility and expression” (The Monthly Mirror, 1796, p.1). In spite of these setbacks, The Monthly Mirror contends that Wroughton rose to prominence, even when he performed in grave tragedies. Furthermore, the periodical qualifies Wroughton’s lack of “commanding eloquence” with the observation that “if he seldom assists the author, he rarely injures him” (p.3). Regarding comedies, The Monthly Mirror reviews Wroughton more favorably, saying he exudes ease on stage. While the article acknowledges that Wroughton has a spirited presence, it suggests that he is “perhaps too locomotive,” shifting around and bouncing throughout the whole performance (p.4). Still, Wroughton’s excessive movement worked to his advantage occasionally, as The Monthly Mirror attributes Wroughton’s success as Ford and Sir John Restlessto his exuberance. Furthermore, the periodical raves about his performance as Mirable in the production Inconstant, and Millamour in Know Your Own Mind. In fact, the latter performance is praised as “comic perfection” (p.3). The article criticizes Wroughton’s natural talent, but it also applauds his industriousness and comedic prowess. When Wroughton was stage manager at Drury Lane, the theater put on a version of Richard II that was by far his most enduring theatrical endeavor. This 1815 rendition was reviewed by W. J. Lawrence for the 1897 edition of The Gentleman’s Magazine. Lawrence claimed that the production was “vilely garbled” because Wroughton edited and shortened various lines in addition to supplementing the play with his own speeches (The Gentleman’s Magazine, 1897, p.87). The review cites a caustic observation by critic J.W. Cole that Wroughton “laboriously and pedantically altered to halting blank verse,” betraying Shakespeare’s “naturally flowing” style (p.88). Despite Wroughton’s mishandling of the text, the lead actor Edmund Kean was praised for his portrayal of Richard. As in his obituary, Wroughton is again negatively compared to a superior actor. While Kean was lauded for being “fiery and energetic” with “bright sparks and flashes of genius,” Wroughton was credited with creating “hash [that] was tolerated for twelve nights, and then laid by forever” (p.88). In fact, Lawrence situates Wroughton with stage-managers like Nahum Tate and Lewis Theobald who completely butchered their revivals of Richard II by “desecrating Shakespeare” with misguided and historically inaccurate revisions (p.86). The review of Wroughton’s 1815 rendition is contextualized in a larger article, “The Stage History of ‘King Richard II’” that recounts failed attempts at Richard II ranging from 1608-1857. Another review of the 1815 version of Richard II published in the Theatrical Inquisitor and The Monthly Mirror echoes Lawrence’s sentiments. The article, titled “Theatrical Inquisitions,” praises that Wroughton revived a play that was relatively neglected in the theater. The review qualifies this praise with the affirmation that “we can by no means praise this altered edition” ( 1819, p.229). Like Lawrence, the author of this review resents Wroughton’s changes to the script, wishing that he maintained the integrity of Shakespeare’s original edition. Interestingly, the article also argues for the importance of the theater. In response to the claim that stage presentations diminish the beauty of and attention to language, “Theatrical Inquisitions” asserts that theater constructs an “almost-reality” much more vivid than anything reading can engender (p.230). Additionally, the article also praises the actor Edmund Kean. Shifting its focus from Wroughton to Kean, the review challenges criticisms of Kean’s performance as Richard. In fact, “Theatrical Inquisitions” “offer[s] Kean [its] warmest tribute of admiration” because he avoids “the fetters of common error” by representing Richard as the “weak, self-willed, luxurious monarch” Shakespeare intended him to be (p.231). While Wroughton deviated from Shakespeare’s brilliant vision, Kean preserved his intentions in a way other actors had not. With Kean as an exception, the review decries the “wretched” performance of the rest of the cast (p.231). This negative review further contributes to Richard Wroughton’s mixed reception. Indeed, many of the aforementioned sources (e.g. the obituary and reviews) celebrate Wroughton’s efforts but compare him negatively to superiors in the field. This pattern suggests ambivalence about Wroughton’s theatrical prowess. The prevalence of primary and secondary sources addressing Wroughton’s adaptation of Richard II indicates that the rendition constitutes most of his legacy today. While Wroughton performed in a variety of plays (e.g. Othello, Hamlet, The Dramatic censor, Cato, etc.), he is remembered in contemporary scholarly discussionfor his impact as a stage manager. In Richard II: Shakespeare: The Critical Tradition, Volume 9, the editor, Charles Forker, discusses Wroughton’s changes to the original Shakespeare script. The article argues that other scholars underestimate the significance of Wroughton’s edits, which Forker deems “major surgery” (200, p.106). Forker further explains that in an attempt to rescue Richard II from its dormancy in the theater, Wroughton deleted more than one third of the lines and supplanted them with about 200 lines from various Shakespearean plays (i.e. Henry VI, Titus Andronicus, King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, etc). The article also notes that Wroughton added some of his own speeches into the play, while also tweaking the heroism of Richard and expanding the role of the Queen. Forker acknowledges that these changes drastically compromised Shakespeare’s intention, but he speculates that this contributed to the play’s commercial success (it ran for 13 seasons). Similarly, the book King Richard II: Shakespeare in Performance discusses the impact of Wroughton’s revisions. The author, Margaret Shewring, contends that Wroughton designed his adaptation to appeal to “the audience’s aesthetic rather than political political values” (1999, p.38). In other words, Shewring argues that Wroughton diverts Shakespeare’s emphasis on political crisis to a focus on tragedy in private life. She asserts that by evoking scenes in other plays, Wroughton “increases the emotive language of personal separation and tragedy” (p.38). One example King Richard II: Shakespeare in Performance points to is when Richard’s departure from Isabella incorporates lines from the separation of Margaret and Suffolk in 2 Henry VI. Additionally, Shewring highlights the play’s final act as the most dramatically altered, as a remorseful Bolingbroke promises to restore Richard and his Queen’s rightful authority. However, the Queen ultimately dies of grief, appropriating Lear’s lament that asks “why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life, and thou no breath at all?” (V.iv). Shewring argues that these changes allow “the audience’s taste for sentiment to override both historical evidence and political intelligence” (p.38). This indicates that Wroughton valued the audience’s emotional response to a performance over the play’s historical accuracy or social commentary. Contrary to the criticism by Wroughton’s contemporaries, Shewring celebrates Wroughton’s adaptation as “eminently theatrical” and “splendid” (p.40). She also applauds “Wroughton’s understanding of current audience taste for star performers” regarding his casting of the famed Edmund Kean (p.39). The warm commemoration King Richard II: Shakespeare in Performance gives Wroughton illustrates that he does have a legacy, perhaps one that is better than his reputation when he was alive. Although Wroughton’s repertoire did have some variety, he shined in comedic roles and specialized in Shakespearean plays. His major Shakespearean roles included 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. In fact, A Biographical Dictionary of Actors, Actresses, Musicians, Dancers, Managers & Other Stage Personnel in London, 1660-1800 speculates that the comedic role of Ford was Wroughton’s most acclaimed character (Highfill, Kalman, & Langhans, 1993 ). Still, the Dictionary contends that Wroughton “excelled (or was adequate) in a wide variety of young tragic heroes and men of fashion: rakes, beaux, and leads in sentimental comedies” (Highfill, et al. 1993, p. 302). Interestingly, Wroughton’s penchant for sentimentality is also apparent in his transformation of Richard II. Perhaps this bent informed his success as a comedic actor and the critical backlash he occasionally received for his tragic roles. As illustrated by the aforementioned Monthly Mirror article, critics commended Wroughton’s hard work but decried his lack of natural talent. Evident in the obituary, Wroughton was well respected and dignified on stage and in everyday life. However, critics often commented on his unsightly appearance, voice, and mannerisms. For example, the publication The Theaters (1772) branded Wroughton as a “theatrical weed” who had an “insipidity of tone” and a “vacant face” (Highfill, et al. 1993, p. 302). Similarly, The Secret History of the Green Rooms (1790) noted that Wroughton’s “voice was hoarse, his face inexpressive, and he was slightly knock-kneed,” but he still managed success through his animated demeanor and hard-work (Highfill, et al. 1993, p. 303). These sources situate Wroughton as a competent actor with shortcomings that were permissible to some critics and insurmountable to others. Wroughton’s roster of roles and critical reception begin to piece together an image of a man from centuries ago. I can picture him most vividly as the Ghost in Hamlet. Wroughton’s intensive background in Shakespeare probably ensured that he was extremely familiar with the text and his part. Ironically, the physical features that critics usually consider disadvantageous probably served him in this role: Wroughton’s unattractive appearance likely enhanced the scariness of the Ghost. However, his unpleasant voice and excessive movement on stage may have strengthened or damaged his performance. On the one hand, the hoarseness of Wroughton’s voice, paired with his restlessness and gregarious demeanor, could have made Wroughton unintimidating, detracting from the Ghost’s ominous atmosphere. However, his sporadic movement and the grating nature of his voice could have also contributed to the Ghost’s air of discontent and agitation in Purgatory. Indeed, Wroughton may have succeeded as the Ghost considering he was commended for his portrayal of the jealous, crazed, Pinchwife-esque character Ford in the Merry Wives of Windsor. However, the tragic context of Hamlet may not have been suitable for someone as lighthearted as Wroughton. I am ambivalent about his imagined performance in the same way that many critics were ambivalent about his actual talent. My ability to envision and speculate about Richard Wroughton testifies to the power of primary and scholarly sources in capturing the legacy of a man who died hundreds of years ago in an age without technology. Researching his life has invited me into the world we have been exploring in class in a very personal and revealing way.
 * Discussions by Wroughton’s Contemporaries **
 * Play Reviews **
 * Scholarly Discussions **
 * Wroughton’s Acting Style **
 * Reimagining Wroughton **

Works Cited

Ed. (1815). DRURY LANE THEATRE. Theatrical Inquisitor, and Monthly Mirror,

 Feb.1813-June 1819, 6, 229-231. Retrieved from [|__http://search.proquest.com/docview/6128810?accountid=14696__]

Forker, Charles, ed. Richard II: Shakespeare: The Critical Tradition, Volume 9. Vol. 9. N.p.:

A&C Black, 2000. Print.

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. Carbondale, Ill: Southern Illinois University

Press, 1993. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Lawrence, W. J. (1897). THE STAGE HISTORY OF "KING RICHARD THE SECOND.".The

 Gentleman's Magazine, 283(1999), 85-89. Retrieved from

 http://search.proquest.com/docview/8461737?accountid=14696

Shaughnessy, Robert. “Wroughton, Richard (1748–1822).” Robert Shaughnessy Oxford

 Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison.

 Oxford: OUP, 2004. Online ed. Ed. David Cannadine. Jan. 2008. 31 Oct. 2016. Retrieved from  http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/30091.

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

“Theatrical Journal.” (1792). The European Magazine, and London Review, 21, 65-67.

 Retrieved from [|__http://search.proquest.com/docview/4398039?accountid=14696__]

The Morning Post (London, England), Tuesday, February 12, 1822; Issue 15885. British

Library Newspapers, Part II: 1800-1900.

--Sarah Schurman