1720

=The London Journal= Originally entitled the //Thursday's Journal//, and then //The London Journal or The Thursday's Journal//, and established in 1719, the newspaper typically ran six pages of news from London, including news from elsewhere pertinent to London residents of the time. News from the Colonies, of foreign relations and diplomacy, and of the movements and travel of notable nobility were often included in addition to London-specific happenings. Throughout 1720 trouble between Sweden and Russia was carefully documented in the "Foreign Affairs" section, as was news of unrest in France over inflation and spreading hunger. Relations with Spain were typically discussed within the main portion of the paper, as well as through letters: this placement is likely due to increased interest and importance in Spanish dealings at the time. The May 28 issue even began with a letter devoted to accusations that the Native Americans were receiving training, weaponry, and supplies from the Spanish in an attempt to force the British out of the Americas, followed by an intelligence letter sent by a British prisoner held in Havana warning of likely Spanish attack on the Carolinas.

== Along with a focus on news of Spanish involvement in British affairs, companies, money, economics, and the South Seas Bubble were all covered extensively by the //London Journal//. Both the June 18 and June 25 editions opened with a discussion of the morality of the accumulation of wealth, particularly by the mercantile class. The first letter, addressed to the author of the //London Journal// and sent by one "Humphry Quaery", contends that the ability to profit from trade and company stocks has conversely lead to moral bankruptcy in which one is never satisfied with one's wealth. He focuses particularly on the word "enough", asserting that wanting to amass wealth of any amount, as long as you are not satisfied with the amount you currently own, is necessarily avarice, and that supporting the desire for money in any amount will ultimately lead only to unquenchable greed. The //London Journal// disagrees with this sentiment: the author argues that it is moral to aim to desire to accumulate money as a safeguard against misfortune and uncertainty. He writes "however Rich they [South Seas stock holders] may be //namely//, that they are not yet drawn out, and know not what Shock they may meet with at the Winding up of the Bottom", and also argues that excess wealth may be used charitably. This is a reflection of the uneasiness surrounding the new mercantile class of London, as well as the skepticism with which the trading companies were viewed. This interest in social mobility is also on display later in the June 18 edition, where the death of a Virginia Merchant was given several lines of coverage due to his background. He was originally a cabinboy on a merchant ship who accumulated his wealth entirely during his lifetime in the New World. This new, //earned// money was a timely topic of discussion in 1720 London.

Each edition of the paper closely details the stock values, movements of shipments, and newly arrived imports available for purchase provided by the companies. Particular mention was also often given to the South Sea Bubble, a collapse in stock of the South Sea Company which was given a monopoly over trade in Spanish-controlled South America. Skepticism of the companies is evident throughout the year, as the //Journal// had upwards of 10-15 mentions of several companies in each edition. Such mentions were outnumbered only by accounts of Highwaymen, who were not necessarily valorized, but were given a great deal of space on the pages of the //London Journal//. Each attack/robbery was carefully documented, and many were accompanied by eyewitness information and what appear to be similar to legends or, at the very best, exaggerations of the events which took place.

The //London Journal// also served as a protest publication in its early years, and in November a series of letters from one "Cato" were published. The second Cato letter, published in the November 5 edition, begins with a discussion of the French plague outbreak in Marseilles. Cato states that even though the French have lost tens of thousands to the bubonic plague, there is a yet more insidious plague that the English must contend with: stock jobbers and companies, which he states contribute to "the Destruction of our Trade, the Glory and Riches of our Nation, and the Livelihood of the Poor." Cato argues that such enemies now attempt to make themselves "Masters of the State", and will ultimately deny all others the freedoms of property by reducing them to a state of abject poverty. The collapse of the South Sea company left many families in financial ruin, and Cato calls upon the readers of the paper, and all English, to "take Advantage of the Humour they are in, and make a Virtue of their present Anger. Let them rouse the Bold Spirit of a Free Nation, and show, by all Lawful and Legal Means, that they who always feared to be the property of TYRANT, will not be the Prey of STOCK-JOBBERS." The third letter, printed in the next edition, outlines more clearly the criminal connection Cato makes between stock-jobbers and the actions of the companies by likening them to highwaymen and pickpockets. The Cato Letters serve as a call to arms against the deceit, greed, and cruel manipulation many saw in the trading companies, especially as they threaten the republican ideals set forth by John Locke, and dovetail with the extensive previous coverage by the //Journal// of the companies and the Bubble.

Despite extensive and revolutionary coverage of political, economic, diplomatic (etc.) issues, little information was given to the theater in the //London Journal//. The "Arts and Entertainment" section, which was present only three times in the year of 1720, dealt more with publishing new poetry (which often connected to current events), and theater review was completely absent. For information on theater of the period, records kept by the theater owners and operators must be consulted rather than newspapers or journal publications.

=Theater in 1720= The early-mid 1700's saw many changes in the style and type of play put on in London. The 1720's were marked by full-length dramas, with acts separated by songs, dances, pantomimes, or skits. Plays also often had a Prologue and Epilogue--or two--and were then followed again by additional entertainment. This programmatic style, rather than simply showing one play, became quite popular among the theaters as a means of charging higher admissions. For plays that included pantomimes, which were laden with extensive props and scenes and lavish costumes, admissions were increased and advertised as higher than plays that did not. Although the raised prices were advertised, regular price and opening times often were not, but plays typically began at 6:00 pm, although the Opera House changed their hours in May 1720 to begin at 7:00 pm. It was not uncommon for wealthy theater patrons to send their servants at 3:00 pm to obtain a seat for them, so that they might arrive just as the show started but still gain favorable positioning.

In order to light evening shows, several chandeliers were hung directly over the stage, and sconces were hung on the walls of some theaters. Records show that a theater might spend hundreds of pounds on candles in a given season to provide adequate lighting. Little is known about the interior of Drury Lane at the time, except that there was an interior room, known as the settle, where men of any social stature gathered together to talk before or after the production, resulting in a mixing of the social classes not common in theater of the time. Seating was regulated based on pricing, and so typically different classes were visibly stratified during the performance of a play. More is known of the Lincoln's Inn Fields theater, which was renowned for its lavish decoration and beauty. The stage was larger, and less compact than the one at Drury Lane, and each side of the stage was covered in mirrors to reflect light, the audience, and the decorations of the theater. We also know more about the Lincoln's Inn Fields due to the immense popularity of //The Beggar's Opera//, which was shown there. William Hogarth painted a series of works depicting the play, one of which can be seen at the bottom of this page. The chandelier is clearly visible, and we can see the boxes added directly on to the stage to provide more seating and higher profits for the show.

In 1720 the two major theaters of Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields, still mired in a great deal of competition with each other, were added to by the opening of the New Theater at Haymarket in December. The New Theater was known for short term rentals by French comedians and other foreign troupes, while Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields represented new and classic English dramas. Unlike the two more established theaters, Haymarket operated without a patent or license, and began to open a market previously completely monopolized by the patented and licensed Drury Lane and Lincoln's Inn Fields. Drury Lane operated under the patent, issued in perpetuity, to Thomas Killigrew and Wiliam D'Avenant by Charles II to re-establish the theater at the beginning of the Restoration. These patents were eventually combined into the United Company, which the Drury Lane theater then operated under. In 1695, a new company was formed to act in the Lincoln's Inn Fields, and this company was soon issued a license. From then on, either a license or patent was considered necessary to operate successfully, although Haymarket changed this perception and allowed others to enter the theater market.

Although 1720 was far removed from the Puritan ban on theater, the Lord Chamberlain still occasionally meddled in theater management. On February 2, he notified Drury Lane that they could not host any benefits until they had hosted those from Mrs Oldfield and Mrs Porter, and shortly thereafter on February 6, he ordered the new Gay pastoral tragedy, //Dione// to be performed following //Siege of Damascus//, a play which debuted that same year. These are not massive issues, but the theater managers most likely found this intrusive and over-the-top.

=The 1720 Season= The 1720 season operated in a fashion common for the time; variety was key, and several new plays would debut amidst reworkings of British classics, like Shakespeare, and Reformation Comedies. //The Rover//, //The Country Wife//, and //The Way of the World// all ran extensively throughout the season, as did reworkings of //Hamlet, Macbeth,// and //King Lear//. Popular opinion of the time held that tastes and writing ability had declined since Shakespeare's time and the Restoration, and most felt that new plays could never measure up. As a result, most plays were not new, but rather newly staged reproductions made in varying degrees of faithfulness to the original. Five new plays debuted in 1720, however, split between the 1719-1720 and 1720-1721 seasons. //The Half Pay Officers//, by Charles Molloy, ran seven times starting Monday, January 11, and ran once more a decade later as a benefit to Peggy Fryar. //Whig and Tory//, by Benjamin Griffin, also ran seven times, starting Tuesday, January 26, with showings one and two months later, as well as a revival a decade after. All of these were shown at the Lincoln's Inn Fields, except the revival of //Whig and Tory//, which was shown at Drury Lane. //The Siege of Damascus//, by John Hughes, enjoyed more success, running nine times (and thus Hughes enjoyed three third nights) starting Wednesday, February 17, again in April, and then again two years later was put on by Mr. Newcomb's School. //The Refusal//, by Colley Cibber, ran six times starting Thursday, February 14, opening to cat calls and booing the first two shows. Both //The Siege of Damascus// and //The Refusal// were put on at Drury Lane. John Dennis's //The Invader of His Country, or The Fatal Resentment// also debuted in 1720. It was a reworking of Shakespeare's //Coriolanus//, and ran ive nights, denying Dennis a second third night. The showings were held at Drury Lane, starting Wednesday, November 11.

=John Dennis=

John Dennis, an English literary critic (particularly of poetry) and playwright, was born on September 16, 1658 and died on January 6, 1734. A great deal of his work was critical in nature, rather than dramatic, but he did write several plays and works of poetry. He attended Cambridge, and earned his degree in 1679. After graduation, he traveled extensively through Europe, and returned to begin his writing career in the late 1690s. Dennis wrote several popular plays starting in 1697, but his works declined in popularity, and his last play, //The Invader of His Country//, was delayed a year and ran for only a short period.

Today, Dennis is best known for his criticial, rather than dramatic, works. He wrote extensively on both poetry and drama, and is especially noted in his defense of poetic justice. Dennis encountered personal drama as well as that which he wrote; he and Colley Cibber had somewhat of a feud between them, and Dennis was quite bitter over the delay and denial of a second third night in the showing of //The Invader of His Country//. The 1920 reprinting of //The Invader// included a dedication blasting the Drury Lane management for their handling of casting, rehearsals, and overall handling of the play, and also includes an "Advertisement" before the mocking Epilogue Cibber added to the play following the Epilogue originally included by Dennis.

=//The Invader of His Country, or The Fatal Resentment//= This play by John Dennis, which debuted at Drury Lane in November 1720, was a reworking of //Coriolanus// by Shakespeare. Dennis rewrote much of the play, generally adhering to the plot but greatly changing the ending, and even changing the wording of the most famous speeches. The play was originally written in 1719, but was not produced until nearly a year later due to delays. In the 1720 printing, Dennis addressed concerns about this delay to Thomas, Duke of Newcastle, to whom the work was dedicated. Dennis argued that //The Invader// was removed from the theater due to a "mistaken Greediness of Gain", and that had the play been better managed it would have run longer and achieved lasting popularity. He asserts that he was first promised the play would run in Winter 1719, but it did not show until November 1720, and Dennis was apparently not pleased with the casting or directing choices. This seems odd as he was involved in the directing process, but the tone of this dedication is quite bitter and acerbic, and as it is not confirmed could be an exaggeration of events. Dennis also alleges that the starting date was pushed back from a Tuesday to a Wednesday, making the first third night a Friday, a less-than-favorable night as less patrons were typically at the theater that evening. This was made even worse by the King's impending visit, which many were preparing for, and thus could not attend.

The printing of the play begins with the Prologue, the author's Epilogue, and the aforementioned Advertisement and Cibber Epilogue. The prologue demonstrates up front the major way in which Dennis changes //Coriolanus//. He reworks it to serve as a warning, and strongly aligns with poetic justice, of which Dennis was a significant supporter. He writes:

For as when Britain's Rebel Sons of late combin'd with Foreign Foes t'invade the State She to your Valour and your Conduct owes that she subdued and crush'd her num'rous Foes: We shew, to Night, such Treasons to prevent that their Guilt's follw'd by their Punishment.

Shakespeare's original //Coriolanus// is more typical of tragedies in his own age, where although a man may be flawed, his ultimate demise is beyond his own control and the work of a higher power. Dennis's Coriolanus, however, is portrayed as responsible for his own death, and as deserving and directly causing his own end.

As noted earlier, the plot is fairly faithful to Shakespeare's. Conversations between characters are often out of order, or in different locations, or occur for different reasons, but at the core Coriolanus still despises the commoners, fights against the Volscians, is banished from Rome, joins the Volscians, returns to Rome, and eventually dies. The major changes are in the characterization of Coriolanus and his mother, Volumnia, and in the ending of the play. Shakespeare's Coriolanus is a classic tragic figure: both superior to the common man, but still subject to human faults. The tragedy of the play stems from the fall of a heroic figure, one who is in many ways the model figure, and Shakespeare's Coriolanus represents this in his honor and skill as a soldier. His faults are also often seen as a result of his mother, the vicious, controlling, and bloodthirsty Volumnia. Dennis's Coriolanus, however, is far more vicious and cruel than his mother, and is far less sympathetic than Shakespeare's. He taunts Aufidius, leader of the Volscians, with the blood of his men that he has slayed, and does a great deal more waffling back and forth than Shakespeare's decisive Coriolanus does. Dennis's Coriolanus is also more open to the audience, and often provides insight into the choices he is making, a huge (and I believe negative, although useful for Dennis's purpose) change from Shakespeare's Coriolanus, who does not allow the audience to understand or question his decisions. Volumnia is also changed by Dennis, and made far nicer and sympathetic. She is less cruel, less bloodthirsty--she speaks far more on love of country rather than love of war--and more of simply a proud mother who wants the best for her son. She is not unrecognizable, but she is vastly different from the strong, powerful, almost crazed woman portrayed in the original.

In the original version of //Coriolanus//, the play ends when the eponymous character betrays Aufidius, returns to Rome, and is killed by Aufidius and his men. Dennis's version, however, ends with Coriolanus killing Aufidius and several of his men at once, only to be stabbed by the last one (who he also turns around and kills, rather dramatically, after being mortally stabbed). Dennis believes, in order to properly mete out poetic justice, Aufidius and Coriolanus must //both// die, and here Coriolanus is given the opportunity to become "himself the dread revenger of his murder". He is most likely given this opportunity due to the mixed nature of his character: in Act V he calls out "Oh, the confusion of my tortured soul!". Shakespeare's restrained, interior, and noble Coriolanus would never utter such a line, but Dennis's, who is more interested in showing the audience his inner workings so that they can understand how best punishment should be assigned, here shows that he is mixed with both good and evil, and thus even though he is murdered he is allowed to avenge it via the death of Aufidius and his men.

Since the play ran only five nights, it likely was not super popular, and certainly had its detractors. The most harsh and direct critic wrote a piece entitled "In a Letter from a Schoolboy", asserting that Dennis had made a "burlesque" of Shakespeare's //Coriolanus//, and that the new version was laughably bad.he argues, rightfully, that Coriolanus had been turned from a hero to a bully, although to be fair this was necessary in order for Dennis to apply poetic justice to the work. The writer also railed against the "small talk" present throughout the piece, especially during battles and scenes of action, and I do agree with this critique. The conversations were not done in asides, which would demonstrate no interruption of the battle at hand, but Dennis's pauses for speeches were clunky and reduced the authenticity of battle scenes. Given the highly mocking Epilogue written by Cibber, it would not be surprising if he, or one of his supporters, had written this letter.

There is not a huge amount of overlap between //The Invader// and news coverage at the time. Issues of war and loyalty to country, however, are always timely, and the piece connects in that way. One line in particular, when detractors are arguing over Coriolanus's election, which reads "No purse-proud Patrician!...This proud Patrician threats our new-born Pow'r" does connect to the pressing issues of the day. The South Sea bubble and sketchy financial practices of the companies contributed heartily to this sentiment, and I assume this line probably brought cheers from the audience when performed.



Project completed by Lauren Sanders, for August 14 2012

WORKS CITED
 * 1) Pritchard, Jonathan. "Dennis, John." //Oxford Dictionary of National Biography //. N.p., 2004. .
 * 2) Carlson, Marvin. "Drama Theory." (2005): n. pag. //The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism //. Web.
 * 3) Dennis, John. //The Invader of His Country: or, the Fatal Resentment. A tragedy. As it is acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury Lane. By His Majesty's Servants. By Mr. Dennis. London, 1720. Eighteenth Century Collections Online.// Gale. Web.
 * 4) "The London Journal, 1720." //The London Journal // 1720, May-December ed.: n. pag. //17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers //. Web.
 * 5) Markley, Robert. "British Theory and Criticism: 1. Early Eighteenth Century." (2005): n. pag. //The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism //. Web.
 * 6) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">Hogarth, William. "Beggar's Opera II." <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">ArtStor. Painting, England, University of California, San Diego. Web.
 * 7) <span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Hogarth, William. "An Emblematic Print on the South Sea Scheme." //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;"> ECCO, Image Collection. //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman,Times,serif;">Web.
 * 8) //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">John Dennis //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">. N.d. Photograph. NYPL Digital Gallery, Stephen A Schwartzman Building, Print Collection, New York City.
 * 9) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px;">School Boy. //A critick no wit: or, remarks on Mr. Dennis's late play, called The Invader of His Country. In a letter from a School-Boy, to the author.// London, 1720. //ECCO//. Gale.
 * 10) <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Scouten, Arthur H., and Emmett L. Avery. //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">The London Stage //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">. Vol. 2. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Univ. Pr., 1968. Print.