Eighteenth Century London: Stage Stars
Stagestars in 18th-century London
- The situation of the English stage before and at the beginning of Garrick's period
- His acting style
- Critical voices
The 18th century was rather about the actor than about the play.
Going to the theatre was basically obligatory to 18th-century middle class Londoners. However, they were mostly less interested in the play itself than in the actors and actresses that were performing on stage.
During the time the first concept of stage stars as we know today developed. There was gossip about the actors' private lives, they were paid very high salaries, followed by the media and their faces were sold on scent bottles or little pendants.
This text aims at investigating how such a phenomena could evolve by analyzing the most famous stage stars of eighteenth-century London, namely David Garrick and Sarah Siddons.
It begins with a short introduction about the cultural background, especially the formative Stage Licensing Act of 1737, and then presents London's three most important playhouses in that time - Drury Lane Theatre, Covent Garden and the Haymarket Theatre.
Subsequently, the actor, playwright and theatre manager David Garrick is introduced. Beginning with his life and the situation of the English stage before and at the beginning of Garrick's period, this part mainly focuses on his acting style rather than on his role as theatre manager or writer. To conclude this part, the paper presents some critical voices on Garrick's revolutionary style.
Following a short passage about the reputation of female actors during the time, the actress Sarah Siddons will be analyzed. She managed to change the image of actresses in London. She was one of the first women that could combine the contemporary idea of a virtuous life and an artistic profession. Due to her prominent friends in the London high society, her intellect and her serious ambition, she was established as a cultural icon by the mid-1780s. Self-evidently her most important traits were her great acting skills and her own interpretation of the characters.
In June of 1737 the House of Commons, led by Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole, passed the Act of censorship of the British stage. From that point onward, every play had to be approved by the Lord Chamberlain before it could be staged. Consequently, there was a limitation of new productions, because many plays could not pass the censure and several theatres had to close.
The main reason for the act was that political criticism started to be dominant in theatre plays and so the House of Commons feared the political power of the plays. This fear was fortified by the enormous expansion of the theatres and audience numbers. They were “harsh measures meant to silence the political opposition to Sir Robert Walpole”.1 Clearly, political criticism did not simply stop, but was then mainly adopted in novels.
Fig.1: Newspaper advertisement by World (1787) Thursday, April 24,1788; Issue 412
The most direct consequence for the theatre world was that former plays were staged continuously, resulting in a Shakespeare revival. Since the plays remained the same, the focus was set on how they were presented. The artist themselves became more important and hence the reason why people went to the theatre. They had to add their own interpretation and flair to the well-known play in order to keep up audience numbers. The artists were advertised in newspapers and promoted in especially composed prologues for the plays. In Fig.1 one can see a quite personal invitation by Mrs. Siddons for the public to come and see her play ‘Theodosius’.
Regarding the playhouses at that time, one has to point out that all theatres that were active in London during the years 1740-80 did not belong to that period because they were actually built earlier and consequently had earlier structures. The Drury Lane Theatre (also named: Theatre Royal Drury Lane), for instance, was approximately seventy years old when David Garrick became theatre manager. Thus, there were no newly built theatres in one of the greatest period for the English stage.2 The three most important playhouses in the eighteenth century were the Drury Lane Theatre, the Covent Garden Theatre (also named: Theatre Royal Covent Garden) and the Haymarket Theatre.
The Drury Lane Theatre was built in 1663 and claimed not only to be the oldest London theatre but also the leading theatre3 in London, thus one of the most important in the English-speaking world. Drury Lane Theatre was considered as “the outstanding theatre in the metropolis”4 and was moreover seen as the model for many other playhouses.
It had a capacity of about 1,000 seats and Garrick conducted some changes; for instance, that he expanded the auditorium so that the spectators were no longer on stage where they had often caused trouble.5 The Drury Lane Theatre is in Covent Garden (City of Westminster) and faces Catherine Street and backs onto Drury Lane.
The Covent Garden Theatre, today called the “Royal Opera House”, was first opened as the Theatre Royal in Covent Garden on December 7th, 1732. It burnt down in 1808 and 1856 and was various times rebuilt.6 It originally contained a capacity of 1,897 spectators but now comprises 2,268 people. The theatre has remained quite in the same form as when it was opened apart from some removings regarding the amphitheatre boxes and the removing of most of the boxes in the two tiers.7 Both, Drury Lane Theatre and Covent Garden Theatre were licensed theatres. That means that they were granted monopoly rights to the performance of spoken plays. But nevertheless, they needed music, spectacle and entertainment because they could not have survived only with a repertory of comedy and tragedy.8
The third important theatre at that time was the Haymarket Theatre (or Theatre Royal Haymarket or the Little Theatre9. which was first built in 1720 by John Potter. The Haymarket Theatre is situated at the Haymarket in the City of Westminster. It is the third-oldest playhouse in London which is as well still in use. It has a seating capacity of 888. Before the theatre was closed in 1737 because of the Licensing Act, it was an alternative to the Covent Garden theatre and the Drury Lane Theatre.
David Garrick is said to be the splendid actor of the eighteenth century. But besides this, he was a writer and a theatre manager. One can conclude that Garrick revolutionized acting and the English stage in the eighteenth century.
Fig.3: Portrait of David Garrick
David Garrick was born on February 19, 1717 in Hereford, England as the third child of Captain Peter Garrick and Arabella Clough who was the daughter of a vicar choral of Lichfield cathedral. With the age of 11 he worked in the commercial settlement of his uncle in Lissabon for a short time. After that he went to a private school in Lichfield where he was educated by Samuel Johnson. In 1737 he settled over to London with his teacher Samuel Johnson where he studied law. He had to work as a wine salesman for the family business but he was not satisfied by all those things because his real passion was acting. Among other things he wrote a version of “Lethe”. It was played by Henry Giffard's company at Drury Lane. After that he joined Giffard at a small theatre in Tankard Street, Ipswich in 1741. On October 19, 1741, he made his legendary debut at Goodman's Fields as Richard III and gained the most enthusiastic applause. Within the first six months of his theatrical career he acted in eighteen characters of all kinds. After a short stay in Dublin, he played at Drury Lane from September 1742 to April 1745. He went back to Dublin to work as a manager of the Theatre Royal and fulfilled a short engagement back in London at Covent Garden in 1746-1747. In 1747 he took over the management of Drury Lane with his new partner James Lacy. In 1749 Garrick married the Viennese dancer Eva Maria Veigel but they stayed without children. Garrick gave up Drury Lane and took leave of the stage in June 1776. He died at his home on 20 January 1779 and was buried in the Poet's Corner, Westminster Abbey with one of the greatest funerals ever seen in London.10
Before the time of Garrick, the theatre went through some changes. As a matter of fact, everybody was still impressed by Shakespeare and his works, however, the people were looking for something different, something fresh. The typical line-up of entertainment was “a mixed programme offering intense tragedy, light comedy, music, a lot of pastoral sentimentality and some visual clowning”11.
The theatre manager was to provide a broad range of entertainment which everybody likes whether he is sitting in the pit, in the box or in the gallery. There were a few changes which the theatre ran through at that time. The audience changed from the upper class to the middle and lower class.
As there were more and more middle and lower class members attaining the theatre, the theatres had to become bigger. The division between the audience and the actors became more marked. Previously it was normal that there were people sitting directly around or even on the stage, now actors and audience were separated which, at the same time, offered performances with fewer interruptions. Some critics wanted to prohibit the theatrical entertainment, while in turn others wanted to reform the stage. They wanted the stage to serve a similar function as the church. Within the world of the theatre there was demand for a reorientation of dramatic entertainment and as well a strong public demand for tragedy.12 In 1737, 4 years before the spectacular debut of Garrick, the Licensing Act was imposed13 and there were now only three theatres (namely Drury Lane, Covent Garden and the Haymarket Opera House) to be the monopolies of the London theatres. The Licensing Act obviously restrained the dramatic writing but nevertheless David Garrick began acting and as well wrote original plays and afterpieces and he also adapted several existing works.14
At the beginning of Garrick's time there were several good actors, like for example Colley Cibber, but they all had many French influences regarding their acting. They all had a singing way of speaking and their expression and acting style was full of grave pauses, a strong extending of the tone and without any personal style.15 Yet before Garrick, there was the effort to change the traditional style of acting. Namely it was Charles Macklin who pioneered the more naturalistic style of acting and awoke the sense for reality but he never had the changeableness that Garrick possessed.16
Even though Garrick’s figure did not fit the typical image of an actor because he was small, he was said to be born as an actor. Besides this, he was fortunate in his physical facilities. His features were strong and the bone structure was well. He had dark eyes and expressive pupils. His arm movements were neat, quick and at the same time elegant. Those positive characteristics compensated his small size.17 David Garrick was called the outstanding actor of the 18th century because his acting had a hypnotic effect. He was especially famous for acting the plays of Shakespeare.18
His debut in 1741 was a Shakespearean play, namely 'The Tragedy of King Richard III.' where he acted as Richard III. The connoisseurs reacted very ambivalent and especially those from the 'old' school antagonized with his acting because of what he was doing with his voice (and not so much because of his body language). The particularity of Garrick was that he contradicted the previous traditions. He connected acting closer to real life. His contradictions evoked many debates and made the people think about the moral ambiguity. They were used to the fact that theatre deludes, but now there were forced to distinguish between the appearance and the reality. Nevertheless, Garrick did not want to concentrate on such enquiries but rather on the exercise and control of the passions.19 Garrick was said to be a very alterable actor. He was famous for acting several types of characters and was able to portray every personality with his diversity.20
Furthermore, the argument that an actor must really experience the emotions that he is representing if he wants to entertain the audience, was disproved by Garrick. He was able to communicate passions without feeling them because he could change his facial expressions from one mood to another, for instance, from delight to tranquility, from that to surprise, up to fright and horror. He could express everything through his face even though his soul did not feel it. But he owned the sensibility to feel and express those passions the playwright wanted to express. Neither his social and political influence nor his acting were limited to the theatre. He liked as well to act spontaneously in front of poorer people in the streets and made them laugh.21
It is impossible to establish a theory about Garrick's performances. But what was it that made the acting of Garrick so revolutionary and special?
To answer this question, one has to have again a look at the acting of other actors, for example the French ones. As mentioned above, Garrick often criticized the rigidity of the French. For him, the French actors usually had too little action in their acting. They were only standing around in the place on the stage where they had to be, without moving one hand or foot. Garrick, in contrast, showed a great range and diversity of movements especially in his gestures and his facial expressions. He controlled his facial expressions in such a stunning way that the audience could see all emotions of his soul through his facial expressions.22 Samuel Johnson once said that Garrick “looks much older than he is, because his face has had double the business of any other man's. It is never at rest”23.
Regarding pronunciation and the usage of the voice, Garrick labeled the French and as well the English styles as too slow and heavy for his aims. Thus, he did not only break the common acting rules but also the general usage of voice by breaking completely with the old sonorities.24 One admirer of Garrick called him “the Shakespeare of Acting”. He said that
[...] Shakespeare and you are both legitimate and favourite Sons of Nature. Ye are Twin-brothers, he the eldest. Shakespear[e] was born a Poet, you an Actor. He to write, you to illustrate what he wrote.25
His admirers loved his new style of acting which was filled with nature, lightness and temper. He was the first realist that the audiences had seen for a long time. Garrick wanted to be remembered as the interpreter of William Shakespeare and the people should think of him as the actor of great works of British drama. It was typical of him that he established a safe repertory so that he could obtain the prestige of the stage. He usually tried to restrain and educate the impetuous audience because he wanted them to listen carefully and enjoy the gestures of the performance. Garrick also tried to increase the social standing of the actor by being a model of politeness and sophistication. The stage normally was a place of trickery and deceit and the actors were criticized because of their ostensibly low or morally depraved presentation of the characters. But Garrick nevertheless tried to turn the theatre into a respectable place.26
The admiration for Garrick was often expressed in letters and articles about him but it was even intensified by the fact that there were fan goods like for example pendants, saucers or perfume sets of Garrick.
In general, actors did not have a very good reputation. They were dispized because they worked in a lewd and dirty business. The theatre was appreciated for a place where only dreams, fantasies and illusions existed. “It seemed almost impossible to combine a successful stage career with respectability.”27 There were also quarrels between actors and authors because the cult made of the actors was disliked by other actors and some authors. They had the opinion that the actors stole the spotlight whenever a new work appeared. It is true that a great player attracted more than a good author.28
Regarding the reputation of Garrick, the majority did like him but there were also some people that criticized his new way of acting. Theophilus Cibber, for instance, thought that Garrick's realistic style of acting went too far:
His over-fondness for extravagant attitudes, frequently affected starts, convulsive twitchings, jerkings of the body, sprawling of the fingers, flapping the breast and pockets; a set of mechanical motions in constant use; the caricatures of gesture, suggested by pert vivacity; his pantomimical manner of acting, every word in a sentence, his unnatural pauses in the middle of a sentence; his forced conceits; his willful neglect of harmony, even where the round period of a well-expressed noble sentiment demands a graceful cadence in the delivery.29
Other detractors were of the opinion that Garrick had to speak better, faster and more exalted. And again others felt “hurt” by his pronunciation mistakes and the disregard of pauses and punctuation marks.30 But exactly those things were his characteristics that made him so popular.
The Georgian and Augustan Stage were quite outstanding regarding their number of female actresses. Women had only started the profession in the 1630s; before, young men played the female characters. In spite of a rising number of actresses, the feminine ideal somewhat clashed with the profession and many actresses were associated with prostitutes and shameful manners. Female actresses presented a more complex picture of the female nature that offended moral conventions. They had the ability to get public attention while the proper ladies stayed modest and domestic. To act out fictional roles and characters did not fit with the ideal that women were inherently modest. Another threat was that in her characters, the actress could love different men on different nights of the week and therefore suggested promiscuity in private life.31
Another reason that underlines the reputation they had was that back in the seventeenth century theatre managers did chose female players after their physical attractions and therefore served men´s desires.32
However, the equation of actress and prostitute changed during the eighteenth century and later even tended towards the opposite. Some actresses that showed off their private life openly and were recognized as virtuous women gained huge success on stage and could therefore help to overcome the prejudices.
In late eighteenth century London one could easily find two middle or upper class ladies complimenting themselves by referring to the other´s style as ‘siddonian'. What the flattery meant was that their look or their behaviour was similar to the most popular stage star and best-known tragedienne of the 18th-century London theatre - Sarah Siddons.
Who was this actress and how could something like a “Siddonsmania”33 emerge in a time when the reputation of an actress was closer to the one of a prostitute than of an artist?
Women had only started the profession of acting in the 1630s and they were mostly subject to reproaches and prejudices. Sarah Siddons was an actress who could overcome that reputation and became the most successful contemporary female stage star.
Her popularity was influenced not only by her outstanding acting skills, but also by her social mobility, society connections and a break of conventions.
She was born as Sarah Kemble in Brecon, Wales, on 5 July 1755 as one of twelve children, being the eldest daughter of Roger Kemble. Her parents made a living as touring artists with a travelling company that included most members of the family. The family was considered to belong to the lower class. At the age of 19 Sarah caught the attention of David Garrick and was hence hired to perform in Drury Lane Theatre as Portia in Shakespeare's “The Merchant of Venice”.
However, it was said that “nervousness seems to have utterly overpowered her”34 and hence she was soon banned from the theatre because her performances were not quite well received. The following years she toured through the provinces, working for smaller companies and gradually gaining reputation until returning to Drury Lane Theatre in October 1782. She was engaged by Garrick´s successor Richard Brinsley Sheridan, performing the main character in Thomas Southernes drama “Isabella, or, The Fatal Marriage”. The performance became a huge success, mainly due to her authentic representation of the character, and therefore she was hired by David Garrick amongst others. This was the key to her career and started her enormous popularity. For the next twenty years she was the acting queen of Drury Lane. Her brother Philip Kemble also became a respectable actor in London and they often performed together.
Her most famous character was the one of Lady Macbeth, but she also frequently performed other female roles in Shakespeare's plays among others, especially the character of Queen Catherine in Henry VIII.
Mrs. Siddons private life was quite unfortunate. She married the actor William Siddons in 1773 at the age of 18 and gave birth to seven children, of which she outlived five. During the years of her increasing success, the marriage became stranded and ended in separation.35
Mrs Siddons died in London on the 8th of June 1831 and was buried in the Paddington churchyard. Several thousand people followed the funeral procession. Her statue by the sculptor Mr. Chantrey can still be found in Westminster Abbey.36
It is unlikely to say Sarah Siddons was a classic beauty. She had a very tall and strong figure with slightly masculine proportions. Her face had very sharp facial contours: very dark eyes, a narrow long nose and a distinctive chin. However these features did help to underline her passionate and emotional acting style, because they increased the strong expressions.
In the 18th century, dramatic performances as we know today only just evolved. Women were not allowed on stage until the time of Charles II. Before, female roles were performed by boys or young men. Also, the actors merely recited their lines and did not contribute an own interpretation of the piece by gestures and mimic. Exactly this was what Mrs. Siddons managed to add to the mere text of the play. Her biographer, Thomas Campbell, stated that “[w]here there was little or no poetry, she made it for herself; and might be said to have become both the dramatist and the actress”37. This means that she added meaning to the piece by her own interpretation.
Sarah Siddons was also not afraid to move in a very rough and jolly way, her gestures were often seen as masculine, but they served the purpose. The character of Lady Macbeth was her most famous role. She managed to present the murderous passions in such an emotional way, that she immediately bonded with the audience. Mrs. Siddons' tall and striking figure underlined the resolute character of Lady Macbeth perfectly. Not only did she portray the character as fiendish and hellish, but she simultaneously presented her as a “supportively agonized wife [which] introduced a new concept of female heroism”38.
Clearly this was not her only role, she repeatedly also played Desdemona, Rosalind, Ophelia, Volumnia and many other characters, but only as Queen Catherine in Henry VIII could she get a character almost as closely adapted to her as Lady Macbeth.39
In the weekly newspaper “Examiner” of June 16th, 1816, William Hazlitt depicted her acting qualities as following:
She was regarded less with admiration than with wonder, as if a being of a superior order had dropped from another sphere to awe the world with the majesty of her appearance. She raised Tragedy to the skies, or brought it down from thence. It was something above nature. We can conceive of nothing grander . . . Power was seated on her brow, passion emanated from her breast as from a shrine. She was Tragedy personified. To have seen Mrs. Siddons was an event in everybody's life.
Scholars noted the reciprocal nature between her private life and career. Being the only financial support in her family and mother of seven children, her reputation was of chastity and her professional ambition was regarded as financial necessity. She chose her roles carefully and for instance refused to play Cleopatra, calling her a mistress rather than a wife.40
Fig.4: Mrs.Siddons,Old Kemble,and Henderson, Rehearsing in the Green Room by Thomas Rowlandson 1790
Still, there was not only positive feedback about Siddons' dramatic appearances, but also satirical prints, distributed by London´s newspapers. One example is from 1789 by Thomas Rowlandson, it alludes to Mrs. Siddons´ unconventional acting style. Extravagant movements were then regarded as unwomanly and indecent. In this satirical illustration she pushes away her father and manager Roger Kemble as well as the well-known actor Mr. Henderson.
The criticism also implies a critique of her professional ambition, to put her career before her wifely duties. She was often represented as an aggressive masculine figure but still, by taking her career seriously, Mrs. Siddons could also gain reputation as an earnest actress.
Sarah Siddons was not only appreciated as an actress, but also as a member of the High Society. Deriving from a lower class background, she showed great social mobility by making friends with the most prominent people of the time. Mrs. Siddons was said to have been very intelligent and amusing and often spent her afternoon in the Coffee shops, socialising with the upper class, including Horace Walpole, Samuel Rogers, Thomas Lawrence and John Taylor.41
The connection to London's High Society clearly brought very much prestige as many of Mrs. Siddons' friends were portrayers, engravers, journalists and literates. The result was that there circulated an enormous amount of images of her, newspaper reports that recommended her and also drama pieces were written just for her, i.e. they perfectly fitted her style.
However, those connections were for mutual advantage, as the artists were often keen to raise their own profile through the association. The portrayers, for example, could sell Siddons' images very well because of her fame or get customers into their studios by exhibiting portraits of Sarah Siddons.
The most famous portrait of her was produced in 1784 by her friend Sir Joshua Reynolds, the most prominent painter at the time. It is titled “The Tragic Muse”.
Fig.5: Sarah Siddons as „The Tragic Muse“ by Joshua Reynolds. 1783
(British Museum Collection online)
Mrs. Siddons is sitting in an inapproachable, elevated position. The background shows pity and fear - the figures of tragedy. The monumental enthroned frontal pose reminds of classical Madonna representations and the portrait's size was comparable to state portraits of King George III or Queen Charlotte).42 Innovative about the portrait was that she actively participated in creating the piece and one can not only see the character, but also the actress herself. At the same time the portrait was also the triumph of Sir Reynolds career. The reactions to the piece can be illustrated by a quote of Thomas Campbell, Siddons' biographer:
Her immense popularity was now shewn in the general enthusiasm to see her picture, even when it was scarcely finished. Carriages thronged the artist´s door; and, if every fine lady who stept out of them did not actually weep before the painting, they had all of them, at least, their white handkerchiefs ready for that demonstration of their sensibility.43
Portraits that Mrs. Siddons disliked were kept from being published. Through these connections and the very well-done marketing, she could shape her image in the media and contribute to her popularity.44 Another example for the blending of her career and private life is a performance in the Theatre Royal at Bath in 1782 when she was about to leave for Drury Lane. She wrote a poem and brought three of her children on stage, bidding farewell to the audience. Her representation as selfless mother secured Siddons' reputation and legitimized her profession on stage.45
Evidently, a person like Mrs. Siddons, a centre of attention, had to face critical voices at times. Being professional back then also meant being a public personality and this collided with the domestic and private feminine ideal.46
Therefore many contemporaries questioned her lifestyle and believed her way of acting broke conventions.
Fig.6: ”Melpomene” by James Ridgeway, London 1784
(British Museum Collection online)
Therefore it was being criticized, partly by publishing satirical illustrations. One example is a picture named “Melpomene”, first published in 1784 by James Ridgeway. The title alludes to the muse of tragedy, one of the nine muses. It aims at criticizing the wealth she had gained as a working businesswoman. One can see her pocket, stuffed with bills, and still she reaches out for more money in order to “only buy a bit of bread”. Sarah Siddons was well-known for her stinginess. In the background of the picture a male person called “fame” is collapsing.
In fact Sarah Siddons earned about £4,000 to £5,000 during the 1784/5 season, which was an extraordinary high salary, more than most of her male colleagues.47
The visual culture of celebrities in 18th century London fed into our modern idea of a celebrity. The rise of the concept of a star was also supported by the mass media which brought together art and theatre and led people feel a connection to the stars because they were surrounded by them via mass media.48
Garrick was the most splendid actor of the eighteenth century. He was furthermore a good writer and a successful theatre manager. With his different and new style of acting, he revolutionized acting and the English stage in the eighteenth century. Even today there are many articles and research about Garrick and his day of death is celebrated in remembrance of this very brilliant and special actor.
Sarah Siddons managed to change the reputation of actresses in London. She was one of the first women that could combine the idea of a virtuous life with an artistic profession. Due to her prominent friends in the London High Society, her intellect and her serious ambition, she could establish herself and be established as a cultural icon by the mid-1780s. Her most important traits were her great acting skills and her own interpretation of the characters.
Today there can still be found cultural references to Sarah Siddons. The prime example is the prestigious Sarah Siddons Award for dramatic achievement in theatre, given annually in Chicago by the Sarah Siddons Society since 1952.1 Kinservik 2007: 152
2 Nicoll 1980: 35
3 particularly in the first two centuries after its construction
4 Nicoll 1980: 36
5 Brewer 1997: 327
(last access: 03.08.2010, 14:39)
(last access: 03.08.2010, 14:49)
8 Brewer 1997: 330
9 in allusion to the bigger King's Theatre (today: the Her Majesty's Theatre)
(last access: 31.07.2010, 16:36)
11 Goring 2008: 78
12 Goring 2008: 78 – 81
13 See more under 2.The Licensing Act
14 Goring 2008: 86 f.
15 Gaehde 1904: 2
16 Gaehde 1904: 6
17 Price 1973: 18
18 Price 1973: 6 f.
19 Thomson 2007: 4 ff.
20 Gaehde 1904: 13
21 Thomson 2007: 7 f.
22 Price 1973: 19
23 Price 1973: 18
24 Prince 1973: 14 f.
25 Eighteenth Century Collection Online, 1761
26 Brewer 1997: 330- 334
27 Brewer 1997: 334
28 Brewer 1997: 339
29 Martin 1991:8
30 Gaehde 1904:105 f.
31 Nachumi 2008: 11
32 Nachumi 2008: 15
33 Gold 2009: 11
34 Baker 1904: 109
35 Encyclopedia Britannica
36 Gold 2009: 42
37 Campbell 1834: 166
38 Nachumi 2008: 13f.
39 Encyclopedia Britannica
40 Nachumi 2008: 24
41 Campbell 1843: 260
42 West 2007: 277
43 West 2007: 273
44 Gold 2009: 44
45 Nachumi 2008: 25
46 Nachumi 2008: 15
47 Nachumi 2008: 13
48 West 2007: 271-75
Boaden, James. 1827: Memoirs of Mrs. Siddons, interspected with Anecdotes of Authors and Actors. Philadelphia: H.C. Carey & I. Lea, and E. Litell.
Brewer, John. 1997: The pleasures of the imagination: English culture in the eighteenth century. London: Harper Collins.
Campbell, Thomas. 1843: Life of Mrs. Siddons. London: Edward Moxon.
Eighteenth Century Collection Online. 1761: An additional scene to the comedy of the minor. London
Gaehde, Christian. 1904: David Garrick als Shakespeare-Darsteller und seine Bedeutung für die heutige Schauspielkunst. Berlin: Reimer.
Gold, Amrei I. 2009: Der Modellkult um Sarah Siddons, Emma Hamilton, Vittoria Caldoni und Jane Morris. Ikonographische Analyse und Werkkatalog. Münster und New York.
Goring, Paul. 2008: Eighteenth-century literature and culture. London [u.a]: Continuum.
Hazlitt, William. 1816: “Mrs. Siddons” In: Examiner. London.
Kinservik, Matthew J.. 2007: “Reconsidering Theatrical Regulation in the Long Eighteenth Century”. In: Cordner, Michael; Holland, Peter (ed). Players, Playwrights, Performances. Investigating Performance, 1660-1800. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 152 – 174.
Martin, Jacqueline 1991: Voices in Modern Theatre. London.
Nachumi, Nora. 2008: Acting like a lady. British women novelists and the eighteenth century theatre. New York: AMS Press Inc.
Nicoll, Allardyce. 1980: The Garrick stage: theatres and audience in the eighteenth century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Price, Cecil.1973. Theatre in the Age of Garrick. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomson, Peter. 2007. 'Acting and actors from Garrick to Kean'. In: The Cambridge Companion to British Theatre, 1730-1830. Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 3-21.
West, Shearer. 2007: “The Visuality of the Theatre”. In: Cordner, Michael; Holland, Peter (ed). Players, Playwrights, Playhouses. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 271 – 293.
(last access: 27.07.2010, 11:33)
(last access: 31.07.2010, 16:36)
(last access: 03.08.2010, 14:39)
(last access: 03.08.2010, 14:49)
(last access: 19.08.2010, 14:21)
(last access: 19.08.2010, 14:00)