The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 1630-1880, Vol. IV, Part 46

Author: Winsor, Justin, 1831-1897, ed; Jewett, C. F. (Clarence F.), publisher
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Boston : Osgood
Number of Pages: 760

USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 1630-1880, Vol. IV > Part 46

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

Sumptuary laws have been abandoned, but there have been earnest at- tempts to reform the dress of women, so as to secure greater simplicity and healthfulness. While no great revolution in costume has been affected, and fashion still dictates absurdities, a woman in Boston may now dress simply and reasonably without attracting unpleasant attention by her short dress or thick boots.

The Antislavery movement brought out the influence of women in a remarkable degree. That party which recognized their equal right in the councils of the society was predominent in Boston through the influence of its great leaders, William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips. Angelina Grimke (Weld) was the first woman who spoke in the State House on behalf of the slave. The charm of her voice, her earnestness, and refine-

1 [Or Goodridge, as the family seem to have at the age of twenty-four, and lived there till written it. See her sister's account of her in 1851, when she removed to Reading, where she Mason's Gilbert Stuart, 78. She was born in died late in 1853. - ED.] Templeton in 1788, but came to live in Boston 2 Her Sam Adams, for instance.

353

THE WOMEN OF BOSTON.

ment won all hearts. Maria Weston (Chapman), Lucy Stone, and Abby Kelley (Foster) soon made Boston familiar with the accents of truth from woman's lips.

But there was a comic side to this grand drama. Abby Folsom, that " flea of conventions," made herself heard in every meeting, till one longed for the authority of the Puritan elders to banish her from the State. She was a working woman from New Hampshire, with some noble qualities of mind and heart; but an over-excitable brain and lively temper made her · like " the old woman who never was quiet." She was sincere in her reform work, and would take the drunken woman from the gutter, and shelter her in her own poor home.

Eliza Lee Cabot (Follen), Mary Goddard (May), and numberless other women of Boston were unwearied in raising money for the Antislavery cause by fairs, which they knew how to make occasions of great social enjoyment.

During the late war a woman's branch of the Sanitary Commission was organized in New England. Mary Dwight (Parkman) was its first president, but Abby Williams May soon took her place, which she held till the close of the war. With unwearied zeal Miss May presided over its councils, organized its action, and encouraged others to the work. She went down to the hospitals and camps to judge of their needs with her own eyes, and travelled from town to town in New England, arousing the women to new effort. Then might be seen young and old, rich and poor, bearing bundles of blue flannel through the streets, and unaccustomed fingers knitting the coarse yarn, while the heart throbbed with anxiety for the dear ones gone to the war. A noble band of nurses volunteered their services, and the strife was as to which should go soonest and do the hardest work. Hannah E. Stevenson, Helen Gilson, and many another name became as dear to the soldiers as that of mother or sister. A committee was formed to supply the colored soldiers with such help as other soldiers received from their relatives ; and when one of the noblest of Boston's sons passed through her streets at their head, his mother " thanked God for the privilege of seeing that day." The same spirit went into the work of educating the freed- men. Young men and young women, the noblest and the best, went forth together to that work of danger and of toil. These experiences stamped the character of Boston women anew.

The political rights of women have not been forgotten during the whole of this century, although this interest has been postponed to the more pressing dangers produced by Slavery. Seeing the necessary outcome of the doctrines of the last century embodied in the Declaration of Indepen- dence, Mrs. Adams had made the comparison of theory with practice in her day. The first Women's Rights Convention in Boston was held June 2, 1854. Since that time agitation has been maintained by means of public meetings, distribution of printed matter, petitions to the Legislature, and the publication of newspapers devoted to the subject. .

VOL. IV. - 45.

354

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

The Woman's Journal, originally edited by Mary A. Livermore, Julia Ward Howe, and Lucy Stone, with the aid of William Lloyd Garrison and Thomas Wentworth Higginson, has now continued for ten years, and is in- creasing yearly in value and influence. The legislatures have, through their committees, given respectful hearings to the petitioners for equal suffrage; and a bill for committing the question to the people has been frequently reported by the committee, but has not yet gained a majority in the House. Special efforts to enable women to hold various offices have been more suc- cessful; but the history of women's appointment on boards of charity, as inspectors of prisons, alms-houses, etc., belongs rather to Massachusetts than to Boston.

In 1873 four ladies - Abby W. May, Ann Adeline Badger, Lucretia Crocker, and Lucia M. Peabody - were elected to the School Committee of Boston. This Committee, doubting the legality of these elections, asked the opinion of the City Solicitor, which was given against them. When the School Committee organized, they reported against the right of the ladies to their seats. This decision produced great excitement, especially in ward fourteen, which had given Miss Peabody a large vote. The House of Rep- resentatives then asked for the opinion of the Supreme Court; this was given to the effect " that there is nothing in the Constitution of the Com- monwealth to prevent a woman from being on the School Committee." At the urgent entreaty of her constituents, Miss Peabody carried her claim to her seat to the Supreme Judicial Court, which decided that the Legislature had made the School Committee judges of the qualifications of its members " finally and without appeal," and dismissed the case. Before the close of the session the Legislature, almost unanimously, passed a law rendering women eligible on the School Committee. At the next election Misses May, Crocker, and Peabody, with the addition of Kate Gannett (Wells), Lucretia Hale, and Mary Safford (Blake) were elected and took their seats on the Board. The following year the School Board was reduced to twenty- four, to be voted for by the whole city, instead of by wards. Misses Crocker, Hale, May, and Peabody were re-elected. Miss Peabody received the largest vote ever cast for a member of the School Committee. Miss Crocker was appointed one of the new Board of Supervisors, and consequently resigned on the Committee. At the expiration of the terms for which they had been chosen, neither Miss Hale nor Miss May were re-elected ; and so strong was the feeling aroused by this fact, that the friends of education petitioned the Legislature for a law similar to that recently passed in New Hampshire, enabling women to vote for school committee. This law was passed in the winter of 1879, and nearly a thousand women in Boston voted under it that year.1 The mayor courteously forbade smoking at the polls during the morning hours, and the women generally found the act of casting their ballots unattended by any disagreeable circumstances. A Massachusetts

1 The official account of the action of the School Committee may be found in their Report for 1874.

355

THE WOMEN OF BOSTON.

KILBURN

MRS. HARRISON GRAY OTIS.

356

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

School Suffrage Association was organized in 1880, " to make school suf- frage effective for the good of the schools." Miss Crocker was reappointed Supervisor at the expiration of her term of office, and Miss Peabody was re-elected on the committee in 1880. On Miss May's retirement from the board, Governor Talbot appointed her on the State Board of Education.

It is impossible in brief space to give an idea of the charm of Boston women in society. Many a foreign traveller has borne witness to it, and many old residents now love to recall the memories of those " who made this world the feast it was" in their youth. But Boston women were then eminently delicate and reserved, and little public record remains of their lives. Eliot, Lyman, Quincy, Sullivan, Amory, are names which at once call up visions of dignified womanly culture and poetic beauty.

Miss Emily Marshall became more widely known than any other lady, simply for her social attractions. Her charm of manner even more than her beauty influenced all who approached her, whether high or low; the hackmen were so spell-bound with admiration that they forgot to open the door of her carriage. She was neither a coquette nor a tyrant, but re- mained always winning and unaffected, commanding respect as well as love. She married Mr. William S. Otis, and died young.

The late Mrs. Harrison Gray Otis was less truly Bostonian in her man- ners. She had lived much abroad, and learned the art of entertaining guests simply and agreeably, and was also active in public matters. She took part in the fair for the Blind Asylum, and in 1840 roused the women of Boston to work for the completion of Bunker-Hill Monument. She helped to raise a fund for securing Mt. Vernon to the nation, partly by a successful ball, which brought $10,000. Her patriotism was always en- thusiastic; she persuaded the State authorities to make Washington's birth- day a legal holiday, and she always held a reception on that day. During four years of the Civil War she had charge of the Evans House as a place of reception for goods and money.

A new feature in Boston society is the establishment of social clubs. Of these, the most celebrated is the New England Women's Club, of which Mrs. Caroline M. Severance was the first president. Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, distinguished both in literature and reforms, now fills that position. In its life of twelve years it has done much to encourage the formation of similar unions, as well as to promote all good causes, and to produce greater union among women of similar tastes and aims.

We may look with some complacency upon the history of women in our dearly beloved city for the last two hundred and fifty years, in spite of the blots upon its brightness which we have been obliged to point out; and surely never before to women were nobler opportunities open than those which the near future promises.

Ednah D. Cheney.

CHAPTER V.

THE DRAMA IN BOSTON.

BY WILLIAM W. CLAPP.1

T 'HE history of the Drama in Boston presents many features of interest to the general reader, though it can scarcely be said to contain any elements of absorbing interest, or to present issues of vital importance when viewed as one of the component features of the growth of a city. A hundred years have not passed since it possessed with us " a local habitation and a name." In the early days of Boston the lovers of amusements were not sufficiently numerous to warrant even the strolling theatrical manager from England in hoping for a remunerative investment by seeking to intro- duce dramatic entertainments ; and when the population increased suffi- ciently to promise success, the opposition to stage performances was not only an inherited prejudice on the part of the majority of the people, but prohibitory legislation prevented the erection of a theatre or the presenta- tion of a play.

Cotton Mather, as early as 1686, in his preface to his Testimony against Profane and Superstitious Customs, says: "There is much discourse now of beginning stage plays in New England." It was not for many years after this warning note was sounded that any attempt was made to give dramatic entertainments with a view to invite the public and to render it pecuniarily profitable. The opposition to plays in England by the Puritans had been marked. Actors were whipped at the cart's tail. Macaulay says that the Puritans drove imagination from its last asylum. They prohibited theatrical representations, and stigmatized the whole race of dramatists as enemies of morality and religion. This spirit of intolerance was naturally inherited by the descendants of the Puritans in New England. Plays were performed in

1 [Colonel Clapp published a Record of the Boston Stage in 1853. The Boston Public Li- brary has for some years preserved files of Bos- ton play-bills. The principal books throwing light upon the history of the Boston Stage, and upon the careers of those who have been associ- ated with it, are the History of the American Theatre, by William Dunlap; The Polyanthus,

by Hon. J. T. Buckingham ; Ireland's History of the Stage in New York; Cowell's Thirty Years among the Players ; Blake's Historical Ac- count of the Providence Stage ; The Stage, by J. E. Murdock ; Players of a Century, by H. P. Phelps, of Albany, N. Y .; and the Lives of nearly all the prominent actors of the last half-century. - ED.]

358

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

private, and no doubt even the more austere citizens derived gratification from what appeared to be a harmless method of passing a weary hour. The fear, however, that " a play-house" might be erected was so strongly entertained that the performance held at a coffee-house on State Street, when Otway's Orphan, or Unhappy Marriage, was given by two Englishmen assisted by some volunteers, led to the passage of " An Act to Prevent Stage Plays and other Theatrical entertainments," which became a law in March, 1750. It was stated by the framers of the law that stage plays "not only occasion great and unnecessary expenses, and discourage industry and frugality, but likewise tend generally to increase immorality, impiety, and a contempt for religion." The provisions were very stringent. Twenty pounds was the penalty to be paid by the owner of the premises let or used for any such purpose. Any actor or spectator present "where a greater number of persons than twenty shall be assembled together" was to pay five pounds. The intent of limiting the number was no doubt to prevent any such undertaking proving remunerative, without perhaps encroaching too harshly upon the right which some held that they possessed to give private dramatic performances at their residences. The law was accepted and enforced, as it was supported by public sentiment. Frequent attempts were made to secure its repeal. Intercourse with New York, where the theatre was established notwithstanding the same objections were urged which had prevailed in Boston, provoked a desire on the part of many of the more liberal citizens to erect a theatre and to conduct it in a manner that would remove many objections which were urged; but the more Puri- tanical held that stage plays were the "means of disseminating licentious maxims, and tending to immorality of conduct."

The Revolutionary war brought trials and privations which were suffi- cient to tax the energies of the people to the exclusion of all other topics, and the daily incidents of those troublesome times obliterated the mimic stage from the minds of the people. General John Burgoyne, who was a dramatic author of some note, had in 1774 produced a play at. Drury Lane, London ; and while in Boston he brought out his second drama, called the Blockade of Boston, which was written with the intent of impressing his men with due contempt for American soldiery.1 In New York, and possibly in Boston, thé expenses of living were so excessive that inferior officers of the British army endeavored by the performance of plays to add to their incomes, while the general officers encouraged dramatic performances as a means of relaxation for themselves and as a measure to secure contentment among their subordinates. The salvation of the country from the American point of view became a matter of such serious concern, that on Oct. 16, 1778, the Continental Congress passed the following resolve : ---

" Whereas, frequenting play houses and theatrical entertainments has a fatal ten- dency to divert the minds of the people from a due attention to the means necessary to the defence of their country and preservation of their liberties, -

1 [See Mr. Scudder's chapter in Vol. III. - ED.]

359

THE DRAMA IN BOSTON.

" Resolved, That any person holding an office under the United States who shall act, promote, encourage, or attend such play, shall be deemed unworthy to hold such office, and shall be accordingly dismissed."

The severity of this act indicates the spirit which prevailed regarding the absolute necessity of avoiding the encouragement of any amusement calcu- lated to distract the public mind from the higher duties of the times.

The close of the American Revolution was followed by a total reorgan- ization of society in all the large cities, and the people looking toward the possibilities of the future enlarged their views; and the new generation, with higher aspirations, sought release from many of the restrictions which had so long prevailed. With increasing wealth came a more general attention to literature, and the dramatic works of English authors had peculiar attrac- tions for a large class. The reading of the plays of Shakespeare 1 induced a desire among the people to see with their own eyes the full presentation on the stage of these masterpieces. The fame of Garrick had been echoed by Americans who had witnessed his marvellous performances in London ; and John Philip Kemble was known to American readers of the English magazines, which then contained a monthly record of dramatic events. A coterie of wealthy gentlemen of culture in Boston attempted to educate public sentiment to a point which would permit the erection of a theatre. The law prohibiting theatricals had been re-enacted in 1784, though theatres in New York and Philadelphia were in full success. No attempt, however, was made in Boston to introduce theatrical entertainments until June 5, 1790, when Hallam and Henry, who had established play-houses in Phila- delphia, New York, and Providence, which had been managed with a due regard for the proprieties of life, presented a petition to the Legislature, praying for leave " to open a theatre in Boston under proper regulations." The petition was not considered. In 1791 several of the leading residents of the town took the subject under consideration. The fact that Philadelphia, New York, and even Providence - the last city being a place of far less importance than Boston - supported theatres, was an argument used in its favor. The attention of the people was called to dramatic entertainments by a special article in the warrant for a town-meeting. An attempt was

1 [The earliest American edition of Shake- speare was one printed in Philadelphia in 1795- 96, in eight volumes, of which there are two copies in the Public Library. In 1802-4 Munroe and Francis published the earliest Boston edi- tion, in sixteen numbers, fifty cents each, making eight volumes. "The press-work was mostly done by them personally on a hand-press, with ink-balls of sheepskin, the ink distributed by the hand. Ink and type imported, none worth using being made here. The engravings were executed by Dr. Alexander Anderson, of New York," -so writes Mr. David Francis, in a copy of a later edition preserved in the Lenox Library.

A ninth volume, containing the poems, was added to this edition in 1807, claiming to be the first American edition of the poems ; but this is ques- tionable. Dr. Moore, of the Lenox Library, calls my attention to the prospectus of a reprint of Reed's edition of Johnson and Steevens, in twenty-one volumes, announced in Boston about 1807; but no edition of that date is known. What Munroe and Francis call their third Bos- ton edition, 1810-12, in nine volumes, follows Reed's edition, and gave cuts engraved by An- derson. They printed from a copy owned by William S. Shaw. See Barton Catalogue. No. 49 .- ED.]

360

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

made to postpone the consideration of the subject; but public sentiment was becoming enlightened, and at an adjourned meeting the Boston men- bers of the General Court were instructed to secure a repeal of the law. It was urged that "a theatre, where the actions of great and virtuous men are represented, under every possible embellishment which genius and elo- quence can give, will not only afford a rational and innocent amusement, but essentially advance the interests of private and political virtue ; will have a tendency to polish the manners and habits of society, to disseminate the social affections, and to improve and refine the literary taste of our rising Republic." At a meeting of the Legislature in 1792, Mr. Tudor, of Boston, introduced a bill repealing the act prohibiting theatrical entertainments. The proposition was rejected promptly. A reconsideration was carried, but a protest was sent in by some of the inhabitants of Boston, and by a vote of ninety-nine to forty-four the law was kept among the statutes.1

During the summer of the same year a few gentlemen determined to erect a theatre, in order to prove that the much talked-of play-house was not open to the objections which were urged against it. A site was selected in what was then known as Board Alley, now Hawley Street. The alley was originally a path through a pasture made by the worshippers at Trinity Church who resided on State Street and at the North End. It abounded in mud and in livery stables. It is probable that one of the stables became the theatre. A stage was erected, and the so-called "New Exhibition Room " was opened on Aug. 1, 1792, under the management of Mr. Joseph Harper, one of the prominent members of Hallam and Henry's company. The opening bill was rather a tentative performance to test the patience of those in favor of enforcing the prohibitory law, for it was more of the nature of a modern variety show than a dramatic performance. Tight-rope dan- cing, the minuet de la cour, the gavotte, and recitations made up the pro- gramme. The drama was after this introduced to the expectant Bostonians in the disguise of a moral lecture. Garrick's farce of Lethe was produced as a satirical lecture called " Lethe, or ÆEsop in the Shades," by Mr. Watts, and Mr. and Mrs. Solomon. Otway's Venice Preserved was announced as a moral lecture in five parts, "in which the dreadful effects of conspiracy will be exemplified ; " and Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, etc., were masked under the same catching and hypocritical phraseology. On October 5 was pro- duced a moral lecture in five parts, "wherein the pernicious tendency of libertinism will be exemplified in the tragical history of George Barnwell, or the London Merchant," delivered by Messrs. Harper, Morris, Watts, Murray, Solomon, Redfield, Miss Smith, Mrs. Solomon, and Mrs. Gray.

This open defiance of the law induced the attempt to procure an indict- ment by the grand jury, which failed. A warrant, however, was obtained for the arrest of Harper and others, and on Dec. 5, 1792, Sheriff Allen, after the performance of the first act, executed his mandate, and Harper was

1 [The speech of Mr. John Gardiner, Jan. 26, ton the same year. See Amory's James Sullivan, 1792, on repealing the law, was printed in Bos- i. 270. - ED.]

Bofton Theatre. Federal Street.

On Wednesday Evening, Sept. 28th, '96. Will be prefented, the Tragedy of

Romeo & Juliet

Romeo,

Mr. Chalmers.

Friar Lawrence,

Mr. Jones.

Capulet,

Mr. Kenny.

Montague,

Mr. Rowfon.

Tybalt,

Mr. Fawcett.

Benvolio,

Mr. Mckenzie.

Paris,

Mr. Downie.

Friar John,

Mr. Clarke.

Prince,

Mr. Becte.

Balthazar,

Mr. Ratcliffe.

Peter,

Mr. Villiers.

Apothecary,

Mr. Hamilton.

Mercutio,

Mr Marthail.

From the Theatre, Philadelphia, being his first appearance on this Stage.

Lady Capulet,

Mrs. Rowfon.

Nurfe,

Mrs. Baker.

Juliet,

Mrs. Marthall.

Being her first appearance on this Stage.

Act 4th. a Funeral Proceffion, and

Solemn Dirge.

After which will be performed the farce of the

Apprentice. .

Dick, (With the original EPILOGUE,) Mr. Chalmers.

Wingate, Gargle,

Mr. Beete.

· Watchman,

Mr. Clark.

Bailiff,

Mr. Rowfon.

Irifhman,

Mr. Fawcett.

Scotchman.

Mr. Hamilton.

Simon,

By a young gentleman,

( Bang bu for) appearance on any Stage )

Meffrs. Downie.

Spouters.

Ratcliffe.

McKenzie.

Charlotte,

Mrs. Rowion.

V. B. The Doors, till Monday October 3d, will be open at half paft Five o'clock and the Curtain rife precifely at lia Six- from the 3d of October the Doors will be opened at Five, and Performance begin at Six o'clock. Tickets and Places to be had every Morning Sunday excepted) at to oclock, at the office of the Theatre. The miry to the PIT. " uso' the BOX paffage front mor

In Act 2d. A Grand Mafquerade.

Mr. Kenny.

362

THE MEMORIAL HISTORY OF BOSTON.

arrested. The audience, composed largely of young men, became noisy. As Governor Hancock had always been a strong opponent of the theatre, it was supposed that the arrest had been made at his instigation, and the portrait of his Excellency, which had been hung in front of the stage box, was torn down and trampled upon, and the 'State arms shared the same fate at the hands of the descendants of the "Sons of Liberty." The Hon. Harrison Gray Otis, at the hearing the next day in Faneuil Hall before Justice Greenleaf, objected to the legality of the warrant, as contrary to the fourteenth article of the Declaration of Rights, which requires that no warrant shall be issued except upon complaint made under oath. Mr. Sullivan endeavored to combat this point, but the justices admitted the soundness of it, and Mr. Harper was discharged. This was the beginning of the era of legal opposition to dramatic entertainments. Owing to the prevalence of small-pox in Boston, the Legislature met in Concord, when Governor Hancock made allusion to the theatrical row as "an open assault upon the laws and government of the Commonwealth." The Exhibition Room continued to be opened at intervals after this, for The Contrast, written by Royal Tyler, Esq., afterward chief-justice of Vermont, was performed. It was the first American play ever produced by a regular company of comedians, and was originally given in New York, April 16, 1790. The new Exhibition Room was taken down in the spring of 1793, when a movement was initiated for the erection of a theatre upon a larger scale. From this date legal opposition to the drama ceased in Boston, though even later it included among its patrons only the more liberal-minded of the population. The argument since put forth, that a theatre is a neces- sity in every large city, affording a place of resort for visiting strangers who are attracted to a metropolis for pleasure or trade, was not then advanced. Those who enlisted and contributed the means to erect the Federal-Street theatre were actuated by a belief that the influence of the drama was benefi- cial to society. They regarded the stage as a great instructor, and confident- ly anticipated not only a harvest of pleasure in witnessing the production of the plays of the great dramatists, but they looked for ample recompense in the good that would arise by showing " the very age and body of the time, his form and presence." Many of the most influential citizens became in- terested in the erection of the theatre. The prohibitory law was still on the statute book, but it became a dead letter, and was finally repealed. The new theatre was located at the corner of Federal and Franklin streets, and was called the Boston Theatre. The record of the drama in Boston may be said to have begun with the opening of its doors on Feb. 3, 1794, under the man- agement of Messrs. Charles Stuart Powell and Baker. It was a commo- dious structure, substantially built of brick, and at the time was probably the most imposing theatre in the United States, its appointments being ex- cellent and its stage roomy. The opening performances included Gustavus Vasa and Modern Antiques, and the company came from England. The prologue, written by Robert Treat Paine, was delivered by the manager in

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

The memorial history of Boston : including Suffolk County, Massachusetts. 1630-1880, Vol. IV, Part 46

Author: Winsor, Justin, 1831-1897, ed; Jewett, C. F. (Clarence F.), publisher Publication date: 1881 Publisher: Boston : Osgood Number of Pages: 760

Author: Winsor, Justin, 1831-1897, ed; Jewett, C. F. (Clarence F.), publisher
Publication date: 1881
Publisher: Boston : Osgood
Number of Pages: 760