No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Samuel Sandford: Villain from Necessity
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
Modern scholars of the Restoration stage have been content largely to overlook the career of Samuel Sandford, the famous actor of villain parts. What little information is available on Sandford is widely scattered, but the few facts that can be assembled deserve careful attention. Because he was an actor of some eminence in his age his career is interesting per se. More important, from almost the beginning of his career in 1661 to the end around 1700, Sandford was typed in the public consciousness almost exclusively as an actor of villains. And so an analysis of his career not only affords some insight into the process by which a Restoration actor became typed but also permits several interesting speculations concerning the influence exerted by the audience over the Restoration stage. My purpose, therefore, is twofold. First, I shall examine why Sandford became typed; and I shall suggest that this occurred primarily because Sandford's personal appearance and histrionic techniques suited his audience's preconceptions of stage villainy. Secondly, I shall examine the results which ensued from Sandford's being typed. And I shall make two additional suggestions: that after the public image of Sandford as villain had become established, stage managers found it difficult, though not impossible, to cast him for parts which violated that image; and that playwrights, too, not only succumbed to the public stereotype but took advantage of it by writing into new plays villain parts tailored even to Sandford's personal appearance.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1961
References
Note 1 in page 367 We do not even know the date of his birth. He joined the Duke's Company sometime during 1661 and played his first known part on 16 December of that year (John Downes, Roscius Anglicanus, ed. Montague Summers, London, 1928, p. 20; John Genest, Some Account of the English Stage, Bath, 1832, i, 40). If at that time he was in his early twenties—Betterton was twenty-two when he began acting—then he was born sometime shortly before 1640. “He proceeded,” says Aston, “from the Sandfords of Sandford, that lies between Whitchurch and Newport, in Shropshire” (A Brief Supplement to Colley Cibber Esq., in Cibber's An Apology for the Life of Mr. Colley Cibber, Comedian, ed. R. W. Lowe, London, 1889, ii, 306). In London Sandford lived near the Dorset Garden Theater in Salisbury Court, Fleet Street, an address shared at one time or another by Betterton, Harris, Underbill, Shadwell, Lady Davenant, and Dryden (H. B. Wheatley, London, Past and Present, London, 1891, in, 202). The date of Sandford's death is as uncertain as that of his birth. Genest records that he left the stage around 1699 (ii, 174), and Cibber remarks that though he was still acting in 1700, Sandford had died by 1706 (Apology, ed. Lowe, i, 139,327). Miss McAfee chooses the date 1704 as a satisfactory compromise (Pepys on the Restoration Stage, New Haven, 1916, p. 230 n).
Note 2 in page 367 In 1661 or 1662, when Betterton and Herbert were at odds over whether the Duke's Company could legally present certain plays, Sandford, together with eleven other of Betterton's actors, was fined three shillings and fotirpence for assaulting a messenger from the Office of the Revels who had appeared at Lincoln's Inn Fields with a warrant requiring the Company to stop playing (Leslie Hotson, The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, Cambridge, Mass., 1928, p. 212). Again during a period of friction between the King's and Duke's Companies in late 1669, Sandford was involved in an epidemic of arrests of theatrical personages. On what specific charge it is impossible to say, but on 9 December 1669 the Lord Chancellor issued a writ requiring Sandford and Medbourne to be taken into custody for being “refactory and disorderly” (Allardyce Nicoll, A History of English Drama, 1660–1900, Vol. i: Restoration Drama, 1660–1700, 4th ed., Cambridge, 195S, p. 319). Although a modern historian is probably correct in surmising that the offense was trivial and occurred while the two actors were “no doubt… in their cups” (John H. Wilson, All the King's Ladies, Chicago, 1958, p. 31), one recalls that Sandford's colleague and companion in the writ, Medbourne, was arrested again nine years later on a more serious charge. Allegedly involved in the Popish Plot, Medbourne was taken into custody on 28 November 1678 “upon the information of Titus Oates, and committed to Newgate, where he died 19 March 1679” (D. N. B., xm, 201). Inevitably the incident leads one to wonder what Sandford's religious and political opinions may have been. So far as I know no answer is possible.
Note 3 in page 367 Memoirs of the Actors and Actresses Mentioned by Cibber, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, ii, 346.
Note 4 in page 367 When Betterton decided to break with the United
Company in 1695, Sandford was reluctant to assume the risk of entrepreneur. He preferred the financial security of Drury Lane, though he was not averse to joining Betterton if he could thereby gain a higher wage. As Aston presents the episode, we see that Sandford, in spite of his alleged gentility, was quite capable of driving a hard bargain : “He would not be concerned with Mr. Betterton, Mrs. Barry, etc. as a Sharer in the Revolt from Drury-Lane to Lincoln's-Inn-Fields; but said, This is my agreement.— To Samuel Sandford, Gentleman, Threescore Shillings a Week.— Pho! Pho! said Mr. Betterton, Three Pounds a Week.— No, No, said Sandford;— To Samuel Sandford, Gentleman, Threescore Shillings a Week. For which Cave Underhill, who was a ¾ Sharer, would often jeer Sandford; saying, Samuel Sandford, Gent., my Man.— Go, you Sot, said Sandford.— To which t'other ever replied, Samuel Sandford, my Man Samuel” (Supplement, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, n, 307). Betterton eventually persuaded Sandford to move with him, but Sandford won his argument over terms: he was hired at three pounds per week (Bellchambers, Memoirs, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, ii, 346).
Note 5 in page 368 Nicoll, p. 378.
Note 6 in page 368 Genest, i, 42.
Note 7 in page 368 Nicoll, p. 425.
Note 8 in page 368 McAfee, pp. 182, 184.
Note 9 in page 368 Montague Summers, The Playhouse of PePys (New York, 1935), p. 224. Cibber modeled his own subsequent performances of Richard III on Sandford's. “I imagined,” wrote Cibber, “that I knew how Sandford would have spoken every Line of it” (Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 139).
Note 10 in page 368 Both Cibber and Aston imply that such was the case (Apology, ed. Lowe, i, 131; ii, 306). A remark by Steele supports their claim: he would “steal incognito” to the playhouse to see Othello, Steele wrote, “out of curiosity to observe how WILKS and CIBBER touch those places where BETTERTON and SANDFORD so very highly excelled” (Tatler, no. 188, 22 Jan. 1710). Nevertheless, Hazel-ton Spencer argues that although we can be certain that after the union of the two Companies Othello was revived several times with Betterton in the title role, we cannot be sure of what actors played the other parts (Shakespeare Improved, Cambridge, Mass., 1927, p. 25).
Note 11 in page 368 Apology, ed. Lowe, i, 98.
Note 12 in page 368 An Account of the English Dramatick Poets (London, 1691), p. 407.
Note 13 in page 368 Aston, Supplement, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, n, 306. Aston claims to have heard the story from Betterton. 14 N. B., XVTT, 766. 15 Apology, ed. Lov.e, 1, 132.
Note 16 in page 369 Tatler, no. 134, 16 Feb. 1709.
Note 17 in page 369 History of the English Stage from the Restauration to the Present Time (London, 1741), p. 92.
Note 18 in page 369 Memoirs, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, ii, 346. 19 Apology, ed. Lowe, I, 131.
Note 20 in page 369 Supplement, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, ii, 306.
Note 21 in page 369 Apology, ed. Lowe, i, 131. Summers suggests that the reverse was also true, i.e., that actors were cast for comic roles because of their ludicrous figures. Commenting on the comedian Henry Norris, Summers observes : “Nature having given him a droll face with a diminutive figure, he seemed cut out for a comedian. Certainly he excelled in low comedy, althought we are told that he could declaim any tragic part with great power and pathos, but his stature would not suffer him to essay heroes in the theatre” (Downes, ed. Summers, p. 269).
Note 22 in page 370 Supplement, in Cibber's Apology, ed. Lowe, ii, 306.
Note 23 in page 370 Apology, ed. Lowe, i, 138. From Cibber's description it is possible to conclude that although some Restoration heroes and heroines may have declaimed their lines in singsong fashion (a problem not yet satisfactorily resolved), the villain certainly did not do so, at least not the villain as acted by Sandford.
Note 24 in page 370 Even though Cibber claims to have heard of this episode directly from Mountford, there is some skepticism about Cibber's veracity on this point. Cf. Bellchambers' notes and Lowe's comments in Apology, ed. Lowe, i, 133 n.
Note 25 in page 370 Downes, ed. Summers, p. 169. As an example of Sandford's versatility Summers singles out Davenant's The Man's the Master (1688), where Harris and Sandford sang the epilogue “like two Street Ballad-Singers” {Playhouse of Pepys, p. 164).
Note 26 in page 370 Thomas Betterton (New York, 1891), p. 89.