The History of Southern Drama

Charles S. Watson

• Publisher: The University Press of Kentucky
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780813188898
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: American Drama
• Index: Literature

Mention southern drama at a cocktail party or in an American literature survey, and you may hear cries for "Stella!" or laments for "gentleman callers." Yet southern drama depends on much more than a menagerie of highly strung spinsters and steel magnolias.

Charles Watson explores this field from its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century roots through the southern Literary Renaissance and Tennessee Williams's triumphs to the plays of Horton Foote, winner of the 1994 Pulitzer Prize. Such well known modern figures as Lillian Hellman and DuBose Heyward earn fresh looks, as does Tennessee Williams's changing depiction of the South—from sensitive analysis to outraged indictment—in response to the Civil Rights Movement.

Watson links the work of the early Charleston dramatists and of Espy Williams, first modern dramatist of the South, to later twentieth-century drama. Strong heroines in plays of the Confederacy foreshadow the spunk of Tennessee Williams's Amanda Wingfield. Claiming that Beth Henley matches the satirical brilliance of Eudora Welty and Flannery O'Connor, Watson connects her zany humor to 1840s New Orleans farces.
With this work, Watson has at last answered the call for a single-volume, comprehensive history of the South's dramatic literature. With fascinating detail and seasoned perception, he reveals the rich heritage of southern drama.

1

Nationalism and
Native Culture in Virginia

Dramatic writing in the South began in Virginia, where there was far less Puritan prejudice against the theater than in New England. Theatrical activity there began early; the first recorded performance of a play in America was Ye Bar and ye Cubb, presented by three citizens of Accomac County at Cowle’s Tavern in 1665. When English acting companies toured the new settlements, Virginia was often the first destination. Lewis Hallam’s company performed The Merchant of Venice in Williamsburg on September 15, 1752, before moving on to other colonial towns. David Douglass’s popular American Company toured Virginia from 1758 to 1761 and returned to Virginia and Maryland in 1770; George Washington saw its performance of Richard Cumberland’s The West Indian in Annapolis on October 8, 1772.¹ Reflecting attitudes toward the theater in London, Washington and other prominent Virginians attended often and, continuing the English penchant for dramatic composition, gentleman farmers and lawyers wrote spirited plays for publication, even when there was little chance of production.

Although Virginia produced no professional dramatists during this early period, men like John Daly Burk and St. George Tucker who chose the dramatic form to express their political thought were all distinguished leaders, some with impressive intellectual powers. Their dramatic ventures link them to that other Virginian of multiple talents, Thomas Jefferson. The early plays of Virginia are above all noteworthy for their superior quality of political debate, which lends special interest to the drama written during the American Revolution and the War of 1812, when Virginia was supplying the principal leaders of the new republic. The state’s first dramatist, Robert Munford, differed from Boston and Philadelphia dramatists of the Revolutionary War period, who wrote partisan propaganda supporting the patriot cause. Mercy Otis Warren of Massachusetts, for example, lampooned the Tories and the oppressive British of colonial Boston in her allegorical farce The Group (1776), whereas Munford, despite his support of the American Revolution, depicted the two sides impartially in The Patriots.

Still, the foremost inspiration for the early drama of Virginia was nationalism. From 1776 to 1840 the new nation aimed first of all to achieve unity in the face of dangers, inside and outside its boundaries. Drama, poetry, and fiction—northern and southern—did their part in advancing this purpose, as is evident in the plays of William Dunlap, the poetry of Philip Freneau, and the novels of James Fenimore Cooper and William Gilmore Simms. In Virginia the spirit of nationalism produced plays defining true patriotism, celebrating Revolutionary victories, supporting the War of 1812, and recalling the first colonists of Virginia, the spiritual ancestors of living Americans. All these works joined in lauding the ideals of a new nation, betraying not a trace of the sectionalist bias that would soon transform southern drama.

Concurrent with their nationalism, there emerges in these plays, secondarily but consistently, a picture of Virginia culture revealing the state’s characteristic interests and activities. Signs of cultural consciousness already appear in the works of Robert Munford and those of George Washington Parke Custis. The former describes local politics in Virginia; the latter commemorates the legends of Washington and Pocahontas, thereby preserving the history of early Virginia, the matrix of Southern culture.

Robert Munford (c. 1737-83)

Robert Munford was a colonial American who became an exemplary citizen of the United States. To public service he added the composition of dramatic comedies, in which he articulated independent political opinions. Born in Prince George County, Virginia, he went to England in 1750 but did not stay to continue his education at an English university, as did many young Virginians. When Mecklenburg County, a semifrontier area adjacent to the North Carolina line, was organized in 1765, Munford went there as an officer of the militia, a post he held until his death. Prospering on his farm, called Richland, he acquired ninety-one slaves, the largest number in the country. As a dedicated public servant, he belonged to Virginia’s House of Delegates and fought in the French and Indian War. Abandoning support of the Crown, Colonel Munford eventually joined the Revolutionary movement and commanded two battalions of militia in the Yorktown campaign. The colonel’s son William published A Collection of Plays and Poems by Robert Munford in 1798, thus assuring for his father the title of the South’s first dramatist.² William Munford, who also tried dramatic composition, composed a Dryden-like play with an Oriental setting, Almoran and Hamet, which was published in his Poems and Compositions in Prose on Several Occasions (1798).

Robert Munford probably wrote his two plays, The Candidates and The Patriots, in the 1770s. Though never performed, they are skillfully written and are in fact more valuable to us than many that did reach the stage, since they comment intelligently on the times, expressing an enlightened viewpoint. William Munford states that his father’s purpose in composing The Candidates was “to laugh to scorn the practice of corruption, and falsehood; of which too many are guilty in electioneering; to teach our countrymen to despise the arts of those who meanly attempt to influence their votes by anything but merit” (pp. v-vi). In this play’s detailed depiction of a campaign for the House of Burgesses, Wou’dbe, an honest politician, is running against two corrupt men whose incriminating names, Sir John Toddy and Strutabout, show Munford’s disapproval of some contemporary Virginia politicians. At a barbecue Strutabout makes extravagant promises he cannot keep; as one voter observes, this candidate would “bring the tide over the tops of the hills, for a vote” (1.3).

The Candidates contains a remarkable amount of local color for the time and in fact reveals an unmistakable southern flavor. It tells us as much of Virginia culture as it does of the local politics that was an integral part of the communal life. The voters assemble at two venues. The first is the barbecue, where there is much rowdiness and boisterous drunkenness; one voter named Guzzle hiccups continually, blaming his condition on gingerbread. The second meeting, on the day of the election, is a breakfast at the residence of the upstanding Wou’dbe, ally of the appropriately named Worthy, a former member of the House of Burgesses. At this decorous gathering a group of voters chat in neighborly fashion while enjoying a festive repast before going to cast their ballots. When Prize asks Wou’dbe about his “fishing places,” the latter replies that they are “better than they’ve been known for some seasons.” Mr. Julip allows that with regard to the harvest, “we crop it gloriously.” Into this rural scene enter persons who give it a final southern touch: “several negroes” pass back and forth at the table serving drinks. Julip speaks to one of them in a form of address that has become too well known: “Boy, give me the spirit.” The fittingly named Julip thinks that his chocolate beverage needs “a little lacing to make it admirable” (3.3).

Although having an alcoholic drink in the morning had become common in Virginia at this time, the gentility of the breakfast scene contrasts pointedly with the crude disorderliness at the barbecue, and the contrast of propriety with grossness expresses the political philosophy of the play. In this election the voters of the county practice the honored, hierarchical custom of deference to their superiors by choosing the gentlemen planters Worthy and Wou’dbe over such disreputable incompetents as Strutabout and Smallhopes. Historians cite this account as convincing evidence of political deference in the colonial elections of Virginia.³

The play also evinces a keen sense of pride in being a Virginian, the beginning of the state loyalty that was to permeate the South. Its prologue, written later, pays tribute to “Virginia’s first and only comic son,” noting sadly that by the time of publication “the bard” is dead. After the election Wou’dbe does not forget to praise the people of Virginia for rejecting the unworthy candidates and selecting those capable of managing the affairs of the people. State pride shines forth in his words: the voters have shown good judgment, he declares, and “a spirit of independence becoming Virginians” (3.4).

Heavy drinking is a deplorable feature of elections in colonial Virginia according to Munford. At the barbecue Wou’dbe chides the comic John Guzzle for getting as drunk as “Chief Justice Cornelius,” an allusion to Cornelius Carghill, senior magistrate of Lunenburg County.⁴ The heavy consumption of alcohol in such campaigns was well documented by George Washington, who listed high expenses for alcohol at gatherings in Winchester, including the cost of twenty-eight gallons of rum.⁵

Such realistic details indicate that Munford’s depiction is well grounded in actual colonial elections. In fact, some characters were modeled after living persons. The leading character of The Candidates, Wou’dbe, is based on Robert Munford himself, a well-to-do patrician from the Tidewater who was elected to the House of Burgesses in 1770. Worthy is likely modeled on Matthew Marable, Munford’s colleague, who had previously been elected with him.⁶

Munford’s comedies fit clearly into the tradition of political satire in America, initiated by Governor Robert Hunter of New York in Androboros (1714), which lampoons “the man-eater” of the title, General Francis Nicholson. As Royal Commissioner of Accounts, Nicholson had been sent to investigate Hunter’s administration in New York. Like this satire and those of the English Restoration, Munford’s comedies abound in allegorical names designed to attack his enemies and praise his friends.

The Patriots differs sharply from The Candidates in focusing on national politics rather than local customs. Munford’s second play lacks a single reference to Virginia or Virginians, words that appear prolifically in his first. The Patriots is national not only in its concentration on tolerance of differing opinions during the American Revolution but also in its generalized setting. Already in these two differing works, American and southern viewpoints reflect the dual loyalties of Virginians.

In his introduction to this play, William Munford aptly characterizes The Patriots as “a picture of true and pretended patriots; by which the reader may perceive the difference between them, may learn to honour and reward the true, and to treat the false with infamy and contempt” (p. vi). The true patriot defends a fellow citizen’s right to hold a different opinion, even if he opposes freedom from Great Britain, the dramatist argues. William denies charges of disloyalty on his father’s part. If anyone should question Robert Munford’s allegiance to his country, he writes, the record proves that he “boldly fought in her defense” (p. vi).

The play, set in the early days of the Revolution, was probably composed in 1779 when Munford, like the leading character Meanwell, was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. Intolerance toward those who are cool to the Revolution arises at the outset as Meanwell and Trueman discuss the public’s suspicion of certain men’s patriotism. Both characters are likely based on Munford himself, who in 1777 was suspected of lacking zeal on behalf of his country. Munford probably suffered no personal examination by the local Committee of Observation, which was charged with prosecuting disloyalty to the republic, but his sympathy for the plight of his relatives the Beverleys, who were accused of being Tories, would have aroused suspicion. Like Munford, his character Meanwell says that above all he respects a man’s right to hold his own opinion.

The high point of The Patriots comes when Tackabout, later exposed as a Tory himself, labels Trueman a Tory before the Committee of Observation. Speaking as a genuine patriot whose moderate position duplicates Munford’s, Trueman declares: “I detest the opprobrious epithet of tory, as much as I do the inflammatory distinction of whig.” When the conduct of neither Tory nor Whig is justifiable, he says, he is neither, yet when the “good principles of either correspond with the duties of a good citizen, I am both” (4.2). Like his great contemporary George Washington, Munford placed “the duties of a good citizen” above loyalty to a particular party.

Munford also defended the native Scotsmen who became notorious during the Revolution for their loyalty to the Crown. On April 14, 1777, Scottish merchants in Mecklenburg County were tried for disloyalty and expelled according to the resolution of 1776, which applied to all British merchants friendly to the Crown. In the play, three Scottish merchants suspected of disloyalty are brought before the Committee of Observation. When asked for proof of their disloyalty, one accuser retorts: “We suspect any Scotchman: suspicion is proof, sir.”⁷ Meanwell, on the other hand, defends the Scots against such intolerance, objecting that even those who have given no cause for offense have been persecuted.

Munford set a very high standard for political plays written in Virginia. He perceived the defects of Mecklenburg County, a backwoods area that stood in contrast to the Tidewater with its tradition of unselfish civil service and deference to seasoned leaders. Satirizing demagogic and unprincipled candidates for office, he ridiculed those who made promises, such as reducing taxes, that they could not fulfill. Wou’dbe, speaking for Munford, points out that a legislature will make the final decision, weighing private interest against public good.⁸ With its droll scenes of politicking, The Candidates deftly catches the mood of a colonial election in Virginia. The Patriots censures the disparity between the proclaimed ideal of tolerating different opinions and the actual practice of punishing dissidents, which in a free society constitutes flagrant hypocrisy.

John Daly Burk (c. 1775-1808) and Others

John Daly Burk, known as a pioneer of American drama, did not settle in Virginia until late in his life, but he represents well the partisan politics that characterized drama there, especially the state’s dominant Jeffersonian Republicanism. An advocate of Irish independence, Burk fled from his native country to the United States. He settled in 1796 in Boston, where he plunged into partisan journalism and where in 1797 his popular play Bunker Hill; or, The Death of General Warren was performed at the Republican-supported New Theatre. Innovative in featuring a spectacular battle scene as the finale, this pageant drama, like William Dunlap’s The Glory of Columbia (1803), became a lasting success and earned Burk considerable fame. Dedicated to the Republican firebrand Aaron Burr, it is ardently nationalistic, anti-British, and anti-monarchy. At the funeral of General Warren in the final scene appear such slogans as “The Rights o...