Parallel programming: concepts and practice 1st

Edition - eBook PDF download

https://ebookluna.com/download/parallel-programming-concepts-and-
practice-ebook-pdf/

Download more ebook from https://ebookluna.com

 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookluna.com
to discover even more!

An Introduction to Parallel Programming 2. Edition Pacheco - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/an-introduction-to-parallel-programming-
ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Parallel Computer Organization and Design

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-parallel-computer-organization-and-
design/

(eBook PDF) Parallel Computer Organization and Design

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-parallel-computer-organization-and-
design-2/

Data Science: Concepts and Practice 2nd Edition- eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/data-science-concepts-and-practice-ebook-
pdf/
Problem Solving and Python Programming 1st edition - eBook PDF

https://ebookluna.com/download/problem-solving-and-python-programming-
ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Community and Human Services Concepts for Practice

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-community-and-human-services-
concepts-for-practice/

(eBook PDF) Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice 4th Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-introduction-to-leadership-
concepts-and-practice-4th-edition/

Introduction to Leadership: Concepts and Practice 4th Edition (eBook PDF)

https://ebookluna.com/product/introduction-to-leadership-concepts-and-
practice-4th-edition-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Professional Nursing Practice: Concepts and Perspectives 7th

Edition

https://ebookluna.com/product/ebook-pdf-professional-nursing-practice-
concepts-and-perspectives-7th-edition/
Parallel Programming
Parallel Programming
Concepts and Practice
Bertil Schmidt
Institut für Informatik
Staudingerweg 9
55128 Mainz
Germany

Jorge González-Domínguez
Computer Architecture Group
University of A Coruña
Edificio área científica (Office 3.08), Campus de Elviña
15071, A Coruña
Spain

Christian Hundt
Institut für Informatik
Staudingerweg 9
55128 Mainz
Germany

Moritz Schlarb
Data Center
Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz
Germany
Anselm-Franz-von-Bentzel-Weg 12
55128 Mainz
Germany
Morgan Kaufmann is an imprint of Elsevier
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on
how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as
the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted
herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes
in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information,
methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety
and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or
damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods,
products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-849890-3

For information on all Morgan Kaufmann publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Katey Birtcher

Acquisition Editor: Steve Merken
Developmental Editor: Nate McFadden
Production Project Manager: Sreejith Viswanathan
Designer: Christian J. Bilbow
Typeset by VTeX
Preface

Parallelism abounds. Nowadays, any modern CPU contains at least two cores, whereas some CPUs
feature more than 50 processing units. An even higher degree of parallelism is available on larger sys-
tems containing multiple CPUs such as server nodes, clusters, and supercomputers. Thus, the ability
to program these types of systems efficiently and effectively is an essential aspiration for scientists,
engineers, and programmers. The subject of this book is a comprehensive introduction to the area of
parallel programming that addresses this need. Our book teaches practical parallel programming for
shared memory and distributed memory architectures based on the C++11 threading API, Open Mul-
tiprocessing (OpenMP), Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA), Message Passing Interface
(MPI), and Unified Parallel C++ (UPC++), as well as necessary theoretical background. We have in-
cluded a large number of programming examples based on the recent C++11 and C++14 dialects of
the C++ programming language.
This book targets participants of “Parallel Programming” or “High Performance Computing”
courses which are taught at most universities at senior undergraduate level or graduate level in com-
puter science or computer engineering. Moreover, it serves as suitable literature for undergraduates in
other disciplines with a computer science minor or professionals from related fields such as research
scientists, data analysts, or R&D engineers. Prerequisites for being able to understand the contents
of our book include some experience with writing sequential code in C/C++ and basic mathematical
knowledge.
In good tradition with the historic symbiosis of High Performance Computing and natural science,
we introduce parallel concepts based on real-life applications ranging from basic linear algebra rou-
tines over machine learning algorithms and physical simulations but also traditional algorithms from
computer science. The writing of correct yet efficient code is a key skill for every programmer. Hence,
we focus on the actual implementation and performance evaluation of algorithms. Nevertheless, the
theoretical properties of algorithms are discussed in depth, too. Each chapter features a collection of
additional programming exercises that can be solved within a web framework that is distributed with
this book. The System for Automated Code Evaluation (SAUCE) provides a web-based testing en-
vironment for the submission of solutions and their subsequent evaluation in a classroom setting: the
only prerequisite is an HTML5 compatible web browser allowing for the embedding of interactive
programming exercise in lectures. SAUCE is distributed as docker image and can be downloaded at
https://parallelprogrammingbook.org
This website serves as hub for related content such as installation instructions, a list of errata, and
supplementary material (such as lecture slides and solutions to selected exercises for instructors).
If you are a student or professional that aims to learn a certain programming technique, we advise to
initially read the first three chapters on the fundamentals of parallel programming, theoretical models,
and hardware architectures. Subsequently, you can dive into one of the introductory chapters on C++11
Multithreading, OpenMP, CUDA, or MPI which are mostly self-contained. The chapters on Advanced
C++11 Multithreading, Advanced CUDA, and UPC++ build upon the techniques of their preceding
chapter and thus should not be read in isolation.
ix
x Preface

If you are a lecturer, we propose a curriculum consisting of 14 lectures mainly covering applications
from the introductory chapters. You could start with a lecture discussing the fundamentals from the
first chapter including parallel summation using a hypercube and its analysis, the definition of basic
measures such as speedup, parallelization efficiency and cost, and a discussion of ranking metrics. The
second lecture could cover an introduction to PRAM, network topologies, weak and strong scaling.
You can spend more time on PRAM if you aim to later discuss CUDA in more detail or emphasize
hardware architectures if you focus on CPUs. Two to three lectures could be spent on teaching the
basics of the C++11 threading API, CUDA, and MPI, respectively. OpenMP can be discussed within
a span of one to two lectures. The remaining lectures can be used to either discuss the content in the
advanced chapters on multithreading, CUDA, or the PGAS-based UPC++ language.
An alternative approach is splitting the content into two courses with a focus on pair-programming
within the lecture. You could start with a course on CPU-based parallel programming covering selected
topics from the first three chapters. Hence, C++11 threads, OpenMP, and MPI could be taught in full
detail. The second course would focus on advanced parallel approaches covering extensive CUDA
programming in combination with (CUDA-aware) MPI and/or the PGAS-based UPC++.
We wish you a great time with the book. Be creative and investigate the code! Finally, we would be
happy to hear any feedback from you so that we could improve any of our provided material.
Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the contributions of many people.
Initially, we would like to thank the anonymous and few non-anonymous reviewers who com-
mented on our book proposal and the final draft: Eduardo Cesar Galobardes, Ahmad Al-Khasawneh,
and Mohammad Olaimat.
Moreover, we would like to thank our colleagues who thoroughly peer-reviewed the chapters and
provided essential feedback: André Müller for his valuable advise on C++ programming, Robin Kobus
for being a tough code reviewer, Felix Kallenborn for his steady proofreading sessions, Daniel Jünger
for constantly complaining about the CUDA chapter, as well as Stefan Endler and Elmar Schömer for
their suggestions.
Additionally, we would like to thank the staff of Morgan Kaufman and Elsevier who coordinated
the making of this book. In particular we would like to mention Nate McFadden.
Finally, we would like to thank our spouses and children for their ongoing support and patience
during the countless hours we could not spend with them.

xi
 CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

Abstract
1
In the recent past, teaching and learning of parallel programming has become increasingly important
due to the ubiquity of parallel processors in portable devices, workstations, and compute clusters. Stag-
nating single-threaded performance of modern CPUs requires future computer scientists and engineers
to write highly parallelized code in order to fully utilize the compute capabilities of current hardware
architectures. The design of parallel algorithms, however, can be challenging especially for inexpe-
rienced students due to common pitfalls such as race conditions when concurrently accessing shared
resources, defective communication patterns causing deadlocks, or the non-trivial task of efficiently
scaling an application over the whole number of available compute units. Hence, acquiring parallel
programming skills is nowadays an important part of many undergraduate and graduate curricula.
More importantly, education of concurrent concepts is not limited to the field of High Performance
Computing (HPC). The emergence of deep learning and big data lectures requires teachers and stu-
dents to adopt HPC as an integral part of their knowledge domain. An understanding of basic concepts
is indispensable for acquiring a deep understanding of fundamental parallelization techniques.
The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of introductory concepts and terminologies in parallel
computing. We start with learning about speedup, efficiency, cost, scalability, and the computation-to-
communication ratio by analyzing a simple yet instructive example for summing up numbers using a
varying number of processors. We get to know about the two most important parallel architectures:
distributed memory systems and shared memory systems. Designing efficient parallel programs re-
quires a lot of experience and we will study a number of typical considerations for this process such
as problem partitioning strategies, communication patterns, synchronization, and load balancing. We
end this chapter with learning about current and past supercomputers and their historical and upcoming
architectural trends.

Keywords
Parallelism, Speedup, Parallelization, Efficiency, Scalability, Reduction, Computation-to-communica-
tion ratio, Distributed memory, Shared memory, Partitioning, Communication, Synchronization, Load
balancing, Task parallelism, Prefix sum, Deep learning, Top500

CONTENTS
1.1 Motivational Example and Its Analysis ............................................................................ 2
The General Case and the Computation-to-Communication Ratio..................................... 8
1.2 Parallelism Basics .................................................................................................... 10
Distributed Memory Systems................................................................................ 10
Shared Memory Systems..................................................................................... 11

Parallel Programming. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-849890-3.00001-0

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1
2 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Considerations When Designing Parallel Programs ...................................................... 13

1.3 HPC Trends and Rankings ........................................................................................... 16
1.4 Additional Exercises.................................................................................................. 18

1.1 MOTIVATIONAL EXAMPLE AND ITS ANALYSIS

In this section we learn about some basic concepts and terminologies. They are important for analyzing
parallel algorithms or programs in order to understand their behavior. We use a simple example for
summing up numbers using an increasing number of processors in order to explain and apply the
following concepts:

• Speedup. You have designed a parallel algorithm or written a parallel code. Now you want to
know how much faster it is than your sequential approach; i.e., you want to know the speedup.
The speedup (S) is usually measured or calculated for almost every parallel code or algorithm and
is simply defined as the quotient of the time taken using a single processor (T (1)) over the time
measured using p processors (T (p)) (see Eq. (1.1)).
T (1)
S= (1.1)
T (p)
• Efficiency and cost. The best speedup you can usually expect is a linear speedup; i.e., the maximal
speedup you can achieve with p processors or cores is p (although there are exceptions to this,
which are referred to as super-linear speedups). Thus, you want to relate the speedup to the number
of utilized processors or cores. The Efficiency E measures exactly that by dividing S by P (see
Eq. (1.2)); i.e., linear speedup would then be expressed by a value close to 100%. The cost C is
similar but relates the runtime T (p) (instead of the speedup) to the number of utilized processors
(or cores) by multiplying T (p) and p (see Eq. (1.3)).
S T (1)
E= = (1.2)
p T (p) × p
C = T (p) × p (1.3)

• Scalability. Often we do not only want to measure the efficiency for one particular number of pro-
cessors or cores but for a varying number; e.g. P = 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc. This is called
scalability analysis and indicates the behavior of a parallel program when the number of processors
increases. Besides varying the number of processors, the input data size is another parameter that
you might want to vary when executing your code. Thus, there are two types of scalability: strong
scalability and weak scalability. In the case of strong scalability we measure efficiencies for a vary-
ing number of processors and keep the input data size fixed. In contrast, weak scalability shows the
behavior of our parallel code for varying both the number of processors and the input data size; i.e.
when doubling the number of processors we also double the input data size.
• Computation-to-communication ratio. This is an important metric influencing the achievable
scalability of a parallel implementation. It can be defined as the time spent calculating divided by
the time spent communicating messages between processors. A higher ratio often leads to improved
speedups and efficiencies.
 1.1 MOTIVATIONAL EXAMPLE AND ITS ANALYSIS 3

The example we now want to look at is a simple summation; i.e., given an array A of n numbers we
want to compute n−1
i=0 A[i]. We parallelize this problem using an array of processing elements (PEs).
We make the following (not necessarily realistic) assumptions:

• Computation. Each PE can add two numbers stored in its local memory in one time unit.
• Communication. A PE can send data from its local memory to the local memory of any other PE
in three time units (independent of the size of the data).
• Input and output. At the beginning of the program the whole input array A is stored in PE #0. At
the end the result should be gathered in PE #0.
• Synchronization. All PEs operate in lock-step manner; i.e. they can either compute, communicate,
or be idle. Thus, it is not possible to overlap computation and communication on this architecture.

Speedup is relative. Therefore, we need to establish the runtime of a sequential program first. The
sequential program simply uses a single processor (e.g. PE #0) and adds the n numbers using n − 1
additions in n − 1 time units; i.e. T (1, n) = n − 1. In the following we illustrate our parallel algorithm
for varying p, where p denotes the number of utilized PEs. We further assume that n is a power of 2;
i.e., n = 2k for a positive integer k.

• p = 2. PE #0 sends half of its array to PE #1 (takes three time units). Both PEs then compute the
sum of their respective n/2 numbers (takes time n/2 − 1). PE #1 sends its partial sum back to PE
#0 (takes time 3). PE #0 adds the two partial sums (takes time 1). The overall required runtime is
T (2, n) = 3 + n/2 − 1 + 3 + 1. Fig. 1.1 illustrates the computation for n = 1024 = 210 , which has
a runtime of T (2, 1024) = 3 + 511 + 3 + 1 = 518. This is significantly faster than the sequential
runtime. We can calculate the speedup for this case as T (1, 1024)/T (2, 1024) = 1023/518 = 1.975.
This is very close to the optimum of 2 and corresponds to an efficiency of 98.75% (calculated
dividing the speedup by the number of utilized PEs; i.e. 1.975/2).
• p = 4. PE #0 sends half of the input data to PE #1 (takes time 3). Afterwards PE #0 and PE #1
each send a quarter of the input data to PE #2 and PE #3 respectively (takes time 3). All four PEs
then compute the sum of their respective n/4 numbers in parallel (takes time n/4 − 1). PE #2 and
PE #3 send their partial sums to PE #0 and PE #1, respectively (takes time 3). PE #0 and PE #1
add their respective partial sums (takes time 1). PE #1 then sends its partial sum to PE #0 (takes
time 3). Finally, PE #0 adds the two partial sums (takes time 1). The overall required runtime is
T (4, n) = 3 + 3 + n/4 − 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1. Fig. 1.2 illustrates the computation for n = 1024 = 210 ,
which has a runtime of T (4, 1024) = 3 + 3 + 255 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 269. We can again calculate the
speedup for this case as T (1, 1024)/T (4, 1024) = 1023/269 = 3.803 resulting in an efficiency of
95.07%. Even though this value is also close to 100%, it is slightly reduced in comparison to p = 2.
The reduction is caused by the additional communication overhead required for the larger number
of processors.
• p = 8. PE #0 sends half of its array to PE #1 (takes time 3). PE #0 and PE #1 then each send a
quarter of the input data to PE #2 and PE #3 (takes time 3). Afterwards, PE #0, PE #1, PE #2, and
PE #3 each send a 1/8 of the input data to PE #5, PE #6, PE #7, and PE #8 (takes again time 3).
Fig. 1.3 illustrates the three initial data distribution steps for n = 1024 = 210 . All eight PEs then
compute the sum of their respective n/8 numbers (takes time n/8 − 1). PE #5, PE #6, PE #7, and
PE #8 send their partial sums to PE #0, PE #1, PE #2, and PE #3, respectively (takes time 3).
4 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1.1
Summation of n = 1024 numbers on p = 2 PEs: (A) initially PE #0 stores the whole input data locally; (B) PE #0
sends half of the input to PE #1 (takes time 3); (C) Each PE sums up its 512 numbers (takes time 511);
(D) PE #1 sends its partial sum back to PE #0 (takes time 3); (E) To finalize the computation, PE #0 adds the
two partial sums (takes time 1). Thus, the total runtime is T (2, 1024) = 3 + 511 + 3 + 1 = 518.

Subsequently, PE #0, PE #1, PE #2, and PE #3 add their respective partial sums (takes time 1). PE
#2 and PE #3 then send their partial sums to PE #0 and PE #1, respectively (takes time 3). PE #0
and PE #1 add their respective partial sums (takes time 1). PE #1 then sends its partial sum to PE #0
(takes time 3). Finally, PE #0 adds the two partial sums (takes time 1). The overall required runtime
is T (8, n) = 3 + 3 + 3 + n/8 − 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1. The computation for n = 1024 = 210
thus has a runtime of T (8, 1024) = 3 + 3 + 3 + 127 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 148. The speedup
for this case is T (1, 1024)/T (8, 1024) = 1023/148 = 6.91 resulting in an efficiency of 86%. The
decreasing efficiency is again caused by the additional communication overhead required for the
larger number of processors.

We are now able to analyze the runtime of our parallel summation algorithm in a more general way
using p = 2q PEs and n = 2k input numbers:

• Data distribution time: 3 × q.

• Computing local sums: n/p − 1 = 2k−q − 1.
• Collecting partial results: 3 × q.
• Adding partial results: q.
 1.1 MOTIVATIONAL EXAMPLE AND ITS ANALYSIS 5

FIGURE 1.2
Summation of n = 1024 numbers on p = 4 PEs: (A) initially PE #0 stores the whole input in its local memory;
(B) PE #0 sends half of its input to PE #1 (takes time 3); (C) PE #0 and PE #1 send half of their data to PE #2
and PE #3 (takes time 3); (D) Each PE adds its 256 numbers (takes time 255); (E) PE #2 and PE #3 send their
partial sums to PE #0 and PE #1, respectively (takes time 3). Subsequently, PE #0 and PE #1 add their
respective partial sums (takes time 1); (F) PE #1 sends its partial sum to PE #0 (takes time 3), which then
finalizes the computation by adding them (takes time 1). Thus, the total runtime is
T (4, 1024) = 3 + 3 + 511 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 269.
6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

FIGURE 1.3
The three initial data distribution steps for n = 1024 and p = 8: (A) Initially PE #0 stores the whole input in its
local memory and sends half of its input to PE #1; (B) PE #0 and PE #1 send half of their (remaining) data to
PE #2 and PE #3; (C) PE #0, PE #1, PE #2, and PE #3 each send half of their (remaining) input data to PE #5,
PE #6, PE #7, and PE #8.

Thus, we get the following formula for the runtime:

T (p, n) = T (2q , 2k ) = 3q + 2k−q − 1 + 3q + q = 2k−q − 1 + 7q. (1.4)

Fig. 1.4 shows the runtime, speedup, cost, and efficiency of our parallel algorithm for n = 1024
and p ranging from 1 to 512. This type of runtime analysis (where the input size is kept constant
and the number of PEs is scaled) is called strong scalability analysis. We can see that the efficiency
 1.1 MOTIVATIONAL EXAMPLE AND ITS ANALYSIS 7

FIGURE 1.4
Strong scalability analysis: runtime, speedup, cost, and efficiency of our parallel summation algorithm for
adding n = 1024 numbers on a varying number of PEs (ranging from 1 to 512).

is high for a small number of PEs (i.e. p  n), but is low for a large number of PEs (i.e. p ≈ n).
This behavior can also be deduced from Eq. (1.4): for the case p  n, holds 2k−q  7q (i.e., the
term for computation time dominates), while it holds 2k−q  7q for the case p ≈ n (i.e., the term
for communication time dominates). Thus, we can conclude that our algorithm is not strongly scal-
able.
Now, we want to change our analysis a bit by not only increasing the number of PEs but additionally
increasing the input data size at the same time. This is known as weak scalability analysis. Fig. 1.5
shows the speedup and efficiency of our algorithm for n ranging from 1024 to 524,288 and p ranging
from 1 to 512. We can see that the efficiency is kept high (close to 100%) even for a large number of
PEs. This behavior can again be deduced from Eq. (1.4): since both n and p are scaled at the same
rate, the term relating to the computation time is constant for varying number of PEs (i.e. 2k−q = 1024
in Fig. 1.5), while the term for the communication time (7q = 7 × log(p)) only grows at a logarithmic
rate. Thus, we can conclude that our algorithm is weakly scalable.
The terms weak and strong scalability are also related to two well-known laws in parallel comput-
ing: Amdahl’s law and Gustafsson’s law, which we will discuss in more detail in Chapter 2.
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
recreation and refection to retreat to the land. The fair ended on the
5th of February.
It was during the continuance of this seventeenth century Frost Fair
that Evelyn saw a human salamander, when he dined at Sir Stephen
Fox’s, and “after dinner came a fellow who eat live charcoal,
glowingly ignited, quenching them in his mouth, and then champing
and swallowing them down. There was a dog also which seemed to
do many rational actions.” The last sentence is rather obscure; the
writer probably intended to convey that the animal performed many
actions which seemed rational.
During the Southwark Fair of the following year, there was a giant
exhibited at the Catherine Wheel Inn, a famous hostelry down to our
own time. Printers had not yet corrected the irregular spelling of the
preceding century, as appears from the following announcement:
—“The Gyant, or the Miracle of Nature, being that so much admired
young man, aged nineteen years last June, 1684. Born in Ireland, of
such a prodigious height and bigness, and every way proportionable,
the like hath not been seen since the memory of man. He hath been
several times shown at Court, and his Majesty was pleased to walk
under his arm, and he is grown very much since; he now reaches
ten foot and a half, fathomes near eight foot, spans fifteen inches;
And is believed to be as big as one of the Gyants in Guild-Hall. He is
to be seen at the Sign of the Catherine Wheel in Southwark Fair.
Vivat Rex.”
There was probably also to be seen at this fair the Dutch woman of
whom an author quoted by Strutt says that, “when she first danced
and vaulted on the rope in London, the spectators beheld her with
pleasure mixed with pain, as she seemed every moment in danger of
breaking her neck.” About this time, there was introduced at the
London fairs, an entertainment resembling that now given in the
music-halls, in which vocal and instrumental music was alternated
with rope-dancing and tumbling. The shows in which these
performances were given were called music-booths, though the
musical element was far from predominating. The musical portion of
the entertainment was not of the highest order, if we may trust the
judgment of Ward, the author of the London Spy, who says that he
“had rather have heard an old barber ring Whittington’s bells upon
the cittern than all the music these houses afforded.”
Such dramatic performances as were given in the booths at this time
seem to have been, in a great measure, confined to the puppet-
plays so often mentioned in the memoirs and diaries of the period.
Granger mentions one Philips, who, in the reign of James II., “was
some time fiddler to a puppet-show; in which capacity, he held many
a dialogue with Punch, in much the same strain as he did afterwards
with the mountebank doctor, his master, upon the stage. This Zany,
being regularly educated, had the advantage of his brethren.”
Besides the serio-comic drama of Punch and Judy, many popular
stories were represented by the puppets of those days, which set
forth the fortunes of Dick Whittington and the sorrows of Griselda,
the vagaries of Merry Andrew and the humours of Bartholomew Fair,
as delineated by the pen of Ben Jonson. It is a noteworthy
circumstance, as showing the estimation in which the Smithfield Fair
was held by the upper and middle classes at this period, and for
more than half a century afterwards, that the summer season of the
patent theatres, which closed at that time, always concluded with a
representation of Jonson’s now forgotten comedy.
A slight general view of Bartholomew Fair in 1685, with some equally
slight and curious moralising on the subject, is presented by Sir
Robert Southwell, in a letter addressed to his son, the Honourable
Edward Southwell, who was then in London with his tutor, Mr.
Webster.
“I think it not now,” says Sir Robert, “so proper to quote you verses
out of Persius, or to talk of Cæsar and Euclid, as to consider the
great theatre of Bartholomew Fair, where I doubt not but you often
resort, and ’twere not amiss if you cou’d convert that tumult into a
profitable book. You wou’d certainly see the garboil there to more
advantage if Mr. Webster and you wou’d read, or cou’d see acted,
the play of Ben Jonson, call’d Bartholomew Fair: for then afterwards
going to the spot, you wou’d note if things and humours were the
same to day, as they were fifty years ago, and take pattern of the
observations which a man of sense may raise out of matters that
seem even ridiculous. Take then with you the impressions of that
play, and in addition thereunto, I shou’d think it not amiss if you
then got up into some high window, in order to survey the whole pit
at once. I fancy then you will say, Totus mundus agit histrionem, and
then you wou’d note into how many various shapes human nature
throws itself, in order to buy cheap and sell dear, for all is but traffick
and commerce, some to give, some to take, and all is by exchange,
to make the entertainment complete.
“The main importance of this fair is not so much for merchandize,
and the supplying what people really want; but as a sort of
Bacchanalia, to gratifie the multitude in their wandering and
irregular thoughts. Here you see the rope-dancers gett their living
meerly by hazarding of their lives, and why men will pay money and
take pleasure to see such dangers, is of seperate and philosophical
consideration. You have others who are acting fools, drunkards, and
madmen, but for the same wages which they might get by honest
labour, and live with credit besides.
“Others, if born in any monstrous shape, or have children that are
such, here they celebrate their misery, and by getting of money,
forget how odious they are made. When you see the toy-shops, and
the strange variety of things, much more impertinent than hobby-
horses or gloves of gingerbread, you must know there are customers
for all these matters, and it wou’d be a pleasing sight cou’d we see
painted a true figure of all these impertinent minds and their
fantastick passions, who come trudging hither, only for such things.
’Tis out of this credulous crowd that the ballad-singers attrackt an
assembly, who listen and admire, while their confederate pickpockets
are diving and fishing for their prey.
“’Tis from those of this number who are more refined, that the
mountebank obtains audience and credit, and it were a good bargain
if such customers had nothing for their money but words, but they
are best content to pay for druggs, and medicines, which commonly
doe them hurt. There is one corner of this Elizium field devoted to
the eating of pig, and the surfeits that attend it. The fruits of the
season are everywhere scatter’d about, and those who eat
imprudently do but hasten to the physitian or the churchyard.”
In 1697, William Philips, the zany or Jack Pudding mentioned by
Granger, was arrested and publicly whipped for perpetrating, in
Bartholomew Fair, a jest on the repressive tendencies of the
Government, which has been preserved by Prior in a poem. It seems
that he made his appearance on the exterior platform of the show at
which he was engaged, with a tongue in his left hand and a black
pudding in his right. Professing to have learned an important secret,
by which he hoped to profit, he communicated it to the mountebank,
as related by Prior, as follows:—
“Be of your patron’s mind whate’er he says;
Sleep very much, think little, and talk less:
Mind neither good nor bad, nor right nor wrong;
But eat your pudding, slave, and hold your tongue.”
Mr. Morley conjectures that this Philips was the W. Phillips who wrote
the tragedy of the Revengeful Queen, published in 1698, and who
was supposed to be the author of another, Alcamenes and
Menelippa, and of a farce called Britons, Strike Home, which was
acted in a booth in Bartholomew Fair. But worth more than all these
plays would now be, if it could be discovered, the book published in
1688, of which, only the title-page is preserved in the Harleian
collection, viz., ‘The Comical History of the famous Merry Andrew, W.
Phill., Giving an Account of his Pleasant Humours, Various
Adventures, Cheats, Frolicks, and Cunning Designs, both in City and
Country.’
The circus was an entertainment as yet unknown. The only
equestrian performances were of the kind given by Banks, and
repeated, as we learn from Davenant and Pepys, by performers who
came after him, of whom there was a regular succession down to
the time of Philip Astley. The first entertainer who introduced horses
into vaulting acts seems to have been William Stokes, a famous
vaulter of the reigns of the latter Stuarts. He was the author of a
manual of the art of vaulting, which was published at Oxford in
1652, and contains several engravings, showing him in the act of
vaulting over a horse, over two horses, and leaping upon them, in
one alighting in the saddle, and in another upon the bare back of the
horse, à la Bradbury.
Another of the great show characters of this period was Joseph
Clark, the posturer, who according to a notice of him in the
Transactions of the Royal Philosophical Society, “had such an
absolute command of all his muscles and joints that he could disjoint
almost his whole body.” His performance seems to have consisted
chiefly in the imitation of every kind of human deformity; and he is
said to have imposed so completely upon Molins, a famous surgeon
of that period, as to be dismissed by him as an incurable cripple. His
portrait in Tempest’s collection represents him in the act of
shouldering his leg, an antic which is imitated by a monkey.
Clark was the “whimsical fellow, commonly known by the name of
the Posture-master,” mentioned by Addison in the ‘Guardian,’ No.
102. He was the son of a distiller in Shoe Lane, who designed him
for the medical profession, but a brief experience with John Coniers,
an apothecary in Fleet Street, not pleasing him, he was apprenticed
to a mercer in Bishopsgate Street. Trade suited him no better than
medicine, it would seem, for he afterwards went to Paris, in the
retinue of the Duke of Buckingham, and there first displayed his
powers as a posturer. He died in 1690, at his house in Pall Mall, and
was buried in the church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Many portraits
of him, in different attitudes, are extant in the British Museum.
Monstrosities have always been profitable subjects for exhibition.
Shakespeare tells us, and may be presumed to have intended the
remark to convey his impression of the tendency of his own
generation, that people would give more to see a dead Indian than
to relieve a lame beggar; and the profits of the exhibition of Julia
Pastrana and the so-called Kostroma people show that the public
interest in such monstrosities remains unabated. But what would
“City men” say to such an exhibition in Threadneedle Street? I take
the following announcement from a newspaper of June, 1698:—
“At Moncrieff’s Coffee-house, in Threadneedle Street, near the Royal
Exchange, is exposed to view, for sixpence a piece, a Monster that
lately died there, being Humane upwards and bruit downwards,
wonderful to behold: the like was never seen in England before, the
skin is so exactly stuffed that the whole lineaments and proportion
of the Monster are as plain to be seen as when it was alive. And a
very fine Civet Cat, spotted like a Leopard, and is now alive, that
was brought from Africa with it. They are exposed to view from eight
in the morning to eight at night.”
At the King’s Head, in West Smithfield, there was this year exhibited
“a little Scotch Man, which has been admired by all that have yet
seen him, he being but two Foot and six Inches high; and is near
upon 60 years of Age. He was marry’d several years, and had Issue
by his Wife, two sons (one of which is with him now). He Sings and
Dances with his son, and has had the Honour to be shewn before
several Persons of Note at their Houses, as far as they have yet
travelled. He formerly kept a Writing school; and discourses of the
Scriptures, and of many Eminent Histories, very wisely; and gives
great satisfaction to all spectators; and if need requires, there are
several Persons in this town, that will justifie that they were his
Schollars, and see him Marry’d.”
In the same year, David Cornwell exhibited, at the Ram’s Head, in
Fenchurch Street, a singular lad, advertised as “the Bold Grimace
Spaniard,” who was said to have “liv’d 15 years among wild
creatures in the Mountains, and is reasonably suppos’d to have been
taken out of his cradle an Infant, by some savage Beast, and
wonderfully preserv’d, till some Comedians accidentally pass’d
through those parts, and perceiving him to be of Human Race,
pursu’d him to his Cave, where they caught him in a Net. They
found something wonderful in his Nature, and took him with them in
their Travels through Spain and Italy. He performs the following
surprising grimaces, viz., He lolls out his Tongue a foot long, turns
his eyes in and out at the same time; contracts his Face as small as
an Apple; extends his Mouth six inches, and turns it into the shape
of a Bird’s Beak, and his eyes like to an Owl’s; turns his mouth into
the Form of a Hat cock’d up three ways; and also frames it in the
manner of a four-square Buckle; licks his Nose with his Tongue, like
a Cow; rolls one Eyebrow two inches up, the other two down;
changes his face to such an astonishing Degree, as to appear like a
Corpse long bury’d. Altho’ bred wild so long, yet by travelling with
the aforesaid Comedians 18 years, he can sing wonderfully fine, and
accompanies his voice with a thorow Bass on the Lute. His former
natural Estrangement from human conversation oblig’d Mr. Cornwell
to bring a Jackanapes over with him for his Companion, in whom he
takes great Delight and Satisfaction.”
How many of these show creatures were impostors, and how many
genuine eccentricities of human nature, it is impossible to say.
Barnum’s revelations have made us sceptical. But the numerous
advertisements of this kind in the newspapers of the period show
that the passion for monstrosities was as strongly developed in the
latter half of the seventeenth century as at the present day.
Barnes and Appleby’s booth for tumbling and rope-dancing appears
from the following advertisement, extracted from a newspaper of
1699, to have attended Bartholomew Fair the previous year:—
“At Mr. Barnes’s and Mr. Appleby’s Booth, between the Crown Tavern
and the Hospital Gate, over against the Cross Daggers, next to
Miller’s Droll Booth, in West Smithfield, where the English and Dutch
Flaggs, with Barnes’s and the two German Maidens’ pictures, will
hang out, during the time of Bartholomew Fair, will be seen the most
excellent and incomparable performances in Dancing on the Slack
Rope, Walking on the Slack Rope, Vaulting and Tumbling on the
Stage, by these five, the most famous Companies in the Universe,
viz., The English, Irish, High German, French, and Morocco, now
united. The Two German Maidens, who exceeded all mankind in
their performances, are within this twelvemonth improved to a
Miracle.”
In this year I find the following advertisement of a music booth,
which must have been one of the earliest established:—
“Thomas Dale, Drawer at the Crown Tavern at Aldgate, keepeth the
Turk’s Head Musick Booth, in Smithfield Rounds, over against the
Greyhound Inn during the time of Bartholomew Fair, Where is a
Glass of good Wine, Mum, Syder, Beer, Ale, and all other Sorts of
Liquors, to be Sold; and where you will likewise be entertained with
good Musick, Singing, and Dancing. You will see a Scaramouch
Dance, the Italian Punch’s Dance, the Quarter Staff, the Antick, the
Countryman and Countrywoman’s Dance, and the Merry Cuckolds of
Hogsden.
“Also a young Man that dances an Entry, Salabrand, and Jigg, and a
Woman that dances with Six Naked Rapiers, that we Challenge the
whole Fair to do the like. There is likewise a Young Woman that
Dances with Fourteen Glasses on the Backs and Palms of her Hands,
and turns round with them above an Hundred Times as fast as a
Windmill turns; and another Young Man that Dances a Jigg
incomparably well, to the Admiration of all Spectators. Vivat Rex.”
James Miles, who announced himself as from Sadler’s Wells, kept
the Gun music-booth in the fair, and announced nineteen dances,
among which were “a dance of three bullies and three Quakers;” a
cripples’ dance by six persons with wooden legs and crutches, “in
imitation of a jovial crew;” a dance with swords, and on a ladder, by
a young woman, “with that variety that she challenges all her sex to
do the like;” and a new entertainment, “between a Scaramouch, a
Harlequin, and a Punchinello, in imitation of bilking a reckoning.” We
shall meet with James Miles again in the next chapter and century.
 CHAPTER IV.
Attempts to Suppress the Shows at
Bartholomew Fair—A remarkable
Dutch Boy—Theatrical Booths at the
London Fairs—Penkethman, the
Comedian—May Fair—Barnes and
Finley—Lady Mary—Doggett, the
Comedian—Simpson, the Vaulter—
Clench, the Whistler—A Show at
Charing Cross—Another Performing
Horse—Powell and Crawley, the
Puppet-Showmen—Miles’s Music-
Booth—Settle and Mrs. Mynn—
Southwark Fair—Mrs. Horton, the
Actress—Bullock and Leigh—
Penkethman and Pack—Boheme, the
Actor—Suppression of May Fair—
Woodward, the Comedian—A
Female Hercules—Tiddy-dol, the
Gingerbread Vendor.
So early as the close of the seventeenth century, one hundred and
fifty years before the fair was abolished, we find endeavours being
made, in emulation of the Puritans, to banish every kind of
amusement from Bartholomew Fair, and limit it to the purposes of an
annual market. In 1700, the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen
resolved that no booths should be permitted to be erected in
Smithfield that year; but on the 6th of August it was announced that
“the lessees of West Smithfield having on Friday last represented to
a Court of Aldermen at Guildhall, that it would be highly injurious to
them to have the erection of all booths there totally prohibited, the
right honourable Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen have, on
consideration of the premises, granted licence to erect some booths
during the time of Bartholomew Fair now approaching; but none are
permitted for music-booths, or any that may be means to promote
debauchery.” And, on the 23rd, when the Lord Mayor went on
horseback to proclaim the fair, he ordered two music-booths to be
taken down immediately.
On the 4th of June, in the following year, the grand jury made a
presentment to the following effect:—“Whereas we have seen a
printed order of the Lord Mayor and Court of Aldermen, the 25th
June, 1700, to prevent the great profaneness, vice, and debauchery,
so frequently used and practised in Bartholomew Fair, by strictly
charging and commanding all persons concerned in the said fair, and
in the sheds and booths to be erected and built therein or places
adjacent, that they do not let, set, or hire, or use any booth, shed,
stall, or other erection whatsoever to be used or employed for
interludes, stage-plays, comedies, gaming-places, lotteries, or music
meetings: and as we are informed the present Lord Mayor and Court
of Aldermen have passed another order to the same effect on the
3rd instant, we take this occasion to return our most hearty thanks
for their religious care and great zeal in this matter; we esteeming a
renewing of their former practices at the Fair a continuing one of the
chiefest nurseries of vice next to the play-houses; therefore
earnestly desire that the said orders may be vigorously prosecuted,
and that this honourable Court would endeavour that the said fair
may be employed to those good ends and purposes it was at first
designed.”
This presentment deserves, and will repay, the most attentive
consideration of those who would know the real character of the
amusements presented at the London fairs, and the motives and
aims of those who endeavoured to suppress them. The grand jury
profess to be actuated by a desire to diminish profanity, vice, and
debauchery; and, if this had been their real and sole object, nothing
could have been more laudable. But, like those who would suppress
the liquor traffic in order to prevent drunkenness, they confounded
the use with the abuse of the thing which they condemned, and
sought to deprive the masses of every kind of amusement, because
some persons could not participate therein without indulging in
vicious and debasing pleasures. It might have been supposed that
Bartholomew Fair was pre-eminently a means and occasion of vice
and debauchery, and that its continuance was incompatible with the
maintenance of public order and the due guardianship of public
morals, if the grand jury had not coupled with their condemnation
an expression of their opinion that it was not so bad as the theatres.
In that sentence is disclosed the real motive and aim of those who
sought the suppression of the amusements of the people at the
London Fairs.
That the morals and manners of that age were of a low standard is
undeniable; but they would have been worse if the fairs had been
abolished, and the theatres closed, as the fanatics of the day willed.
Men and women cannot be made pious or virtuous by the
prohibition of theatres, concerts, and balls, any more than they can
be rendered temperate by suppressing the public sale of beer, wine,
and spirits. Naturally, a virtuous man, without being a straight-laced
opponent of “cakes and ale,” would have seen, in walking through a
fair, much that he would deplore, and desire to amend; but such a
man would have the same reflections inspired by a visit to a theatre
or a music-hall, or any other amusement of the present day. He
would not, however, if he was sensible as well as virtuous, conclude
from what he saw and heard that all public amusements ought to be
prohibited. To suppress places of popular entertainment because
some persons abuse them would be like destroying a garden
because a snail crawls over the foliage, or an earwig lurks in the
flowers.
The London fairs were attended this year by a remarkable Dutch
boy, about eight or nine years of age, whose eyes presented
markings of the iris in which sharp-sighted persons, aided perhaps
by a considerable development of the organ of wonder, read certain
Latin and Hebrew words. In one eye, the observer read, or was
persuaded that he could read, the words Deus meus; in the other, in
Hebrew characters, the word Elohim. The boy’s parents, by whom he
was exhibited, affirmed that his eyes had presented these
remarkable peculiarities from his birth. Great numbers of persons,
including the most eminent physiologists and physicians of the day,
went to see him; and the learned, who examined his eyes with great
attention, were as far from solving the mystery as the crowd of
ordinary sight-seers. Some of them regarded the case as an
imposture, but they were unable to suggest any means by which
such a fraud could be accomplished. Others regarded it as “almost”
supernatural, a qualification not very easy to understand. The
supposed characters were probably natural, and only to be seen as
Roman and Hebrew letters by imaginative persons, or those who
viewed them with the eye of faith. Whatever their nature, the boy’s
sight was not affected by them in the slightest degree.
The theatrical booths attending the London fairs began at this time
to be more numerous, and to present an entertainment of a better
character than had hitherto been seen. The elder Penkethman
appears to have been the first actor of good position on the stage
who set the example of performing in a temporary canvas theatre
during the fairs, and it was soon followed by the leading actors and
actresses of the royal theatres. In a dialogue on the state of the
stage, published in 1702, and attributed to Gildon, Critick calls
Penkethman “the flower of Bartholomew Fair, and the idol of the
rabble; a fellow that overdoes everything, and spoils many a part
with his own stuff.” He had then been ten years on the stage, having
made his first appearance at Drury Lane in 1692, as the tailor, a
small part in The Volunteers. Four years later, we find him playing, at
the same theatre, such parts as Snap in Love’s Last Shift, Dr. Pulse
in The Lost Lover, and Nick Froth in The Cornish Comedy.
What the author of the pamphlet just quoted says of this actor
receives confirmation and illustration from an anecdote told of him,
in connection with the first representation of Farquhar’s Recruiting
Officer at Drury Lane in 1706. Penkethman, who played Thomas
Appletree, one of the rustic recruits, when asked his name by Wilks,
to whom the part of Captain Plume was assigned, replied, “Why,
don’t you know my name, Bob? I thought every fool knew that.”
“Thomas Appletree,” whispered Wilks, assuming the office of
prompter.
“Thomas Appletree!” exclaimed Penkethman, aloud. “Thomas Devil!
My name is Will Penkethman.” Then, turning to the gallery, he
addressed one of the audience thus:—“Hark you, friend; don’t you
know my name?”
“Yes, Master Pinkey,” responded the occupant of a front seat in the
gallery. “We know it very well.”
The theatre was soon in an uproar: the audience at first laughed at
the folly of Penkethman and the evident distress of Wilks; but the
joke soon grew tiresome, and they began to hiss. Penkethman saw
his mistake, and speedily changed displeasure into applause by
crying out, with a loud nasal twang, and a countenance as
ludicrously melancholy as he could make it, “Adzooks! I fear I am
wrong!”
Barnes, the rope-dancer, had at this time lost his former partner,
Appleby, and taken into partnership an acrobat named Finley. They
advertised their show in 1701 at Bartholomew Fair as, “Her Majesty’s
Company of Rope Dancers.” They had two German girls “lately
arrived from France;” and it was announced that “the famous Mr.
Barnes, of whose performances this kingdom is so sensible, Dances
with 2 Children at his feet, and with Boots and Spurs. Mrs. Finley,
distinguished by the name of Lady Mary for her incomparable
Dancing, has much improved herself since the last Fair. You will
likewise be entertained with such variety of Tumbling by Mr. Finley
and his Company, as was never seen in the Fair before. Note, that
for the conveniency of the Gentry, there is a back-door in Smithfield
Rounds.”
They were not without rivals, though the absence of names from the
following advertisement renders it probable that the “famous
company” calculated upon larger gains from anonymous boasting
than they could hope for from the announcement of their names:—
“At the Great Booth over against the Hospital Gate in Bartholomew
Fair, will be seen the Famous Company of Rope Dancers, they being
the Greatest Performers of Men, Women, and Children that can be
found beyond the Seas, so that the world cannot parallel them for
Dancing on the Low Rope, Vaulting on the High Rope, and for
Walking on the Slack and Sloaping Ropes, out-doing all others to
that degree, that it has highly recommended them, both in
Bartholomew Fair and May Fair last, to all the best persons of Quality
in England. And by all are owned to be the only amazing Wonders of
the World in every thing they do: It is there you will see the Italian
Scaramouch dancing on the Rope, with a Wheel-barrow before him,
with two Children and a Dog in it, and with a Duck on his Head who
sings to the Company, and causes much Laughter. The whole
entertainment will be so extremely fine and diverting, as never was
done by any but this Company alone.”
Doggett, whom Cibber calls the most natural actor of the day, and
whose name is associated with the coat and badge rowed for
annually, on the 1st of August, by London watermen’s apprentices,
was here this year, with a theatrical booth, erected at the end of
Hosier Lane, where was presented, as the advertisements tell us, “A
New Droll call’d the Distressed Virgin or the Unnatural Parents. Being
a True History of the Fair Maid of the West, or the Loving Sisters.
With the Comical Travels of Poor Trusty, in Search of his Master’s
Daughter, and his Encounter with Three Witches. Also variety of
Comick Dances and Songs, with Scenes and Machines never seen
before. Vivat Regina.” Doggett was at this time manager of Drury
Lane.
Miller, the actor, also had a theatrical booth in the fair, and made the
following announcement:—
“Never acted before. At Miller’s Booth, over against the Cross
Daggers, near the Crown Tavern, during the time of Bartholomew
Fair, will be presented an Excellent New Droll, call’d The Tempest, or
the Distressed Lovers. With the English Hero and the Island Princess,
and the Comical Humours of the Inchanted Scotchman; or Jockey
and the Three Witches. Showing how a Nobleman of England was
cast away upon the Indian Shore, and in his Travel found the
Princess of the Country, with whom he fell in Love, and after many
Dangers and Perils, was married to her; and his faithful Scotchman,
who was saved with him, travelling through Woods, fell in among
Witches, when between ’em is abundance of comical Diversions.
There in the Tempest is Neptune, with his Triton in his Chariot drawn
with Sea Horses and Mair Maids singing. With variety of
Entertainment, performed by the best Masters; the Particulars would
be too tedious to be inserted here. Vivat Regina.”
The similarity of the chief incidents in the dramas presented by
Doggett and Miller is striking. In both we have the troubles of the
lovers, the comical adventures of a man-servant, and the encounter
with witches. We shall find these incidents reproduced again and
again, with variations, and under different titles, in the plays set
before Bartholomew audiences of the eighteenth century.
May Fair first assumed importance this year, when the multiplication
of shows of all kinds caused it to assume dimensions which had not
hitherto distinguished it. It was held on the north side of Piccadilly,
in Shepherd’s Market, White Horse Street, Shepherd’s Court, Sun
Court, Market Court, an open space westward, extending to Tyburn
Lane (now Park Lane), Chapel Street, Shepherd Street, Market
Street, Hertford Street, and Carrington Street. The ground-floor of
the market-house, usually occupied by butchers’ stalls, was
appropriated during the fair to the sale of toys and gingerbread; and
the upper portion was converted into a theatre. The open space
westward was covered with the booths of jugglers, fencers, and
boxers, the stands of mountebanks, swings, round-abouts, etc.,
while the sides of the streets were occupied by sausage stalls and
gambling tables. The first-floor windows were also, in some
instances, made to serve as the proscenia of puppet shows.
I have been able to trace only two shows to this fair in 1702, namely
Barnes and Finley’s and Miller’s, which stood opposite to the former,
and presented “an excellent droll called Crispin and Crispianus: or, A
Shoemaker a Prince; with the best machines, singing and dancing
ever yet in the fair.” A great concourse of people attended from all
parts of the metropolis; an injudicious attempt on the part of the
local authorities to exclude persons of immoral character, which has
always been found impracticable in places of public amusement,
resulted in a serious riot. Some young women being arrested by the
constables on the allegation that they were prostitutes, they were
rescued by a party of soldiers; and a conflict was begun, which
extended as other constables came up, and the “rough” element
took part with the rescuers of the incriminated women. One
constable was killed, and three others dangerously wounded before
the fight ended. The man by whose hand the constable fell contrived
to escape; but a butcher who had been active in the affray was
arrested, and convicted, and suffered the capital penalty at Tyburn.
In the following year, the fair was presented as a nuisance by the
grand jury of Middlesex; but it continued to be held for several years
afterwards. Barnes and Finley again had a show at Bartholomew
Fair, to which the public were invited to “see my Lady Mary perform
such steps on the dancing-rope as have never been seen before.”
The young lady thus designated, and whose performance attracted
crowds of spectators to Barnes and Finley’s show, was said to be the
daughter of a Florentine noble, and had given up all for love by
eloping with Finley. By the companion of her flight she was taught to
dance upon the tight rope, and for a few years was an entertainer of
considerable popularity; but, venturing to exhibit her agility and
grace while enceinte, she lost her balance, fell from the rope, and
died almost immediately after giving birth to a stillborn child.
Bullock and Simpson, the former an actor of some celebrity at Drury
Lane, joined Penkethman this year in a show at Bartholomew Fair, in
which Jephtha’s Rash Vow was performed, Penkethman playing the
part of Toby, and Bullock that of Ezekiel. Bullock is described in the
pamphlet attributed to Gildon as “the best comedian who has trod
the stage since Nokes and Leigh, and a fellow that has a very
humble opinion of himself.” So much modesty must have made him
a rara avis among actors, who have, as a rule, a very exalted opinion
of themselves. He had been six years on the stage at this time,
having made his first appearance in 1696, at Drury Lane, as Sly in
Love’s Last Shift. His ability was soon recognised; and in the same
year he played Sir Morgan Blunder in The Younger Brother, and
Shuffle in The Cornish Comedy. Parker and Doggett also had a booth
this year at the same fair, playing Bateman; or, the Unhappy
Marriage, with the latter comedian in the part of Sparrow.
Penkethman at this time, from his salary as an actor at Drury Lane,
his gains from attending Bartholomew and Southwark Fairs with his
show, and the profits of the Richmond Theatre, which he either
owned or leased, was in the receipt of a considerable income. “He is
the darling of Fortunatus,” says Downes, writing in 1708, “and has
gained more in theatres and fairs in twelve years than those who
have tugged at the oar of acting these fifty.” He did not retire from
the stage, however, until 1724.
Some of the minor shows of this period must now be noticed. A bill
of this time—the date cannot always be fixed—invites the visitors to
Bartholomew Fair to witness “the wonderful performances of that
most celebrated master Simpson, the famous vaulter, who being
lately arrived from Italy, will show the world what vaulting is.” The
chroniclers of the period have not preserved any record, save this
bill, of this not too modest performer. A more famous entertainer
was Clench, a native of Barnet, whose advertisements state that he
“imitates horses, huntsmen, and a pack of hounds, a doctor, an old
woman, a drunken man, bells, the flute, and the organ, with three
voices, by his own natural voice, to the greatest perfection,” and that
he was “the only man that could ever attain so great an art.” He had
a rival, however, in the whistling man, mentioned in the ‘Spectator,’
who was noted for imitating the notes of all kinds of birds. Clench
attended all the fairs in and around London, and at other times gave
his performance at the corner of Bartholomew Lane, behind the old
Exchange.
To this period also belongs the following curious announcement of “a
collection of strange and wonderful creatures from most parts of the
world, all alive,” to be seen over against the Mews Gate, Charing
Cross, by her Majesty’s permission.
“The first being a little Black Man, being but 3 foot high, and 32
years of age, straight and proportionable every way, who is
distinguished by the Name of the Black Prince, and has been shewn
before most Kings and Princes in Christendom. The next being his
wife, the Little Woman, not 3 foot high, and 30 years of Age, straight
and proportionable as any woman in the Land, which is commonly
called the Fairy Queen; she gives general satisfaction to all that sees
her, by Diverting them with Dancing, being big with Child. Likewise
their little Turkey Horse, being but 2 foot odd inches high, and above
12 years of Age, that shews several diverting and surprising Actions,
at the Word of Command. The least Man, Woman, and Horse that
ever was seen in the World Alive. The Horse being kept in a box.
The next being a strange Monstrous Female Creature that was taken
in the woods in the Deserts of Æthiopia in Prester John’s Country, in
the remotest parts of Africa. The next is the noble Picary, which is
very much admir’d by the Learned. The next being the noble Jack-
call, the Lion’s Provider, which hunts in the Forest for the Lion’s Prey.
Likewise a small Egyptian Panther, spotted like a Leopard. The next
being a strange, monstrous creature, brought from the Coast of
Brazil, having a Head like a Child, Legs and Arms very wonderful,
with a Long Tail like a Serpent, wherewith he Feeds himself, as an
Elephant doth with his Trunk. With several other Rarities too tedious
to mention in this Bill.
“And as no such Collection was ever shewn in this Place before, we
hope they will give you content and satisfaction, assuring you, that
they are the greatest Rarities that ever was shewn alive in this
Kingdom, and are to be seen from nine o’clock in the Morning, till 10
at Night, where true Attendance shall be given during our stay in
this Place, which will be very short. Long live the Queen.”
The proprietors of menageries and circuses are always amusing, if
not very lucid, when they set forth in type the attractions of their
shows. The owner of the rarities exhibited over against the Mews
Gate in the reign of Queen Anne was no exception to the rule. The
picary and the jack-call may be readily identified as the peccary and
the jackal, but “a strange monstrous female creature” defies
recognition, even with the addition that it was brought from Prester
John’s country. The Brazilian wonder may be classified with safety
with the long-tailed monkeys, especially as another and shorter
advertisement, in the ‘Spectator,’ describes it a little more explicitly
as a satyr. It was, probably, a spider monkey, one variety of which is
said, by Humboldt, to use its prehensile tail for the purpose of
picking insects out of crevices.
The Harleian Collection contains the following announcement of a
performing horse:—
“To be seen, at the Ship, upon Great Tower Hill, the finest taught
horse in the world. He fetches and carries like a spaniel dog. If you
hide a glove, a handkerchief, a door-key, a pewter basin, or so small
a thing as a silver two-pence, he will seek about the room till he has
found it; and then he will bring it to his master. He will also tell the
number of spots on a card, and leap through a hoop; with a variety
of other curious performances.”
Powell, the famous puppet-showman mentioned in the ‘Spectator,’ in
humorous contrast with the Italian Opera, never missed
Bartholomew Fair, where, however, he had a rival in Crawley, two of
whose bills have been preserved in the Harleian Collection.
Pinkethman, another “motion-maker,” as the exhibitors of these
shows were called, and also mentioned in the ‘Spectator,’ introduced
on his stage the divinities of Olympus ascending and descending to
the sound of music. Strutt, who says that he saw something of the
same kind at a country fair in 1760, thinks that the scenes and
figures were painted upon a flat surface and cut out, like those of a
boy’s portable theatre, and that motion was imparted to them by
clock-work. This he conjectures to have been the character also of
the representation, with moving figures, of the camp before Lisle,
which was exhibited, in the reign of Anne, in the Strand, opposite
the Globe Tavern, near Hungerford Market.
One of the two bills of Crawley’s show which have been preserved
was issued for Bartholomew Fair, and the other for Southwark Fair.
The former is as follows:—
“At Crawley’s Booth, over against the Crown Tavern in Smithfield,
during the time of Bartholomew Fair, will be presented a little opera,
called the Old Creation of the World, yet newly revived; with the
addition of Noah’s flood; also several fountains playing water during
the time of the play. The last scene does present Noah and his
family coming out of the ark, with all the beasts two by two, and all
the fowls of the air seen in a prospect sitting upon trees; likewise
over the ark is seen the sun rising in a most glorious manner:
moreover, a multitude of angels will be seen in a double rank, which
presents a double prospect, one for the sun, the other for a palace,
where will be seen six angels ringing of bells. Likewise machines
descending from above, double, with Dives rising out of hell, and
Lazarus seen in Abraham’s bosom, besides several figures dancing
jiggs, sarabands, and country dances, to the admiration of the
spectators; with the merry conceits of Squire Punch and Sir John
Spendall.” This curious medley was “completed by an entertainment
of singing, and dancing with several naked swords by a child of eight
years of age.” In the bill for Southwark Fair we find the addition of
“the ball of little dogs,” said to have come from Louvain, and to
perform “by their cunning tricks wonders in the world of dancing.
You shall see one of them named Marquis of Gaillerdain, whose
dexterity is not to be compared; he dances with Madame Poucette
his mistress and the rest of their company at the sound of
instruments, all of them observing so well the cadence that they
amaze everybody;” it is added that these celebrated performers had
danced before Queen Anne and most of the nobility, and amazed
everybody.
James Miles, who has been mentioned in the last chapter, promised
the visitors, in a bill preserved in the Harleian Collection, that they
should see “a young woman dance with the swords, and upon a
ladder, surpassing all her sex.” Nineteen different dances were
performed in his show, among which he mentions a “wrestlers’
dance” and vaulting upon the slack rope. Respecting this dancing
with swords, Strutt says that he remembered seeing “at Flockton’s, a
much noted but very clumsy juggler, a girl about eighteen or twenty
years of age, who came upon the stage with four naked swords, two
in each hand; when the music played, she turned round with great
swiftness, and formed a great variety of figures with the swords,
holding them overhead, down by her sides, behind her, and
occasionally she thrust them in her bosom. The dance generally
continued ten or twelve minutes; and when it was finished, she
stopped suddenly, without appearing to be in the least giddy from
the constant reiteration of the same motion.”
The ladder-dance was performed upon a light ladder, which the
performer shifted from place to place, ascended and descended,
without permitting it to fall. It was practised at Sadler’s Wells at the
commencement of the last century, and revived there in 1770. Strutt
thought it originated in the stilt-dance, which appears, from an
illumination of the reign of Henry III., to have been practised in the
thirteenth century.
Mrs. Mynn appears as a Bartholomew Fair theatrical manageress in
1707, when Settle, then nearly sixty years of age, and in far from
flourishing circumstances, adapted to her stage his spectacular
drama of the Siege of Troy, which had been produced at Drury Lane
six years previously. Settle, who was a good contriver of spectacles,
though a bad dramatic poet, reduced it from five acts to three,
striking out four or five of the dramatis personæ, cutting down the
serious portions of the dialogue, and giving greater breadth as well
as length to the comic incidents, without which no Bartholomew
audience would have been satisfied. As acted in her theatrical booth,
it was printed by Mrs. Mynn, with the following introduction:—
“A Printed Publication of an Entertainment performed on a Smithfield
Stage, which, how gay or richly soever set off, will hardly reach to a
higher Title than the customary name of a Droll, may seem
somewhat new. But as the present undertaking, the work of ten
Months’ preparation, is so extraordinary a Performance, that without
Boast or Vanity we may modestly say, In the whole several Scenes,
Movements, and Machines, it is no ways Inferiour even to any one
Opera yet seen in either of the Royal Theatres; we are therefore
under some sort of Necessity to make this Publication, thereby to
give ev’n the meanest of our audience a full Light into all the Object
they will there meet in this Expensive Entertainment; the Proprietors
of which have adventur’d to make, under some small Hopes, That as
they yearly see some of their happier Brethren Undertakers in the
Fair, more cheaply obtain even the Engrost Smiles of the Gentry and
Quality at so much an easier Price; so on the other side their own
more costly Projection (though less Favourites) might possibly attain
to that good Fortune, at least to attract a little share of the good
graces of the more Honourable part of the Audience, and perhaps be
able to purchase some of those smiles which elsewhere have been
thus long the profuser Donation of particular Affection and Favour.”
In the following year, Settle arranged for Mrs. Mynn the dramatic
spectacle of Whittington, long famous at Bartholomew Fair,
concluding with a mediæval Lord Mayor’s cavalcade, in which nine
different pageants were introduced.
In 1708, the first menagerie seems to have appeared at
Bartholomew Fair, where it stood near the hospital gate, and
attracted considerable attention. Sir Hans Sloane cannot be
supposed to have missed such an opportunity of studying animals
little known, as he is said to have constantly visited the fair for that
purpose, and to have retained the services of a draughtsman for
their representation.
The first menagerie in this country was undoubtedly that, which for
several centuries, was maintained in the Tower of London, and the
beginning of which may be traced to the presentation of three
leopards to Henry III. by the Emperor of Germany, in allusion to the
heraldic device of the former. Several royal orders are extant which
show the progress made in the formation of the menagerie and
furnish many interesting particulars concerning the animals. Two of
these documents, addressed by Henry III. to the sheriffs of London,
have reference to a white bear. The first, dated 1253, directs that
fourpence a day should be allowed for the animal’s subsistence; and
the second, made in the following year, commands that, “for the
keeper of our white bear, lately sent us from Norway, and which is in
our Tower of London, ye cause to be had one muzzle and one iron
chain, to hold that bear without the water, and one long and strong
cord to hold the same bear when fishing in the river of Thames.”
Other mandates, relating to an elephant, were issued in the same
reign, in one of which it is directed, “that ye cause, without delay, to
be built at our Tower of London, one house of forty feet long, and
twenty feet deep, for our elephant; providing that it be so made and
so strong that, when need be it may be fit and necessary for other
uses.” We learn from Matthew Paris that this animal was presented
to Henry by the King of France. It was ten years old, and ten feet in
height. It lived till the forty-first year of Henry’s reign, in which year
it is recorded that, for the maintenance of the elephant and its
keeper, from Michaelmas to St. Valentine’s Day, immediately before it
died, the charge was nearly seventeen pounds—a considerable sum
for those days.
Many additions were made to the Tower menagerie in the reign of
Edward III.; and notably a lion and lioness, a leopard, and two wild
cats. The office of keeper of the lions was created by Henry VI., with
an allowance of sixpence a day for the keeper, and a like sum “for
the maintenance of every lion or leopard now being in his custody,
or that shall be in his custody hereafter.” This office was continued
until comparatively recent times, when it was abolished with the
menagerie, a step which put an end likewise to the time-honoured
hoax, said to have been practised upon country cousins, of going to
the water side, below London Bridge, to see the lions washed.
The building appropriated to the keeping and exhibition of the
animals was a wide semi-circular edifice, in which were constructed,
at distances of a few feet apart, a number of arched “dens,” divided
into two or more compartments, and secured by strong iron bars.
Opposite these cages was a gallery of corresponding form, with a
low stone parapet, and approached from the back by a flight of
steps. This was appropriated exclusively to the accommodation of
the royal family, who witnessed from it the feeding of the beasts and
the combats described by Mr. Ainsworth in the romance which made
the older portions of the Tower familiar ground to so many readers.
The menagerie which appeared in Smithfield in 1708, and the
ownership of which I have been unable to discover, was a very small
concern; but with the showman’s knowledge of the popular love of
the marvellous, was announced as “a Collection of Strange and
Wonderful Creatures,” which included “the Noble Casheware,
brought from the Island of Java in the East Indies, one of the
strangest creatures in the Universe, being half a Bird, and half a
Beast, reaches 16 Hands High from the Ground, his Head is like a
Bird, and so is his Feet, he hath no hinder Claw, Wings, Tongue, nor
Tail; his Body is like to the Body of a Deer; instead of Feathers, his
fore-part is covered with Hair like an Ox, his hinder-part with a
double Feather in one Quill; he Eats Iron, Steel, or Stones; he hath 2
Spears grows by his side.”
There is now no difficulty in recognising this strange bird as the
cassowary, the representative in the Indian islands of the ostrich.
There was also a leopard from Lebanon, an eagle from Russia, a
“posoun” (opossum ?) from Hispaniola, and, besides a “Great Mare
of the Tartarian Breed,” which “had the Honour to be show’d before
Queen Anne, Prince George, and most of the Nobility,” “a little black
hairy Monster, bred in the Desarts of Arabia, a natural Ruff of Hair
about his Face, walks upright, takes a Glass of Ale in his Hand and
drinks it off; and doth several other things to admiration.” This
animal was probably a specimen of the maned colobus, a native of
the forests of Sierra Leone, and called by Pennant the full-bottomed
monkey, in allusion to the full-bottom periwig of his day.
A pamphlet was published in 1710, with the title, The Wonders of
England, purporting to contain “Doggett and Penkethman’s dialogue
with Old Nick, on the suppression of Bartholomew Fair,” and
accounts of many strange and wonderful things; but it was a mere
“catch-penny,” as such productions of the Monmouth Street press
were called, not containing a line about the suppression of the fair,
and the title, as Hone observes, “like the showmen’s painted cloths
in the fair, pictures monsters not visible within.”
The lesser sights of a fair in the first quarter of the eighteenth
century are graphically delineated by Gay, in his character of the
ballad singer, in “The Shepherd’s Week,” bringing before the mind’s
eye the stalls, the lotteries, the mountebanks, the tumblers, the
rope-dancers, the raree-shows, the puppets, and “all the fun of the
fair.”
“How pedlers’ stalls with glittering toys are laid,
The various fairings of the country maid.
Long silken laces hang upon the twine,
And rows of pins and amber bracelets shine;
How the tight lass knives, combs, and scissors spies,
And looks on thimbles with desiring eyes.
Of lotteries next with tuneful note he told,
Where silver spoons are won, and rings of gold.
The lads and lasses trudge the street along,
And all the fair is crowded in his song.
The mountebank now treads the stage, and sells
His pills, his balsams, and his ague-spells;
Now o’er and o’er the nimble tumbler springs,
And on the rope the venturous maiden swings;
Jack Pudding, in his party-coloured jacket,
Tosses the glove, and jokes at every packet.
 Of raree-shows he sung, and Punch’s feats,
Of pockets picked in crowds, and various cheats.”
The theatrical booths, of which we have only casual notices or
records during the seventeenth century and the first dozen years of
the eighteenth, became an important feature of the London fairs
about 1714, from which time those of Bartholomew and Southwark
were regularly attended by many of the leading actors and actresses
of Drury Lane, Covent Garden, the Haymarket, Lincoln’s Inn Fields,
and Goodman’s Fields theatres, down to the middle of the century,
excepting those years in which no theatrical booths were allowed to
be put up in Smithfield. The theatrical companies which attended the
fairs were not, however, drawn entirely from the London theatres.
Three or four actors associated in the proprietorship and
management, or were engaged by a popular favourite, and the rest
of the company was recruited from provincial theatres, or from the
strolling comedians of the country fairs.
The London fairs were not, therefore, neglected by metropolitan
managers in quest of talent, who, by witnessing the performances in
booths on Smithfield or Southwark Green, sometimes found and
transferred to their own boards, actors and actresses who proved
stars of the first magnitude. It was in Bartholomew Fair that Booth
found Walker, the original representative of Captain Macheath,
playing in the Siege of Troy; and in Southwark Fair, in 1714, that the
same manager saw Mrs. Horton acting in Cupid and Psyche, and was
so pleased with her impersonation that he immediately offered her
an engagement at Drury Lane, where she appeared the following
season as Melinda, in the Recruiting Officer. She made her first
appearance in 1713, as Marcia in Cato, with a strolling company
then performing at Windsor; and is said to have been one of the
most beautiful women that ever trod the stage.
Penkethman’s company played the Constant Lovers in Southwark
Fair in the year that proved so fortunate for Mrs. Horton, the
comedian himself playing Buzzard, and Bullock taking the part of Sir
Timothy Littlewit. In the following year, as we learn from a
newspaper paragraph “a great play-house” was erected in the
middle of Smithfield for “the King’s players,” being “the largest ever
built.” In 1717 Bullock did not accompany Penkethman, but set up a
booth of his own, in conjunction with Leigh; while Penkethman
formed a partnership with Pack, and produced the new “droll,” Twice
Married and a Maid Still, in which the former personated Old
Merriwell; Pack, Tim; Quin, Vincent; Ryan, Peregrine; Spiller, Trusty;
and Mrs. Spiller, Lucia. Penkethman’s booth received the honour of a
visit from the Prince of Wales. On the evening of the 13th of
September, the popular favourite and several of the company were
arrested on the stage by a party of constables, in the presence of a
hundred and fifty of the nobility and gentry; but, pleading that they
were “the King’s servants,” they were released without being
subjected to the pains and penalties of vagrancy.
In 1719, Bullock’s name appears alone as the proprietor of the
theatrical booth set up in Birdcage Alley, for Southwark Fair, and in
which the Jew of Venice was represented, with singing and dancing,
and Harper’s representation of the freaks and humours of a drunken
man, which, having been greatly admired at Lincoln’s Inn Fields,
where he and Bullock were both then engaged, could not fail to
delight a fair audience. It was in this year that Boheme made his
first appearance, as Menelaus in the Siege of Troy, in a booth at
Southwark, where he was seen and immediately engaged by the
manager of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, where he appeared the following
season as Worcester in Henry IV., and subsequently as the Ghost in
Hamlet, York in Richard II., Pisanio in Cymbeline, Brabantio in
Othello, etc.
The theatres at this time were closed during the continuance of
Bartholomew Fair, the concourse of all classes to that popular resort
preventing them from obtaining remunerative audiences at that
time, while the actors could obtain larger salaries in booths than
they received at the theatres, and some realised large amounts by
associating in the ownership of a booth. The Haymarket company
presented the Beggar’s Opera, at Bartholomew and Southwark Fairs
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookluna.com