There are few names in the busy world of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century London that arouses as much back-stage drama as Christopher Rich (theatre manager). Never was an actor star or a renowned playwright–but his life and deeds influenced the manner in which theatre companies are operated, how the actors bargain and how the licences are regulated. He was also born in a legal world and eventually became a stage manager that dominated the major playhouses like Drury Lane. This paper presents the life of the theatrical personality, Christopher Rich, explains his emergence, struggles, and his enduring impact, and intends to make you appreciate why his name is still mentioned in the histories of theatre to this day.
Early Life and Legal Career
Background and early life in the family.
There is scarcely anything recorded on the background of Christopher Rich or his family background. According to biographical sources, he was an attorney when he started the theatre world. His legal training was to be a liability and an asset in theatrical management later.
Rich, on 24 March 1688, purchased an interest in the operation of a theatre called the Theatre Royal (later Drury Lane) having purchased as well as co-patented this with Charles Killigrew. D’Avenant also retired, and Rich was left in an active state, Killigrew also suffered his increasing influence. This was his proper introduction into theatre business.
His background in law was such that he was able to handle contracts, litigation, and complicated matters of ownership. But then the same way of thinking would come into conflict with the teamwork ethos required by actors and writers.
Londons Stage: The Drury Lane and the United Company.
The “United Company” monopoly
By 1693 the two largest theatre companies in London had combined to make what was referred to as the United Company. By then Rich was an effective manager with a concentrated power. His techniques which have been termed as autocratic created a lot of dissatisfaction among the actors.
Biography of Christopher Rich
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Christopher Rich |
| Profession(s) | Lawyer (Attorney), Theatre Manager |
| Period Active | Late 17th century – Early 18th century |
| Birth Date | Not precisely recorded |
| Death Date | 4 November 1714 |
| Nationality | English |
| Known For | Managing the Theatre Royal (Drury Lane) and shaping early London theatre management |
| Early Career | Trained and practiced as an attorney before entering theatre management |
| Entry into Theatre | Purchased an interest in the Theatre Royal (Drury Lane) on 24 March 1688 with Charles Killigrew |
| Major Theatres Managed | – Theatre Royal, Drury Lane – Dorset Garden Theatre – Haymarket Theatre (via agent Owen Swiney) |
| Key Events | – 1688: Bought stake in Theatre Royal – 1693: Became dominant manager of United Company – 1695: Actor rebellion led by Thomas Betterton – 1707–1709: Legal disputes over benefit performances and theatre ownership – 1709: Lost control of Drury Lane – 1714: Died before completing new Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theatre |
| Management Style | Autocratic, legally minded, profit-focused, often in conflict with actors and playwrights |
| Conflicts | Clashes with actors such as Thomas Betterton, Colley Cibber, and others over contracts and benefit payments |
| Legal Influence | Used legal expertise to handle patents, contracts, and ownership disputes; introduced stricter managerial practices |
| Criticism | Accused of being manipulative, greedy, and unsympathetic to actors’ creative needs |
| Supporters’ View | Seen by some as disciplined, organized, and shrewd in business affairs |
| Legacy | – Helped formalize legal and managerial systems in theatre operations – Sparked actor independence and competition among theatres – Inspired future theatre architecture via the Lincoln’s Inn Fields project completed by his sons |
| Successors | His sons: John Rich and Christopher Mosyer Rich, who continued in theatre management |
| Significance | A pivotal figure in transitioning theatre from artistic collectives to structured, contract-based enterprises |
Clashes with older actors.
At about 1695, the longstanding tensions between Rich and the stars of his company ended. The veteran actor Thomas Betterton and others had taken a patent to put up a rival theatre at the Lincoln Inn Fields. William Congreve was premiered in Betterton’s company Love for Love on 30 April that year and competed with the dominance of Rich. Rich would not accept the compromise or collaborative suggestions.
This division diluted the influence of talent that Rich had over and allowed competition. Retrospectively, Colley Cibber attacked the unjudging nature of Rich and his relations with actors.
Multi-housing and domination of properties.
In 1705, part of Betterton transferred to a new theatre in the Haymarket. In October 1706, Rich agent Owen Swiney rented the Haymarket Theatre to John Vanbrugh and imported a small troupe of actors previously at Drury Lane, i.e. temporarily, Rich controlled three theatres (the Drury Lane, the Dorset Garden, and the Haymarket).
However, this excessive ambition resulted in administrative, financial as well as interpersonal tensions. He turned away numerous shareholders and actors by his style and there was legal trouble piling up.
Litigation, Controversies, and Deadlock.
Divestiture wrangles and lawsuits.
One of the owners, Sir Thomas Skipwith, disposed of his interest in the patent to Henry Brett, who is said to have pressed the Lord Chamberlain (the Duke of Kent) to limit the authority of Rich. On 31 December 1707, an order restricted the Haymarket to opera and had the actors of Rich returned to Drury Lane. Simultaneously, Swiney lost his favor with Rich, weakening inside relationships.
Also, on 31 March 1708 Brett sold his share of the patent to actors Robert Wilks, Richard Estcourt and Colley Cibber who started to plot a break with Rich.
Complaints on performance benefits.
The problem of benefit performances (special nights when actors took a part of revenue) became one of the key burning points. Rich demanded actors to sign contracts formally to give up a third of the benefit profits to the patent owners- something not popular with many. The actors appealed to the Lord Chamberlain. This was eventually suspended in June 1709, directly by command of Drury Lane.
Rich retorted that there are actors who took enormous amounts of money without merit through official announcements.
Loss of control and deprive Drury Lane.
As there were no shows, Rich did not pay rent on the theatre and tried to occupy it. In a controversial attempt to cling on, he cleared movable property (except scenery). William Collier, a proprietor of the patent, took over Drury Lane on 22 November 1709.
The Tatler described the anarchy of the holdings of Rich in a satirical catalogue. In the end, Rich lost his entire grip over Drury Lane.
Plans and Legacy Buildings and Architecture.
At the loss of his control Rich still had a lease and a patent of the theatre which Sir William D Avenant had built in the Fields of Little Lincoln, at the Inn. He asked the architect James Shepherd to construct a new theatre in the area of the Portugal Row. At the beginning of its completion, however, he died on 4 November 1714 and the project was left to his sons John Rich and Christopher Mosyer Rich.
So his name was carried on through the following generation of the theatre operators.
Character and Criticism
Fame in the present time.
The impression that Rich is cunning, legally as well as morally dubious in his dealings appears throughout the sources of the 19th and 20th centuries. His literary enemy, Colley Cibber, referred to him as despicable in his role as manager. Critiques of Gildon portrayed him as a snarling attorney who does not belong in creative business.
But in other works–one or two play dedications, and so forth–Rich was called generous or judgmental in some few instances. The disagreement in the point of view indicates that we have a controversial and multifaceted figure.
Impact on the London Theatre System.
The management of the theatre by Christopher Rich influenced some of the structural tendencies of stagecraft in London:
He tilted the scale toward the side of the actors of autonomy to patent holders and financiers.
His wars made actors insist on collective interests and to oppose proprietary control.
The division he aroused (e.g. escapes to the Lincoln Inn Fields and Haymarket) contributed to creating a more competitive theater ecology.
The significance of clear contracts and licensing came through in his administrative and legal battles, which continue to be significant in theatrical governance.
Conclusion
The life experience of Christopher Rich (theatre manager) shows how a lawyer-turned-theatre boss was able to bring power and tension in the early modern stage scene in London. Rich left the legal field to take over the key playhouses such as Drury Lane putting the new United Company into new direction. The way he was extracting the benefit revenues, opposing claims of actors and imposing harsh contracts resulted in rebellion, secessions and rival theatres. During his later years he had lost control of Drury Lane and he had left his sons with a theatre project half complete to complete.
The life of Rich is one that assists us to realize how theatre in London grew up to be a system where ownership, contracts as well as rights to performances were as important as playwriting and acting. His example reveals the opportunities as well as dangers when legalism wins over cooperation, particularly in an artistic medium. To theatrical historians, the legacy of Rich is something of a warning about the impact of management approach on creative life, and the reaction that artists can have to becoming functions.
FAQs
What was Christopher Rich doing as his first career before theatre management?
He was a lawyer (attorney) and later bought one of the shares in theatre management.
What were the theatres that Christopher Rich managed or influenced?
He controlled or influenced the Theatre Royal (Drury Lane), Dorset Garden, and had control (albeit through agent) of Haymarket Theatre at one time.
What was wrong with the leadership of Christopher Rich by the actors?
Since he dictated severe conditions, required great reductions of benefit performances, laid down informal agreements, and did not answer to them–and would never yield ground.
How had Christopher Rich lost the Drury Lane?
Following ubiquitous wrangles and on the year 1709, when the performances were suspended, his reign was seized by William Collier and the theatre lost.
Did Christopher Rich make a legacy in theatre architecture?
But yes, though he had not completed it when he passed on, he ordered a new theatre, just off Portugal Row (which was a replacement of the Lincoln’s Inn Fields) in his sons John Rich and Christopher Mosyer Rich.