Theatrical rivalries were many in the 19th century: Edwin Forrest and William Charles Macready, Edwin Booth and Henry Irving, Sarah Bernhardt and Eleanora Duse. . . But before all of these there was Edmund Kean and Junius Brutus Booth. In February 1817, London theatre circles witnessed a riotous uproar which would mark the beginning of this contentious rivalry. Junius Brutus Booth (1796-1852) was born to an non-theatrical family in a day when theatre stars inherited their success. He began acting at seventeen and found fame in the provinces of England and abroad, although he had always dreamed of success in London, the theatre capital of the world. In February 1817, it seemed he had his chance. The Theatre Royal Covent Garden invited him to play Richard III for a one night tryout. He was a hit, sending a signal to Edmund Kean at Theatre Royal Drury Lane that he had a competitor for celebrity in tragic roles. Kean and a select few members of the Drury Lane management approached Booth to contract him to play leading roles alongside Kean at Drury Lane as a way to staunch Booth's burgeoning popularity. On the 20th of February, Booth appeared as Iago to Kean's Othello. The press declared Kean the winner of the battle. Booth then discovered he would not be playing any leading roles at all, that he would only be supporting Kean for the remainder of his contract. Fearing for his career, he immediately left Drury Lane and appealed to Covent Garden to take him on as their leading man, as he had, in 1815 signed a four year contract with that theatre (only then he was playing tiny roles). Because of Booth's absence at Drury Lane when playbills still contained his name (despite Booth's letter to the stage manager there notifying him that he was sick and unable to play), audiences became irate with Booth and rallied to their hero, Kean. Covent Garden and Drury Lane began a battle in the press over whose contract with Booth had precedence. The public became divided in who they supported. When Booth attempted to play Richard III at Covent Garden on February 25, there were fist-fights in the audience and screaming from both factions so loud that the players could not be heard or finish the play. Booth attempted profusely to apologize, but the same scene occurred March 1 when he tried the play again. In the midst of this, the manager of Covent Garden produced this circular, undated but estimated to have been released on either February 27 or 28, to defend the theatre against what he perceived were false statements made by the Drury Lane management on Tuesday (the 25th) in regards to their unlawfully contracting Booth in the first place. In this document, he calls that theatre's management amateurish and aristocratic: . . .it is very easy for an Amateur Theatrical Sub-Committee, with independent Fortune No Responsibility and temporary Power to abolish Laws, and make or annul Agreements at their pleasure. . . Booth continued to play at Covent Garden that season, but his name was so tarnished by the affair that he immigrated to America in 1821 and became a celebrated tragic actor in that country despite the presence of Edwin Forrest. He remained in America the rest of his life, fathering three other Booths of note: Edwin Booth, Junius Brutus Booth, Jr., and John Wilkes Booth. For a complete narrative of this infamous week, see Stephen M. Archer's Junius Brutus Booth. The entirety of the document reads: In the extraordinary situation in which the Proprietors of this Theatre are placed by the Licence assumed by the present Committee of Drury Lane Theatre to disavow the acts of their Predecessors they are compelled to state to the Public, in corroboration of the direct and honorable confirmation their statement of Tuesday has received from a Gentleman, who notoriously stood foremost in the confidence and in the active service of the Proprietors of that Theatre, that they are ready to prove that the late MR. SHERIDAN entered into the Agreement in question, whilst the late Patent Theatres were standing; and that MR. WHITBREAD adopted the same in the first year of his superintending the management of the present Theatre. The Committee have been guilty of mis-statement in informing the Public that the Proprietors of this Theatre engaged MRS. GLOVER to perform for them without previously ascertaining from one of the Committee, that no treaty was existing between that Lady and the Committee. If no act is to be held valid on the part of the present Committee which was not sanctioned by every Member of the late body, the Proprietors of that Concern will best judge what would have become of their Property, when it is notorious, that of their five Members, during the greater part of last Summer, only one ever attended the Committee-Room on the days of Business; and that after another Member had returned from the Circuit, He and the aforesaid Gentleman alone conducted the business of the Theatre for a considerable time. The Public will duly appreciate the depth of the reasoning and the ingenuity of the proof, that Theatrical Talent must suffer, from an honourable Agreement between the two Theatres, 'that when either Party becomes aware that the other has been within a year in Treaty (much more in an Engagement) with a Performer, they shall first ascertain from that other Party that such Treaty is at an end, before they shall proceed to negociate [sic] with the Performer.' If the Committee begin now to feel the ill consequences of their own mis-conduct, let them at once consult the interest of their Constituents, if not their own, and repair their Error by binding themselves formally not to repeat it -- If they do not, let them answer for the result to their body of Proprietors. The Proprietors of the Theatre have no interest in such an Agreement that is not common to both -- But it is very easy for an Amateur Theatrical Sub-Committee, with independent Fortune -- No responsibility -- and temporary Power -- to abolish Laws, and make or annul Agreements at their pleasure; but the Proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre, like other Traders in this great commercial Country being personally liable for their Debts, feel it incumbent on them to act in their own defence, by which alone they can pay their Creditors -- uphold the Drama -- and contribute to the fair and rational Amusement of the Public. Artistic role(s) represented: William Charles Macready (Actor).