The Bastard Child: A New Reading of British Circus History1

Abstract

In this article the authors propose a new reading of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British circus history. The historical literature on British circus is patchy, surprisingly so since it is the country unequivocally recognised as the birthplace of the modern circus. Two seminal books, Hippisley Coxe's A Seat at the Circus (1951/1980) and Speaight's History of the Circus (1980) promulgate both an ideal of circus ‘purity’ and an anti-theatrical bias. In establishing circus as a discrete field of study, it is perhaps inevitable that what makes circus different from other theatrical activities is more attractive than what is similar. Coxe's statement that circus is an art of actuality, while theatre is an art of illusion, creates a neat distinction that distorts the evidence about the malleability and mutability of circus and its producers. Examining the contexts of its origins, mid-century programming, and venues for circus, the authors re-examine the history of the British circus.

This article is developed from the authors’ experiences in curating material for a forthcoming collection of resources for the study of circus history. ² In the initial conversations that swirled around determining our approach to this project, we editors of the British volume (Vol.1) were interested in furthering the scope of circus history as it stands. We did not want to tell the usual stories. As cultural theorist Stuart Hall reminds us, ‘almost every fixed inventory will betray us’. ³ Hall's work stresses the mutability of popular entertainment and cautions against ‘analyz[ing] popular cultural forms as if they contained within themselves, from their moment of origin, some fixed and unchanging meaning or value’. ⁴ Hall is particularly suspicious of origins.

Unlike the ancient performance domains of dance, drama, acrobatics, music, and equestrianism, circus has an origin story – that it was institutionally created by the military riding master, Philip Astley, in 1768, at his transpontine riding school near Westminster Bridge. Received circus histories rehearse this ‘beginning’, followed closely by an explanation of the origin of the name, ‘circus’, that this new sort of public entertainment acquired when the Royal Circus opened in 1782. This was a fixed building, established by erstwhile Astley's employee, Charles Hughes, and Charles Dibdin the Elder. These firmly established origin stories are convenient, if only that they provide a date at which to define a genre of entertainment.

The circus origin story also establishes a set of features to define the genre, centrally the use of the horse, contained within the dominant structural feature of the ring in which to display these horses and the skilled riders who trained and managed them. Unlike other performing arts, circus history as a discipline has been shaped not only by the history of an aesthetic form, but also by its architecture. Central to circus exceptionalism is the tent, the Big Top, which remains one of the strongest semiotic markers of circus, and which dominates American histories of circus. Yet in nineteenth-century Britain, the tent (with its implications of impermanence and itinerancy) was only one among many sites of circus activity.

In this article we seek to rethink some of the conventional readings of circus history and argue for a nuanced approach to British circus history.

Not Quite Circus: Mons. Dominique and his Company – Bristol 1744-1746

In 1744, 24 years prior to Astley's initial productions of scenes in the circle, the newly opened Stokes Croft Theatre advertised a ‘pantomime’ company led by Monsieur Dominique. Dominique had arrived from France in 1742, performing at Sadler's Wells. In Bristol, Mons. Dominique would ‘fly through a Hogshead planted with Swords’, ⁵ as part of a company of rope dancers, tumblers, vaulters and equilibrists, with a programme concluding with a pantomime. The company performed for a 3-week season (25 February–17 March) ⁶ and returned in 1745 and 1746, billing themselves as a company ‘from Sadler's Wells’. In 1745, along with rope dancing, tumbling, vaulting, equilibres, and ground-dancing, ‘Mr Dominique will fly over a large Horse and a Man on him’. ⁷ The climax to this season’s performances came with the advertisement:

Dominique will fly through a Close Hogshead with Fire in the middle, and two lighted Flambeaux in his Hands. And to great Surprise, Mr. Pedro will jump over the Garter eight Foot high, forward and backward, on the still Rope. ⁸

In what appears to be his last season in Bristol, Dominique ‘will fly over Two large Horses with Two Men on them, which was never done here before’. ⁹

As a significant regional city in the eighteenth century, Bristol was an obvious magnet for performers from Sadler’s Wells during that theatre’s seasonal closures and, subsequent to Dominique’s visit, the city witnessed many of the celebrated performers of the day. These included Mahomed Charatha, the Turkish rope-dancer (along with a ‘little Dutch Boy, and a Mr Lort performing on the ladder’ ¹⁰ (1750 and 1751), his pupil The Famous Barbaroose, who performed ‘all his late Masters performances on the slack wire’, ¹¹ other slack wire appearances by Samuel Saunders, ¹² Anthony Maddox ¹³ and Matthews, Powell, the fire eater, ¹⁴ Zucker, ‘a High German with his amazing, learned little HORSE from Courland’ who was also ‘juggling to tunes on musical glasses’. ¹⁵ Small exhibitions of conjuring/magic appeared sporadically. The equestrian Thomas Price attracted large crowds to his performances on Durdham Downs, inspiring a celebratory poem in Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal. ¹⁶

In 1766, another ‘Sadler's Wells company’ of rope dancers and tumblers appeared, run by Sarah Baker. Sarah’s mother, Anne Wakelin, had organised similar small troupes that performed at fairs. The programme combined slack wire, rope dancing, lofty tumbling, with a pantomime and dancing accompanied by an ‘extraordinary Band of Musick’. ¹⁷ Performing birds from Germany and an exhibition of wild animals (with two lions, an oriental tiger and a ‘lion-camel’) appeared in 1766–1767. Then Philip Astley, his 5-year old son, and a small troupe of equestrians ¹⁸ arrived to perform on Durdham Downs in October 1772. ¹⁹ They didn’t inspire a poem in their honour.

As George Speaight points out, Astley did not originate many of the features that became part of the circus: such as equestrian tricks, the use of the ring, or the inclusion of other acrobatic acts. Speaight locates the combination of clowning with equestrianism, particularly in the popular act, The Taylor Riding to Brentford, ²⁰ as essentially the only new feature, although the practice of the burlesquing of entertainments by a clown figure was well established in the eighteenth century at Sadler’s Wells, and in the booth theatres that appeared at the fairs. Establishing the circus on a more stable financial footing, with the enclosure of the performing area, is sometimes touted as evidence for the claim for Astley as the ‘Father of the Circus’, but, again, this had been prefigured in London by Mr and Mrs Wolton, who had set up a similar, though short-lived establishment. The establishment of the Royal Circus, giving the new entertainment a name, was as much due to Dibdin, a man of the theatre, as to the equestrian Hughes. The innovation of a circus building that combined both ring and stage, was however Dibdin’s, and one swiftly exploited by Astley.

Astley’s dominance in standard circus histories is unsurprising. The length of his career, his astute management and opportunism in developing his entertainments, and the scale of his ambition are all important factors. His name became a brand. The longevity of an amphitheatre bearing his name, ²¹ an appellation surviving many changes of management, ensures his status in the pantheon. Without the building, Astley could easily have slipped into obscurity, like the other circus managers of the eighteenth century. The concentration on Astley in circus history, with Hughes as a significant, but less successful, out-rider, not only obscures other successful circus entrepreneurs of the time, but also artificially separates the early circus from the vital theatrical ecology it sprang from, and which it was firmly established within. Sadler’s Wells had been presenting acrobatic performances for many years, yet it falls foul of an orthodoxy of origins. The horse and the ring became the distinguishing feature between the ‘institutional’ form of the circus, and a troupe such as Mons. Dominique’s, a ‘Sadler's Wells company’. Dominique’s tantalizing use of a ‘horse’ may have been a vaulting horse (although use of an actual horse cannot be definitively ruled out). Yet Dominique’s ‘Sadler's Wells company’ otherwise provided a varied programme, a touring organization, and an advertising format that was subsequently continued by circuses well into the nineteenth century.

To advertise as a company from Sadler’s Wells would have been easily understood by regional eighteenth century audiences. ²² It indicated a set of entertainments (acrobatic and pantomimic), conveyed the cachet of a cultural product from the capital, and provided a certain legitimacy for the local town corporation who would sanction it. Dominique, over the course of a decade, toured through Britain to theatres or other suitable public buildings, such as the newly established concert hall in Edinburgh, and the Moot Hall in Newcastle, with stays lasting 2 to 4 weeks, in which he varied the programme and advertised personnel. He would usually perform a pantomime to supplement the acrobatic performances, a clown burlesqued the physical performances, and there is evidence that the entertainment was accompanied by a band of musicians (probably small in number and probably hired locally). Dominique gave benefit performances in aid of local charities, storing up goodwill for return visits. He advertised in advance in newspapers where these were available, and the company appears, from the fragmentary archival record, to have been well-organised.

There has been no study of companies ‘from Sadler's Wells,’ so it is not possible to gauge how many there were. Yet even on a relatively small scale, the organization of Dominique’s company is a clear precursor to Astley’s touring troupe and exhibits many of the features of subsequent circus operation. Within general histories of the circus, Sadler’s Wells itself is dealt with summarily, if at all, although its performers, and productions were seeded through the late-eighteenth century circus. George Speaight’s influential History of the Circus (1980), which provides a historical survey of British circus, comes out of the first wave of popular entertainment studies. ²³ In establishing circus as a discrete field of study, it is perhaps inevitable that what makes circus different from other theatrical activities is emphasised rather than the continuities. Speaight’s book firmly establishes Astley as the ‘Father of the Circus’ but in doing so also promulgates both an ideal of circus ‘purity’ and an anti-theatrical bias. Similarly, Antony Hippisley Coxe’s A Seat at the Circus (1951), reissued in the same year as Speaight’s book, argues that circus is a ‘Spectacle of Actuality’ while theatre is ‘a spectacle based on illusion’. ²⁴ This is a seductively neat distinction. For Coxe, magic acts, for example, are not part of the circus proper (although this did not seem to worry Astley), ²⁵ as is anything that blurs the boundaries. Hippodrama, for example, a staple of the early nineteenth century circus, particularly as it developed under Andrew Ducrow, is described by Coxe as a ‘misalliance between the theatre and the circus’. ²⁶ Yet hippodrama’s repertoire and style persisted throughout the century and is evident in late-century Wild West Shows and spectacle war reenactments by circus producers. For Speaight, hippodrama ‘is not strictly Circus. … we must confine ourselves here to acts of skill performed by men and women or by trained animals, presented in a ring, with the audience grouped around. That is the essence of Circus’. ²⁷ Speaight's ‘Circus’ (with a capital C) is an idealisation of circus that denies the hybrid nature of productions by circus entrepreneurs throughout the century.

‘Lord’ George Sanger (1825-1911), who was perhaps the most prominent circus entrepreneur of the nineteenth century, recalled how in 1854 he ‘wanted to make wintering pay’ and erected a building in Liverpool ‘with boarded sides and a canvas top’. ²⁸ While the nature of Sanger’s hastily erected structure is relevant to the discussion of circus venues in the next section, it is the nature of Sanger’s programme that iterates the historic fact that physical acts of skill by humans and animals appeared alongside theatrical and dramatic entertainments throughout the century. Sanger explained:

Here we have a semi-dramatic-cum-circus sort of entertainment that exactly suited the neighbourhood. Really, the circus formed but a small portion of the show though we kept ourselves fit for the road by two hours’ practice every morning. What we mostly did was acting on the gaff principle, and there was nothing we were afraid to tackle in the dramatic line, from Shakespeare downwards. ²⁹ For twenty-three weeks we gave three performances a night with a change of piece each evening, always to full houses. ³⁰

Like many circus producers before and after him Sanger operated without the sense that the conjoining of circus and the drama was a ‘misalliance’; it was rather a strategy for maintaining his operation as a going concern. The malleability of a mid-century entertainment company, and a manager’s need to opportunistically discern and fill a gap in public entertainments is evident in Sanger’s explanation of the concept for the show.

Sanger further explained that their most popular actor that season was Bill Matthews, ‘a good rider, tumbler, vaulter, and clown; in fact, an excellent all-round performer’, and that Bill Mathews’ daughters, subsequently known as the Sisters Mathews, became ‘great favourites at the theatres and circuses, both at home and abroad’. ³¹ It was not just the programmes and performance sites for circus entertainments that were hybrid and various, so too, the careers of many performers spanned pantomime, dramatic entertainments, riding, and performances of extreme physical skill.

For Coxe, Speaight, and many subsequent historians, it seems that the messy hybridity of the early circuses sidelines them as a waystation towards the ‘circus’ proper, the stage-less, tented, travelling circus. ³² Yet the circus has never been free of narrative (theatrical) activity, and a considerable amount of ‘circus’ activity has been conducted in theatrical venues, such as variety theatres and music halls. Contemporary circus, a form described by Albrecht as ‘theatricalized’, ³³ (and for the most part not containing non-human performers), is currently more likely to be performed on a conventional stage rather than in a ring, or in a contemporary booth theatre, such as a festival Spiegeltent. Contemporary equestrian companies, such as the French Theatre Zingaro, Theatre du Centaure, and the Quebec company La Luna Caballera could be viewed as the true inheritors of Astley’s enterprise, although these companies do not describe their work as circus, and do not perform in circuses. Recognizing touring groups from Sadler’s Wells, such as Mons. Dominique’s troupe, we would argue, is part of this lineage.

The Untented Circus: Hengler and the ‘Fit-up’

150 years after Dominique’s Bristol performances, the narrative spectacular often formed the second half of the circus programme. A local Bristol man, Harry Bow, vividly described a visit to Hengler’s Circus in 1891. After a programme that included equestrian acts, clowns, equilibrists, and acrobats, which he enjoyed, Hengler’s presented their spectacle ‘War in Zululand’, for which Bow gave an extended description, including illustrations:

Then came the alarm that the enemy were in sight and they all springs to their arms, and spreads out in skirmishing order all around the hall, then all forms up together in line with fixed bayonets and the front rank kneeling then the Zulus came pouring in down on them in overwhelming force & they fires volleys at em & made a desperate resistance, then the formation got broken up & they were all mixed up in a regular melee, firing away like mad & there was terrible slaughter & massacre of the gallant 24^th and they struggles about, with officers waving their swords & spears, rifles & bayonets at work all over the place & the hall was full of smoke and it did look realistic indeed & was exciting to witness, they were all but annilhated by the enemy & retires out of the ring altogether, then the next thing was Lieuts Melville & Coghills flight on horse back with the colours pursued by the Zulus in force, and they were brought to bay & one of them slain by the Zulus & the other tears the colours from the Staff & wraps it around him & had a desperate hand to hand combat with three of four Zulus at once & cut & slashed away at them at a fine rate & made an heroic effort to save the colours & twas fine to see indeed…. ³⁴

In previous years, Hengler’s Circus had presented other pantomimic entertainments, including water spectaculars (these had been popular at Sadler’s Wells from 1804 onwards), and another representation of ‘Zululand’. The Western Daily Press reported:

Last season the water novelty proved a great draw, but it must be remembered that it was entirely spectacular, being all done in dumb show …In this respect the “War in Zululand” entirely differs from its predecessor, for it is, in point of fact, a realistic play full of thrilling adventure, and plenty of fun. In a very few minutes the ring is converted into a stage with the appropriate surroundings of palm trees, sandy floor, and tropical plants. There is a complete cast of fifteen dramatis personae, besides a whole host of supernumeraries. ³⁵

At the end of the century in Bristol, both Hengler’s Cirque, and Sanger’s Circus were regular visitors. ³⁶ Sanger’s Circus would turn up with a tent in the summer for a two-day stay that included a spectacular parade. In contrast to Sanger’s tent venue, Hengler’s successful circus empire, which encompassed the second half of the nineteenth century, was conducted in buildings, Charles Hengler having abandoned tents after 1861. ³⁷ In Bristol, Hengler’s regularly occupied the Rifle Drill Hall in Clifton, a building which, when not in use by the local volunteer artillery group, was also used as a riding school and for exhibitions and lectures. ³⁸ Drill Halls, increasingly common throughout England in the latter half of the nineteenth century, provided a covered, yet spacious, open area for military exercises, and lent themselves to a variety of uses. Hengler’s would fit up the Drill Hall (a process that took 3 to 4 weeks) for a 2-month season, and the extended stay necessitated a set of artistic practices that differed from the short-stay touring circuses. These included an emphasis on pantomime and other narrative-based entertainments (including the elaborate water spectacles for which Hengler’s was known), although Hengler had dispensed with the stage that had been a feature of Astley’s and the Royal Circus, instead presenting his spectacles within the ring. The programme changed regularly throughout the season in order to attract repeat audiences. Sanger’s tented circus also presented grandiose and often military-themed spectaculars, such as the ‘War in Soudan’, presented in 1894.

As Mons. Dominique had also demonstrated in 1744, a performance season necessitated a variety of entertainments that could stand up to repeat watching. Narrative entertainments can fulfil this easily, because while the core story may remain the same (as in pantomime entertainments), the rearrangement of scenic elements, change of songs and music, etc., can provide enough difference to attract the repeat audience. A tented circus, such as Sanger’s, that operated on a short-stay principle, did not need to vary its programme to the same extent.

The Portable Circus: Tents and Moveable Buildings

The Big Top also has its own origin story in British circus history, or, rather, two competing stories. In 1842 Richard Sands toured England, the first of the large American circuses to cross the Atlantic. Sands is frequently credited for introducing the use of a tent for touring performances, an innovation which was subsequently adopted by British circuses. ³⁹ With parade wagons, a stud of twenty-five horses, and a ‘Pavilion,’ Sand’s American Circus demonstrated the advantage of canvas tents for circus mobility as his tour swept through Britain, seldom staying more than 1 day in provincial towns.

The alternative story is that the tent was introduced to Britain earlier by Thomas Taplin Cooke. Cooke had taken his British circus to America in 1836 where he would have witnessed developments in American circus touring at first hand. ⁴⁰ In America by this date the use of the tent was ubiquitous, with only a few remaining permanent circuses in urban centres. ⁴¹ Thomas Taplin Cooke returned to Britain in 1838, following a disastrous fire at his (wooden) circus in Baltimore.

Neither origin story adequately explains why British circus had not adopted the tent sooner. Astley had used a ‘Royal Tent’ in Liverpool as early as 1788, but abandoned this on subsequent visits to Liverpool, instead performing at the Theatre Royal. ⁴² After 1842, however, circus proprietors were increasingly adopting the tent, yet in a way different from America. ⁴³ From the mid-nineteenth century a general pattern became established in which, during summer, touring with tents for short stays in smaller centres became more common, with circuses moving into more substantial buildings for the winter. ⁴⁴ This flexibility between fixed building and tent thus enabled a year-round operation. Britain is a geographically small country with a large population (in 1840 its population was larger than that of the USA) and, by mid-century, a considerably expanding urban population. Circuses did not have to travel very far to service these urban centres. ⁴⁵

A tent was swifter to erect for short stays, yet impractical for winter months. A temporary wooden building would provide more shelter yet cost more in initial outlay and took longer to construct, although some of the cost could be recouped by selling the materials at the end of the season. The quality of the wooden building, and therefore the comfort provided to patrons varied widely. ⁴⁶ A well-built wooden circus, however, could last for more than one season and defray its building costs by being leased by other circuses, or for other purposes. Hengler’s was not the only circus to prefer purpose-built circuses, or fit-ups of other suitable buildings. James Newsome, a significant circus proprietor in the north of England also eschewed the tent in favour of establishing the permanent (or semi-permanent) building. ⁴⁷

Investing in a ‘permanent’ brick or stone building required far more capital outlay, and therefore financial risk, as is demonstrated by the career of James Ryan, a major circus proprietor in the first half of the nineteenth century. According to his younger contemporary Charlie Keith,

he [Ryan] was so successful in Birmingham with his temporary wooden building, that he determined to build a permanent brick structure. As is often the case with circus directors who have made money in temporary circuses, and have established permanent ones in provincial towns, Ryan, after spending a lot of money in his Birmingham building, through lack of patronage was ruined by it. ⁴⁸

Whether he learned from the case of Ryan, or from his own business endeavours, or both, Charlie Keith demonstrated the imagineering tendency germane to other circus pioneers when he developed a demountable circus building that was moved from town to town by the circus horses. In his 1882 application for a grant of Letters Patent for his design of a portable circus building, ‘Keith's Travelling Building for a Circus’ or ‘A New Travelling Building for a Circus,’ Keith revealed he understood the fiscal perils of erecting temporary buildings. ⁴⁹ His design solved a problem that many circus proprietors, himself included, customarily encountered:

Heretofore the practice has been for a circus proprietor to have erected at each place he stops at a wooden Building or circus which is costly and takes several weeks to erect; the circus proprietor is therefore obliged to stop at each place a certain time to recoup the cost of the building and such buildings when done with are often sold for a very small sum of money compared with the cost of the same. ⁵⁰

Keith's solution addressed the economic and logistic problems stemming from a troupe's down time while a temporary building was erected. It also addressed the problems arising from the financial outlay for a new building, versus its often much lower resale price; and the necessity of remaining in a town to recoup costs even though, as sometimes occurred, the town may not have been predisposed to a circus at any given time. ⁵¹ Keith's solution did away with these problems and afforded circus troupes the freedom to quickly pack up and move on to other locations.

The nature of touring circuses in Britain, therefore, follows a different trajectory from that of the American circus. British circus in the nineteenth century (as in Europe) was as likely to be performed in permanent buildings, either that erected specifically for circus, or existing buildings fitted-up for the purpose. The development of large-scale exhibition halls also provided useful venues for circus companies. In London, these seasonal venues included the Royal Agricultural Hall in Islington (from 1861–1862), and its successor, the Olympia at Kensington (1886).

Circus Anywhere: Halls, Pleasure Gardens, Zoos and More

In Britain, the nineteenth-century spectator had many opportunities to witness spectacular physical feats outside of the touring circuses. Aerial performances that developed after Leotard's development of the flying trapeze in 1859 were more likely to be viewed in permanent buildings such as large music halls, or exhibition buildings. Catherine M. Young, in her tracing of performances of ‘Lockhart's Elephants,’ demonstrates that large animal acts were also performed in variety theatres. ⁵² If one looks at circus history from a static audience perspective, cities in Britain would, by the second half of the nineteenth century, provide multiple venues where circus acts were performed. Music halls, zoological gardens, exhibitions, fairs, regular theatres – all provided the possibility of viewing acrobatic acts. In Bristol, for example, both the lion tamer Isaac Van Amburgh and the celebrity tightrope performer Blondin performed at the zoo. ⁵³ Charles Brock's firework exhibitions at the Crystal Palace, London (beginning in1865) included acrobatic performers (Blondin appeared in 1875), as did Poole's Myriorama, a very successful touring panorama in the second half of the nineteenth century. ⁵⁴ Music-halls, in particular, provided employment for many circus performers, including animal performers, and the proliferation of these venues from mid-century also stimulated growth in the industry. ⁵⁵

When George Sanger's tented circus visited Bristol in 1894, the Bristol Mercury made a distinction between acts categorised as ‘variety entertainment’ and acts in ‘a more regular circus style’.

The programme includes the names of several very smart artists, whose work comes fairly under the category of variety entertainment. Such, for example, are the Bros. Artois, with the most comical feats on the horizontal bar ; Mils, Violet, Topsy, and Rose, the graceful performers on stout elastic cord ; Prof. James, who exhibits his balancing skill on the perpendicular ladder, Ani and Ino, a couple of pretty sisters, whose lavishly-applauded feats on the high trapeze furnish one of the best things in the programme ; and Herr Ulric, a very expert barrel performer. ⁵⁶

The performances that the Bristol Mercury identified as being in a ‘more regular circus style’ were the equestrian acts (including mules, a singing donkey, and the Bros. Austin as the Olympians), ⁵⁷ clowns, and a cage of lions under the direction of Prof. Henry. For this anonymous reporter therefore, ‘circus’ equals animals and clowns, while ‘variety’ equals acts that can be performed on stage, including the tightwire and ladder-balancing that had been a staple of the earliest circuses. The ‘variety’ acts of the nineteenth century echo the ‘Sadler's Wells entertainments’ of the previous century. The anonymous reporter's comments indicate, however, that for an urban dweller, some acrobatic acts would be more commonly encountered in the music halls, as these were both numerous and operated year-round, as opposed to the more sporadic visits by a touring circus, to the extent that he/she draws a distinction between types of acts that is not generally made by the contemporary circus scholar. It is salient to mention here Catherine M. Young's point, that ‘pantomime, circus and variety theatre were united as global commercial entertainments embracing novelty’. ⁵⁸

To return to Stuart Hall's observation cited early in this article, fixed inventories will betray us. Telling a story of circus exceptionalism, rather than considering a story of circus as part of a continuum of variety entertainment can direct the interpretive stance, as in the case of the New Royal Amphitheatre, Holborn.

A ‘Failed Circus’: The Holborn Amphitheatre

The American equestrian Thomas McCollum (in partnership with William Charman) ⁵⁹ opened the New Royal Amphitheatre in Holborn in 1867, in what was a palatial stone and brick building that the press lauded for its ambitious architectural design. As Dion Boucicoult had taken over Astley's Amphitheatre in 1862 and converted it into the New Theatre Royal, Westminster, the capital had been without a permanent circus building for some time.

The Globe judged the building was ‘a serious attempt to revive a taste for equestrian entertainments in the metropolis. Whether it will prove successful remains to be seen. At any rate any effort is worth making, and it seems a spirited one’. ⁶⁰ The City Press judged the equestrian company engaged by McCollum to be ‘one of the best that has been collected together for many years’ in an article that also praised the acrobatics and clowning. ⁶¹ The ‘new and original farce’ that followed the scenes in the circle was, however, ‘a miserable failure’, and swiftly replaced by another piece. ⁶² By May 1869, still under the management of McCollum and Charman, the amphitheatre had turned to musical entertainments, choral and orchestral concerts, oratorios, and promenades. It seems to have done well as a concert hall. By October the circus was back. ⁶³ In July 1870, however, a musical director took Charman and McCollum to court over the matter of losses incurred during the promenade performances at Holborn. Charman and McCollum won the case but dissolved their partnership in August 1870. ⁶⁴ Charman continued with the Holborn, including the attractions of a performing elephant, Papeta, and the popular musical clown/gymnasts, the brothers Lavater Lee. ⁶⁵ McCollum continued to call his company the Royal Amphitheatre Circus and continued to use his connection with Holborn in advertising throughout 1870 and 1871. Under Charman, the Holborn Amphitheatre continued to host some celebrated performances, such as the cross-dressed aerialist Lulu, who caused a sensation with her ‘bird-like agility’ on the trapeze. ⁶⁶

However, possibly due to the competition provided by the re-opening of Astley's by George Sanger in 1871, and the erection of Hengler's Grand Cirque in London's Argyll Street in the same year, the Holborn Amphitheatre ceased presenting circus, hosting ballets, concerts, and dramas (later operating as an ice-skating rink). It was eventually converted into a theatre until 1886 and after this date became associated with professional boxing. The Empire News and Umpire reported:

many, but futile efforts have at different times been made to give the equestrian profession a local habitation and name on British soil, and the example of the experiment in Holborn is only one more to be added to the many that have failed, for so soon after as in May, 1869, recourse was had to promenade concerts as a means of attraction. ⁶⁷

From the perspective of circus exceptionalism, the Holborn Amphitheatre can be viewed as a failed attempt at a permanent circus building. Yet, despite McCollum's equestrian background, it cannot be assumed that it was his intention to set it up solely for circus. While in the twentieth century circuses and theatres appear as distinct forms of entertainment, both in the physical spaces occupied and the repertoire provided, this is less clearly demarcated in the nineteenth century. The Holborn Amphitheatre had been designed from the outset with both a ring and a stage for ‘light dramatic entertainments’. ⁶⁸ It is important to bear in mind that Hengler's circus buildings had dispensed with the stage entirely by this point, so the inclusion of a stage was a purposeful design choice, and one for which the equestrian McCollum was prepared to compromise with a smaller than usual ring. ⁶⁹ Multi-purpose possibility was therefore inherent in the Holborn's initial construction and it appears that this was not the first attempt McCollum had made in this direction. He had recently returned from touring India and had attempted to gather partners in Bombay to build a venue suitable for both circus and other dramatic entertainments. While this project did not come to fruition, the Holborn Amphitheatre replicated his vision for a multi-use arena. ⁷⁰

Neither McCollum nor Charman left a written record of their intentions for the Holborn Amphitheatre, yet within the relentless competition of the commercial entertainment industry, the construction of a building that could host a variety of performances seems a pragmatic business strategy, and one that cannot be adequately analysed solely through the lens of circus.

By mobilizing evidence from the archives, this article sets in train a refutation of earlier circus scholars’ assertions about the purity of circus as a discrete genre, and its disconnectedness from theatre. Our point of departure has been statements by Hippisley Coxe (1951) and Speaight (1980), yet we acknowledge that both writers have produced excellent studies of the circus that are important foundations for the relatively new domain of circus studies. The assertions by Speaight and Hippisley Coxe we have cited create an idealised frame for the circus, and herein lies a stumbling block for circus studies going forward. The cultural imaginary pertaining to the circus too frequently attaches to idealised frames, such as cozy narratives of family and community, both topics worthy of critical investigation but beyond the scope of this article. The survival or failure and the growth or otherwise of circus organizations of the nineteenth century turned on whether they were going concerns, or not. Circus directors were entrepreneurs who had to expediently employ novelty acts, often in high rotation, and do what seemed financially sensible to attract as many paying customers as possible.

A preoccupation with origins, with fixed definitions of a genre, with ‘what is circus and what is not circus,’ is to police a set of boundaries that the circus itself crossed and recrossed during the nineteenth century. Circus mobility does not just pertain to geography, or its tented architecture, but in its ability to be mobile within many different types of cultural forms and contexts. As circus scholars, we also need to be mobile within the continuum of popular cultural activity that surrounds and sustains the circus.