SOURCE: Viator, Timothy J. “Nahum Tate's Richard II.” Theatre Notebook 42, no. 3 (1988): 109-17.

[In the following essay, Viator presents a stage history of Tate's Richard II, which he says reveals important facts about the monarchy's attitude toward the stage and censorship practices during the Restoration.]

The stage history of Nahum Tate's The History of King Richard the Second has long been improperly understood. According to The London Stage, the King's Company produced Tate's adaptation as The Sicilian Usurper in December 1680 and, after the censors banned it, as The Tyrant of Sicily in January 1681. Robert D. Hume suggests, however, that the December dates “are a misconstruction from confusing evidence”.¹ After Charles Killigrew, the Master of the Revels, refused to license the play as Richard II, Hume argues, the King's Company staged it twice in January 1681 as The Sicilian Usurper, for which performances, the Earl of Arlington (Sir Henry Bennet), the Lord Chamberlain, silenced the King's Company for ten days. Thus, Tate's Richard II raises three questions: 1) Why did the original revised scripts trouble the Court's censors? 2) Why did the King's Company decide to stage The Sicilian Usurper? 3) And why did the Lord Chamberlain close Drury Lane? The answers to these questions reveal important evidence for understanding the King's Company's financial desperation in 1681 and Restoration censorship practices.

I. BACKGROUND

The first problem concerns the initial denial of a licence for Richard II. Critics have long known the reasons why in 1680 Charles II's Court perceived Richard II as dangerous and antimonarchical. Particularly sensitive to attacks, whether real or imagined, upon the monarchy, the Court could not overlook a play which depicted usurpation and regicide. As Lacey Baldwin Smith summarizes the political climate in the late 1670s and early 1680s, three factors divided Restoration England: “(1) The growing resentment against the heir apparent, James, Duke of York, and his Catholic faith; (2) the wave of religious hysteria which led even Englishmen of reason and moderation to believe that papists were hidden behind every bush, plotting to murder the king and overthrow the Protestant church; and (3) the formation of a country party under the leadership of … Anthony Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury”.² This political turmoil found its way into the literature as writers aligned themselves with the “Whigs”, as the country party became known, and the Tories, Royalists who supported the Court. John Dryden's “Absalom and Achitophel” illustrates well how Restoration writers turned their attentions to politics. In the poem Dryden describes the Popish Plot (1678), which more than any other development caused the religious hysteria, and its effects on London:

This Plot, which failed for want of common sense,
Had yet a deep and dangerous consequence:
For, as when raging fevers boil the blood,
The standing lake soon floats into a flood,
And every hostile humor, which before
Slept quiet in its channels, bubbles o'er;
So several factions from this first ferment
Work up to foam, and threat the government(3)

By playing upon the religious passions that the Popish Plot provoked and upon the fears that Charles's illness in August, 1680 would lead to his death, Shaftesbury and the Whigs managed to sway public opinion and to gain more power. The Whigs had one goal: to ensure that a protestant ascended to Charles's throne. By autumn 1680, they felt powerful enough to attempt to exclude the Duke of York from the line of royal ascent. The exclusion strategy infuriated Charles II; he interpreted the Whig action not only as a plan to block James but also an infringement upon the monarchical prerogative. Antonia Fraser writes that Charles thought “the campaign smacked of insult to the monarchy”.⁴ But more to the point, the Exclusion Bill's actual impact upon Restoration London was considerable. The Whigs had made the royal line of ascent a political issue: could and should the legislative body select the next king? The Whigs thought so; on November 12, 1680 they forced through Commons the Exclusion Bill which excluded the Duke of York from the throne. Although the House of Lords defeated the bill, the Whig campaign greatly affected Charles's Court. For the first time, the Court must have been suspicious and anxious, ready to identify and thwart attacks upon the monarchy.

By year's end, Charles started to oppose those attacks. David Ogg writes, “Such was the state of parties in January 1681 when the danger threatening the monarchy and the succession by the dissolution of parliament may have roused Charles from the lethargy into which he had fallen a few months before”.⁵ Not surprisingly, then, Charles's Court was prone to react harshly to suggestive productions by London's theatre companies, and Fraser hypothesizes that Tate's Richard II was the victim selected to exemplify Charles's propaganda campaign.⁶ Between December 1680 and July 1682, Arlington and Charles Killigrew banned or prohibited six plays and censored or held up three others.⁷ For the first time in the Restoration period, the Court, recognizing drama's potential to fuel political controversy, attempted to squelch plays which might fire antimonarchism and to advocate openly plays which evidenced royalist sentiment. Thus, the Court felt compelled to ban plays like Nathaniel Lee's Lucius Junius Brutus (December 11, 1680), a conspicuously Whig play, Crowne's The City Politiques (June 26, 1682), John Dryden and Lee's The Duke of Guise (July 18, 1682), and Tate's Richard II, seemingly an antimonarchical play,⁸ and to support plays like Otway's Venice Preserv'd, a Tory play.⁹ The fact of six banned plays in 19 months does much to support Ogg's and Fraser's arguments that Charles attempted to initiate his own campaign. So Charles's Court—which had protected, supported, encouraged, and enjoyed the theatre—suddenly implemented control over any theatrical attempts to exploit political issues.

One way to understand the government's eagerness to ban Tate's Richard II is to consider how the seventeenth-century audience perceived literature and theatre. As John M. Wallace explains (paraphrasing Plutarch), “Instead of sitting at a lecture (or reading a poem) like a person warming himself at another man's fire, the attender to a discourse should ‘think it necessary to kindle from it some illumination for himself and some thinking of his own’”.¹⁰ As a result, the seventeenth-century reader or playgoer routinely saw parallels between the text and his country's situation. If a poem or play involved a king, he probably considered how the fictive king's crisis or dilemma mirrored the actual king's reign. Hume maintains that the audience arrived at the theatre “ready and able to draw its own inferences freely, often from the midst of disguise and contradiction”.¹¹

Because he knew that playgoers would look for parallels, the censor objected to Richard II's plot. Usurpation and regicide troubled the Court's censors throughout the Restoration, but particularly so during the Exclusion Bill Crisis. Beaumont and Fletcher's The Maid's Tragedy illustrates how the Crisis affected the censors. As Hume writes, Charles had seen the play acted on 23 November 1667 and apparently took no offence. By 1680, however, because of the political tensions and Charles's campaign to attack the Whigs, the Court considered The Maid's Tragedy a dangerous play, as Hume argues, “in that in a particular context it could take on a ‘meaning’ which Beaumont and Fletcher could not have envisioned and which seems not to have concerned Charles II or his officials at any time between 1660 and 1677” and the play was “quietly prohibited”.¹²

II. BANNING AND RESTAGING

Killigrew refused to license Richard II because of its plot. Subsequently, critics have focused on two questions: Was the play politically relevant during the political turmoil and did Tate intend to draw political parallels? For example, Frank Fowell and Frank Palmer consider the play harmless since it has “nothing that might reasonably be regarded as objectionable in the piece”.¹³ Arthur F. White maintains that “except for the general theme of civil war, there seems little or nothing [in Richard II] which might give offence” to the Court.¹⁴ On the other hand, Robert Muller concludes that because of the political situation at that time Richard II “must be seen as an attempt to include politics” and that it reflects the political beliefs of that time.¹⁵ For the most part, Christopher Spencer summarizes the play well:

The alterations of Tate, are, then, intelligently made in view of the purpose he wished to achieve: to dress up a politically relevant play with anti-Whig satire and other topical comment and to make it entertaining theatre fare … The principal flaw in this plan was that the play itself was unalterably anti-Tory in its essentials, and an anti-Whig veneer was insufficient to cover them. Tate's unpolitical mind failed to grasp the danger in the story of Richard II, no matter how it was told—the danger of a successful deposition.¹⁶

In passing over the unique stage history of Tate's adaptation, however, critics have failed to consider why Tate tried to disguise Richard II as The Sicilian Usurper and why the King's Company staged a play that the Master of the Revels had refused to license.

To try to disguise the play Tate merely changed the title from The History of King Richard the Second to The Sicilian Usurper, the setting from England to Sicily, and the characters' names. For example, King Richard became Oswald; Gaunt, Alcidore; York, Cleon. The results on the stage must have seemed strange if not incomprehensible. As Tate writes in the “Epistle Dedicatory”:

From the two days in which it was Acted, the changes of the Scene, Names of Persons, & c. was a great Disadvantage: many things were by this means render'd obscure and incoherent that in their native Dress had appear'd not only proper but gracefull. I call'd my Persons Sicilians but might as well have made 'em Inhabitants of the Isle of Pines, or, World in the Moon, for whom an Audience are like to have small Concern. Yet I took care from the Beginning to adorn my Prince with Such heroick Vertues, as afterwards made his distress Scenes of force to draw Tears from the Spectators; which, how much more touching they would have been had the Scene been laid at home …¹⁷

Changing the title, the characters' names, and the setting are the most superficial changes one can make, and we must wonder why Tate believed that The Sicilian Usurper would appear to be a different play and, thus, could pass unnoticed by the Court and its censors. Nevertheless, Tate tried to defend his play in the “Epistle Dedicatory.” His remarks are worth quoting at length:

They that have not seen it Acted, by its being silenc't must suspect me to have Compil'd a Disloyal or Reflecting Play. But how far distant this was from my Design and Conduct in the Story will appear to him that reads with half an Eye. To form any Resemblance between the Times here written of, and the Present, had been unpardonable Presumption in Me. If the Prohibiters conceive any such Notion I am not accountable for That. I fell upon the new-modelling of the Tragedy … charm'd with the many Beauties I discover'd in it, which wou'd become the Stage; with as little design of Satyr upon present Transactions, as Shakespeare himself that wrote this Story before this Age began. I am not ignorant of the posture of Affairs in King Richard the Second's Reign, how dissolute then the Age, and how corrupt the Court; a Season that beheld Ignorance and Infamy preferr'd to Office and Pow'r, exercised in Oppressing, Learning, and Merit; but why a History of those Times shou'd be supprest as a Libel upon Ours, is past my understanding.¹⁸

Tate asserts that his “design was to engage the pitty of the Audience for” Richard and that his Richard is not like Shakespeare's, who was “Dissolute, Careless, and Unadvisable”.¹⁹ Regardless of Tate's intentions, in December 1680 the Master of the Revels could not license a play which highlights a usurper murdering a king, Sicilian or English. Hume writes that “to suppose that this subject could be made to pass in the midst of the Exclusion Crisis must require either disingenuousness or plain stupidity”.²⁰

Likewise, the King's Company had to have known that The Sicilian Usurper was in essence the same play, yet it still staged the play. Why did the company decide to stage Tate's “new” play? The answer may well concern the financial problems the company faced in January 1681. The London Stage reports that by the second half of the 1680-1681 season “the receipts of Drury Lane had fallen off so drastically that the players ceased acting, resumed, faltered again”.²¹ The company's difficulties had begun a decade earlier in 1671 when a fire destroyed the Theatre Royal. To pay for a new theatre, which ultimately cost some £2,000 to £4,000, the company incorporated, selling shares to its actors. Through mismanagement, dissension (several leading actors quit), and unexpected low attendance, however, the company's profits dwindled.²² Thus, financial pressures perhaps compelled the King's Company to attempt desperate measures in order to compete with its rival, the more successful Duke's Company, which in January 1681 staged Aphra Behn's sequel to her popular The Rover.²³ Tate may have intended the play to elevate Richard II's character and to engender pity, but the King's Company management must have recognized the play's topical and parallel possibilities. In other words, while the Court wanted to keep “parallel” plays from audiences, the theatre companies must have recognized that such plays were potentially profitable. As Behn's Prologue to The Rover, Part II (January 1681) exemplifies, the political controversies influenced the theatrical community:

In vain we labour to reform the Stage,
Poets have caught too the Disease o'th'Age,
That Pest, of not being quiet when they're well,
That restless Fever, in the Brethen, Zeal;
In publick Spirits call'd Good o'th'Commonwealth.
Some for this Faction cry, others for that,
The pious Mobile for they know not what:
So tho by different ways the Fever seize,
In all 'tis one and the same mad Disease.(24)

“The same mad Disease” aroused some playwrights, notably Nathaniel Lee, to write political plays like Lucius Junius Brutus for political and artistic reasons. But playwrights and managers alike must have recognized the commercial potential that political or parallel plays offered. For instance, Elkanah Settle's The Female Prelate (May 1680) must have encouraged the Drury Lane managers to consider more parallel plays. In this tragedy, which Hume describes as an “extreme anti-Catholic play”,²⁵ Settle exploits the religious hysteria that the Popish Plot created, and although it was not a hit, it ran for three nights, becoming one of the few moneymaking productions the King's Company produced in the 1679-1680 season. So the possible political parallels in Tate's Richard II must have excited the managers to hope that the play might also enjoy a worthwhile run and to take a chance on a play in the repertory since 1669.

Thus, the King's Company wanted to stage Tate's play to try to capture an audience sensitive to and interested in contemporary political events. For that very reason Killigrew refused to license the script. Yet a month later the King's Company staged Tate's revised script, and one can only conclude that either Killigrew failed to recognize The Sicilian Usurper as Richard II and licensed the script, or he never saw the second script. Although the evidence is inconclusive, the latter seems probable. Killigrew surely would have known that The Sicilian Usurper was the same play that he had refused to license only a month before.²⁶ As Emmet L. Avery and Arthur H. Scouten note, “the principal companies neither fully nor promptly acquiesced” to the Master of the Revels' review of all plays.²⁷ Therefore, after Killigrew refused to license The History of King Richard the Second, the King's Company decided to perform The Sicilian Usurper without licence, expecting that the Court and its censors would either overlook the revised script or, at worst, simply halt the performance as was done in December when the Duke's Company staged Lee's Lucius Junius Brutus.

In light of the political difficulties and Charles II's programme to stop antimonarchical propaganda, Arlington wanted to demonstrate to the theatres that the Court planned to prohibit controversial plays. To this end, the Lord Chamberlain closed Drury Lane for ten days, an unprecedented decision. With only one exception, in the previous twenty years the Court had closed the theatres only for the Plague in June 1665 and for mourning royal deaths, such as the Queen Mother's death on September 3 1669.²⁸ Accordingly, by his decision Arlington sent two consequential messages to the theatre companies: that the Court intended to halt controversial plays, and that the Lord Chamberlain intended to use forceful measures to control the companies.

No scholars have considered the effects that Arlington's punitive orders had on the King's Company. Directly, the banning of Tate's play caused the company, which was already financially troubled, to bear the production costs of a play which might have proved profitable but was suddenly no longer capable of returning any revenue. The Duke's Company suffered a similar setback when Arlington stopped Lucius Junius Brutus in December, but at least it kept its doors open. Drury Lane, on the other hand, remained empty for ten nights, and that loss of revenue weakened the faltering company. Indirectly, therefore, the banning accelerated the King's Company's declining fortunes, resulting in the final closure of Drury Lane in April 1682 and the union with the Duke's Company the following November. Moreover, Charles's campaign to control the theatres proved effective. Fearing further sanctions, the King's Company must have avoided plays which appeared to attack or satirize Charles, his Court, its Roman faction, and in general the monarchy. And although one cannot conclude with any certainty, because The London Stage performance records are incomplete, both companies seemed to have avoided (with few exceptions) “Whig” plays and began to stage after early 1681 only “Tory” plays like Behn's The Roundheads (December 1681 at Dorset Garden), Tate's The Ingratitude of the Commonwealth (December 1681 at Drury Lane) which Hume maintains stresses loyalty to one's king,²⁹ and Thomas Southerne's The Loyal Brothers (February 4 1682 at Drury Lane). By closing Drury Lane for ten days, Arlington hurt the King's Company more than theatre historians have acknowledged.

III. CENSORIAL DUTIES AFTER 1680

The effects of Arlington's actions do not end with the impact on the King's Company. His decision to close Drury Lane defined for decades the censorial duties of both the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Revels. Throughout the Restoration, as John Loftis writes, “the nature and extent of government supervision [of the theatre companies] was ambiguous and variable [because] there was neither a well-defined theory of supervision nor a well-defined delegation of authority”.³⁰ As the King's servant, as were all managers and actors his servants, the Master of the Revels was under the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction, establishing the Chamberlain as the primary officer. Vincent J. Liesenfeld writes that the Lord Chamberlain's

authority was founded on traditions, many of them imprecisely defined. It extended directly to the management of the theatres, particularly their relationships with actors and actresses. The drama itself appears to have come under his control through another court official, the Master of the Revels, who by 1660 had become his subordinate and thereby brought the drama under his jurisdiction.³¹

Yet the available sources suggest that although the Lord Chamberlain was the ranking officer, Chamberlains before Arlington either delegated or lost censorial powers to the Master of the Revels, most notably Sir Henry Herbert (in office from 1660 to 1673), who reviewed, censored, and licensed plays before production. White argues that during the Exclusion Crisis “the Lord Chamberlain [probably] asserted his greater authority at the request of the Master of the Revels”.³² Arlington, however, did not assume the censorial duties traditionally held by the Master of the Revels, the power to license plays. While White understands that “under the precedent of Arlington the Lord Chamberlain took … an increasingly large interest in the affairs of the theatre and their authority was frequently appealed to in matters which concerned the theatre”,³³ he fails to recognize the effects of Arlington's actions.

The fate of Tate's play along with the other plays censored or banned during the Exclusion Crisis suggests a new relationship between the Master of the Revels and the Lord Chamberlain, and the way Killigrew and Arlington shared censorial duties influenced the roles of later Chamberlains. Extant sources reveal that before 1680 only the Master of the Revels and the King censored plays. For example, Herbert struck out several passages from John Wilson's The Cheats (1663), then approved the script, yet Charles II suppressed the play two weeks after its first performance. In the case of Edward Howard's The Change of Crowns (1667) the King not only banned the play after it reached the stage, he also ordered that Howard not have it published.³⁴ After the Exclusion Crisis, however, as the Master of the Revels continued to assess plays before they were acted, Arlington asserted the right to ban them after production should they be controversial and to close a theatre for controversial plays. Two plays from 1681 exemplify how Arlington and Killigrew performed their duties: John Crowne's Henry the Sixth: the First Part (April 1681) and Thomas Shadwell's The Lancashire Witches (September 1681). According to White, Arlington suppressed Crowne's Henry the Sixth “after production as a result of the influence of the Church of Rome party at Court”.³⁵ But for the most part, Arlington let Killigrew review and license plays before production. For example, in the epistle to the reader of The Lancashire Witches, Shadwell writes that a “great opposition was design'd against the Play (a month before it was acted) by a Party, who … pretended that I had written a Satyr upon the Church of England”.³⁶ The Master of the Revels then expunged significant passages which he had found acceptable when he had first read and licensed the play. Therefore, the histories of these two plays indicate that the two censors shared the duties to control the theatre. Killigrew censored by striking out offensive passages before production as he had done with Shadwell's play or by refusing to license a play as he had done with Tate's Richard II. Arlington censored by banning plays already on stage (as only King Charles had done before) and by closing theatres for failing to comply to his or the Master of Revels' orders as he had done against Lee's Lucius Junius Brutus and Tate's The Sicilian Usurper. Subsequent Chamberlains followed Arlington's lead and allowed the Master of the Revels to license plays. For example, Dorset, the Chamberlain in 1696, ordered that the theatre companies have all plays

Licensed by ye Master of the Revells according to ye Antient Custome of His place and upon the Examination of the said Master I find that he Complaines that of Late severall new & Revived plays have been Acted at ye Theatres of Drury Lane and Dorsett Gardens without any License. … I do therefore Order and Command that for ye future noe playes shall be Acted but such as shall first be sent … to Charles Killegrew Esqr Master of the Revells by him to be perused and diligently Corrected & Licensed And I Order all Persons Concerned in the Management of both Companyes to take notice hereof on ye Penalty of being Silenced according to ye Antient Custom of His place for such defaults.³⁷

The Chamberlains Sunderland (1697), Bertie (1699), Jersey (1703) and Kent (1704) all wrote similar instructions to the theatre managers ordering that the Master of the Revels should license all plays and threatening that they would silence the theatres if the managers failed to comply.

In conclusion, Nahum Tate's Richard II is an example of a Restoration play that most modern critics usually dismiss as merely a poor Shakespearean adaptation. But in many ways Richard II remains important. The play's unusual stage history illuminates Charles II's attitudes towards the stage, the King's Company's financial problems, and the Master of the Revels' and the Lord Chamberlain's duties. But most importantly, Tate's play demonstrates the Court's relationship to the theatres in the early 1680s: Charles and his censors tended to allow the companies to enjoy artistic freedom; but when the plays seemed to attack Charles, his family, his Court, and the monarchy itself, Charles reacted swiftly and decisively.

Notes

1. The Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century, Robert D. Hume, 1976, 345.

2. This Realm of England 1399 to 1688, Lacy Baldwin Smith, 1976, 283-284.

3. The Works of John Dryden, ed. H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., 1972, 9.

4. Royal Charles, Antonia Fraser, 1979, 372.

5. England in the Reign of Charles II, David Ogg, 1955, 613-614.

6. See her footnote on page 400. Tate's play is the only example she gives.

7. See Hume's “The Maid's Tragedy and Censorship in the Restoration Theatre”, The Philological Quarterly, 61 (1982), 486. Tate's Richard the Second, Lee's Lucius Junius Brutus, Crowne's Henry the Sixth were silenced; Lee's The Massacre of Paris and Bank's The Island Queens and The Innocent Usurper were prohibited; Dryden and Lee's The Duke of Guise and Crowne's City Politiques were held up; and Shadwell's The Lancashire Witches was cut.

8. See Allardyce Nicoll's A History of Restoration Drama 1600-1700, 1940, 10, n4 and n5. Nicoll's source is the Lord Chamberlain's papers of the Public Record Office: LC 5/144, pp. 28, 29, 260 and 278.

9. For an analysis of Otway's play see David Bywaters' “Venice, Its Senate, and Its Plot in Otway's Venice Preserv'd” MP 80: 256-263.

10. “‘Examples Are Best Precepts’: Readers and Meanings in Seventeenth-Century Poetry”, Critical Inquiry, 1:2 (1982), 281-282.

11. The Development of English Drama in The Late Seventeenth Century, Robert D. Hume, 1976, 222.

12. “The Maid's Tragedy”, see note 7, 486-488.

13. Censorship in England, F. Fowell and F. Palmer, 1913, rpt 1969, 123.

14. “The Office of Revels and Dramatic Censorship During the Restoration Period”, Western Reserve University Bulletin, NS 34 (1931), 32.

15. “Nahum Tate's Richard II and Censorship during the Exclusion Bill Crisis in England”, Poetic Drama and Poetic Theory, 26 (1975), 51.

16. Nahum Tate, 1972, 84.

17. The History of King Richard II, 1681, rpt 1969, A2v-A3r.

18. Ibid, A1r.

19. See Spencer for an objective analysis of Tate's alterations, 80-84.

20. The Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century, Robert D. Hume, 1976, 222.

21. The London Stage, Part 1, 1965, 289.

22. See Leslie Hotson's A Commonwealth and Restoration Stage, 242-277, for an extensive history of the King's Company.

23. According to The London Stage, Part 1 293, the date of Behn's play's first performance is not known; however, strong evidence suggests that it was acted before January 18, 1681.

24. The Works of Aphra Behn, ed. Montague Summers, 1915, rpt 1967, 115.

25. The Development of English Drama in The Late Seventeenth Century, Robert D. Hume, 1976, 346.

26. In “Exclusion Bill Crisis” (p 50), Muller speculates that Arlington, the Lord Chamberlain “was more sensitive to … political implications” than Killigrew. Following the London Stage stage history that the play appeared as Richard II, Muller does not realize that Killigrew probably refused to license the script. Hence, since Killigrew very likely did disapprove the script, Muller's argument must be invalid.

27. “A Critical Introduction”, The London Stage, 1965, cxlvii.

28. On 9 September 1661 the Lord Chamberlain also ordered acting suspended, but no reason is given in the sources.

29. The Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century, Robert D. Hume, 1976, 344-5.

30. The Politics of Drama in Augustan England, 1965, 20.

31. The Licensing Act of 1737, 1984, 9.

32. “Office of the Revels”, 16.

33. Ibid, 15.

34. See “Office of the Revels”, 26-28, for stage histories of Wilson's and Howard's plays.

35. “Office of the Revels”, 35. In addition, Arlington held up two plays before production: Crowne's City Politiques (June 1682) and Dryden and Lee's The Duke of Guise (July 1682). The sources suggest, however, that Arlington was complying with the King's orders. He was not, therefore, appropriating the Master of the Revels' duties. See pp 35-39.

36. Quoted by White, p 33.

37. L.C. 7/1, p. 43. Quoted by White, 18.