Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: March ::
Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0484  Thursday, 18 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 17 Mar 1999 11:52:09 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0476 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage

[2]     From:   N. Keinanen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 18 Mar 1999 08:34:46 +0200
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0450 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 17 Mar 1999 11:52:09 -0800
Subject: 10.0476 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0476 Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage

David writes:

>Boy
>apprentices would be cheaper than journey women adults (lower wages),
>especially because unlike apprentice shoemakers or jewelers a
>sufficiently talented boy actor could take on relatively large roles and
>hence make relatively large contributions relatively early in his
>apprenticeship.  And women were never going to be as suitable for either
>actual boy roles-Moth, Arthur, Mamillius-or for the cross-dressed parts,
>where necessity begets wonderful invention.

Of course you're right.  Let me see if this flies rephrased: Suppose a
company consists of 10 actors/partners (you obviously know more about
the size of companies-I'm just picking this number out of thin air).  If
they were to take on (say) two women to play women's roles, that would
displace two of the male actors.  Since the partners were often also
male actors, they have would an interest in seeing that this doesn't
take place.  In any case, professional male actors as a class would have
an interest in exclusivity, as all relatively privileged classes always
do (hence tenure), and as partners would be able to enforce such
exclusivity.

The whole situation reminds me of Liechtenstein, which always puts
constitutional change to a general plebiscite.  Because only men could
vote in plebiscites, women didn't achieve sufferage in Liechtenstein
until 1984 (http://www.firstlink.li/eng/regierung/allgemeine_infos.htm
).

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.