1999

Re: "Elizabeth"

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0421  Wednesday, 10 March 1999.

From:           Tad Davis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 10:09:03 -0500
Subject: 10.0392 Re: "Elizabeth"
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0392 Re: "Elizabeth"

Judy Lewis wrote:

>I had trouble finding more than a couple of facts in "Elizabeth" that
>were actually true, and "Braveheart" of a few yeras ago similarly
>distorted the past for some imaginary dramatic effect.  What really
>angers me over the treatment of historical fact in "Elizabeth"  - and in
>"Titanic" for that matter - is there is more dramatic impact in the
>genuine history, in the real happenings, than in the invented ones.

I've often felt the same way, when I knew something about the historical
background of a play. But Shakespeare himself doesn't seem to have
scrupled about moving things around when it suited his dramatic
purpose.  And having been on the other side of the fence-adapting a
familiar historical episode into a play-I'm much more sympathetic to the
difficulties involved in remaining faithful both to the historical
sources and to one's own dramatic vision. The frisson that sometimes
comes from reading about actual events is often lost when the events are
translated to stage or screen in a literal way.

My take on "Elizabeth" is that it's an attempt to show the reign of
Elizabeth as it might have been portrayed by somebody like John
Webster.  In some ways it's closer to "The Duchess of Malfi" than to the
actual chronicles of the reign.

Tad Davis

Re: Harfleur

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0420  Wednesday, 10 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Timothy Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 06:59:13 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: Harfleur

[2]     From:   Heather James <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 07:29:21 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0410 Re: Harfleur


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Timothy Peterson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 06:59:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        Re: Harfleur

>Henry's speech to the citizens of Harfleur emphasizes the rape of their
>wives and daughters should the English take the town by force.
>Practically, this seems to me only a reflection of early modern (and
>contemporary) military realities:

[snip]

Although I agree that was a reality, it's important to remember that
Henry is making a legal argument here, too.  (It's important because
Henry doesn't make a move that isn't, technically, ethical.) According
to the law of arms, maintaining a defense forfeits a town's right to be
taken peacefully.  Consider it an early form of Alternative Dispute
Resolution.  There's an interesting law review article on the law of
arms in Henry 5 I can dig up if anyone is interested in the cite.  Just
e-mail me off-list.

--T.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Heather James <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 07:29:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10.0410 Re: Harfleur
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0410 Re: Harfleur

>Sorry if I'm coming in on a pro vs anti Henry debate half way through,
>but I'm not sure if the fact that the Harfleur speech is 'just
>realistic' AND a standard thing to say 'since Homer' in any way detracts
>from the terrifying power and superabundant cruelty of the speech (and
>you don't say it does, it's true). As I recall, it just goes on, and on,
>and on, and I always imagine the governor being convinced pretty quickly
>that he won't try his luck against this lunatic, but Henry just ranting
>on for ages anyway. Is he enjoying it? It could be played that way,
>perhaps, if a director was 'anti-Henry'.

John McWilliams' remark reminds me of Paul Whitworth's performance at
Shakespeare Santa Cruz a number of years ago.  He played the Harfleur
speech as the play's rape scene, which is the way (I'm told) that the
entire production referred to the scene. He entered the stage alone,
wearing combat fatigues; he moved downstage and delivered the speech
directly to the audience, using a bullhorn (I think). It worked: very
understated and menacing.

Heather James
University of Southern California

Re: Shakespeare in Love

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0418  Wednesday, 10 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0392 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[2]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 00:51:03 +1000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[3]     From:   Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 11:51:14 -0400 (EDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[4]     From:   Tiffany Rasovic <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 13:15:28 -0500
        Subj:   Shakes in Love

[5]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 12:25:58 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[6]     From:   Andy White <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 19:22:53 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

[7]     From:   R. D. H. Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 10:45:50 +0000 (GMT)
        Subj:   Shakespeare in Love

[8]     From:   Michael Yogev <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1993 09:47:38 +0200
        Subj:   Shakespeare in Love


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999
Subject: 10.0392 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0392 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Well, I have no quarrel with anyone who liked "Shakespeare in Love"
(most of my friends did); I merely stated why I didn't like it.

One respondent to my posting suggested that since we don't know very
much about Shakespeare, in London or elsewhere, it's OK to write
anything about him, especially if it's entertaining, and I can't quarrel
with that, either, since I realize that that is the premise for most
recent academic writing on Shakespeare (except that that stuff, to the
extent that is it is comprehensible, is seldom entertaining).

Others asked, what about "Richard III" and Richard III?  Which just
proves my point, for our poor academicians have written scores - - maybe
hundreds - - of books, trying to set the general public straight on the
bad history of "Richard III" and the other English history plays.
Nevertheless, the perspective afforded by the questions about Richard
III helps me to see that my concerns about the movie's lack of
historicity may be unwarranted, for it is unlikely that "Shakespeare in
Love," four hundred years hence, will be a source well enough known to
require correction. But maybe next month?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Karen Peterson-Kranz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 00:51:03 +1000
Subject: 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

As a former high school English and now-college English teacher, I can
sympathize with those who worry about historical mis-impressions, not to
mention general problems with "film/reality," and "fiction/non-fiction."
Some of my past HS students, a few years ago, saw the quite-horrible
"Outbreak" movie and came to school the next day panic-stricken, asking
where the town was that had been nearly blown up.  On a more hopeful
note, however, when some of the brighter ones saw the recent
"contemporary" R&J, they came in and told me not to go as I would no
doubt have a screaming fit at the butchery of Shakespeare's language.
(Of course, they also reported that it was just plain weird having
supposedly present-day people speaking in verse).

Perhaps we should view such "historical" entertainments as inevitable
"variants" (see Bernard Cerquiglini's recent book out of JHU press), to
be cherished for their differences.

Special note re: Skip's Question 47: this looks like a trick question to
me, but I'm game.  I would guess that all of them have more inaccuracies
than "S in L."

Cheers,
Karen Peterson-Kranz
University of Guam

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Pixley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 11:51:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

>What's wrong with 'Shakespeare in Love' is that it rests on and fosters
>two deeply corrupting presuppositions: that writers write most
>powerfully about what they personally 'feel', and that art's primary
>concern is to express the 'personality' of the artist. It will be
>showered with Oscars.
>
>T. Hawkes

But isn't that what biographical criticism is all about?  I suspect that
most people who read or, in this case, watch biographies of artists do
so with precisely those expectations.  So, what's new?  One of my
colleagues told me I should urge my playwriting students to see
Shakespeare in Love.  Well, they might learn a great deal about how
Stoppard writes plays, but I'm certain that my colleague expected them
to learn how Shakespeare wrote plays.  As comical as that suggestion may
seem (Romeo and Ethyl!  Come now!), it doesn't detract from the sheer
wit (often tongue in cheek) in the film. The idea of that boy, John
Webster, with his pet rats someday writing Duchess of Malfi cracked me
up.

Ed Pixley

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tiffany Rasovic <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 13:15:28 -0500
Subject:        Shakes in Love

~What's wrong with 'Shakespeare in Love' is that it rests on and fosters
~two deeply corrupting presuppositions: that writers write most
~powerfully about what they personally 'feel', and that art's primary
~concern is to express the 'personality' of the artist. It will be
~showered with Oscars.

I must say that the historical play in the film did not bother me at
all, even if the 20-somethings to whom the film was pitched will use it
as a reference.

(Actually, little John Webster really gave me a good laugh! As did a
lewd QE1.)

My problem was indeed the romance and Romanticism of the point of view.
Seeing Shakes as the tortured genius became a torture indeed for me as I
watched a man who I am sure spent a good deal of time reading, studying
languages and rhetoric, being a real-world business man, and so forth,
instead run around like a mindless idler chasing after some r/Romantic
heroine/muse woman.

The movie was clever and cute, and so were its protagonists. And that is
what the Oscars seem to reward.  Fine.

TR

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 09 Mar 1999 12:25:58 -0800
Subject: 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0411 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Terence Hawkes writes:

>What's wrong with 'Shakespeare in Love' is that it rests on and fosters
>two deeply corrupting presuppositions: that writers write most
>powerfully about what they personally 'feel', and that art's primary
>concern is to express the 'personality' of the artist.

Are you sure that the corrupting propositions don't concern the
importance of market and political forces impinging on the Elizabethan
stage?  The wonderful thing about broad parodies is that they serve as
litmus tests of the viewers, who reveal their own positions both by what
they take issue with, and what parodies they don't even notice.

Cheers,
Se


Re: DVD

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0419  Wednesday, 10 March 1999.

[1]     From:   Michael E. Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 06:45:07 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.0412 Re: DVD

[2]     From:   John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 11:01:02 -0500
        Subj:   SHK 10.0397 DVD vs. Laserdisc

[3]     From:   Mariann T. Woodward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 08:18:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: DVD vs. Laserdisc


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Michael E. Cohen <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 06:45:07 -0800
Subject: 10.0412 Re: DVD
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0412 Re: DVD

Mike Jensen writes in part-

>I have a DVD player.  Imagine my disappointment when I purchased RAN and
>MUCH ADO.  They have the trailers, the sub-titles, I can go to the
>beginning of any scene, but the cool stuff stops there.  I can kick RAN
>into wide screen, and it does have a smidgen of background for the film
>- a page or two, and mostly other credits for the cast and crew, if
>memory serves.  Such credits and even the wide screen option are lacking
>from MUCH ADO, again if memory serves.
<snip>
>Perhaps someone can enlighten me.  Do the Laserdiscs for RAN and MUCH
>ADO have better features than the DVDs?

Mike, it really depends on who produces them. Don't confuse the
container for the stuff it contains. I used to work for a company that
did high-quality deluxe editions of movies on laserdisc: some titles got
a really fabulous treatment, and some were merely clean transfers of the
video material with only a few extras. Guess which ones cost more to
produce and cost more to buy....

DVD technically offers much greater capability than do laserdiscs
(which, by the way, are not even truly digital video), but whether an
individual DVD takes advantage of what the technology can offer is a
matter of economics, copyright negotiations, and editorial skill. Since
most DVDs are aiming at a price point of around $39 (US), I'm not
surprised that titles that aim for that price are lacking in features
and extra materials.

You also wrote

>Now comes word that the information encoded on
>the disks will begin to corrupt within a decade.

Perhaps. Get back to me in ten years: these discussions of the longevity
of DVD are tentative at the moment-the technology is in its infancy, and
no one knows for sure what will happen. Note that video tape also
decomposes, and the glue that holds laserdiscs together (yes, a
double-sided laserdisc is actually two single-sided disks glued
together) can decompose and make a laserdisc unreadable. Even the statue
of Ozymandias is falling apart, so Shelley tells us <*grin*>.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Savage <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 9 Mar 1999 11:01:02 -0500
Subject: DVD vs. Laserdisc
Comment:        SHK 10.0397 DVD vs. Laserdisc

Tanya Gough:

>the fact that you can still play audio CDs on a DVD player is a definite
>lure.

Since you seem to be in the business, please notify the manufacturers of
such things that what is needed is a single machine that is both a DVD
player and a VCR-so we can play both the DVD discs and the VHS tapes in
the same box.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mariann T. Woodward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 10 Mar 1999 08:18:56 -0500
Subject:        Re: DVD vs. Laserdisc

 [ snip ]

>I have a DVD player.  Imagine my disappointment when I purchased RAN and
>MUCH ADO.  They have the trailers, the sub-titles, I can go to the
>beginning of any scene, but the cool stuff stops there.  I can kick RAN
>into wide screen, and it does have a smidgen of background for the film
>- a page or two, and mostly other credits for the cast and crew, if
>memory serves.  Such credits and even the wide screen option are lacking
>from MUCH ADO, again if memory serves.
>
>I was very disappointed.  Now comes word that the information encoded on
>the disks will begin to corrupt within a decade.

My husband and I have a DVD player and I haven't heard anything about
encoded information.  DIVX, on the other hand, is full of nasty bugs to
prevent more than one viewing without paying a fee and logging into
their network.  There, I understand, the codes may expire either by
programming or by intentional "switch-off" by the company.  For example,
if a very popular movie is going to be re-released, the company can make
the disc inactive so it could not be viewed for as long as the film was
in theaters.

As far as the cool stuff, I've found that it takes a little bit of
research and effort in investigating various DVD titles to determine
what they come with-most titles list the contents on the back of the
case so you can check to see if it even has something more than just the
subtitles and trailers.  Those seem to come standard in most cases, and
I just flip the disc over to see what's there.  Or I check out DVD
Express, which offers excellent prices as a totally unsolicited side
plug, and sometimes they list the extras on the preview page.  A quick
check this morning shows that there are nearly 3,000 titles available on
DVD now!

If I can get a title with commentary, I'm really happy, but sometimes, I
just love a movie and I want to include a quality press in my
collection, so I'll purchase the title and go from there.  The cost is
only a few dollars more than a video and it will last significantly
longer than VHS.  Granted, if I wanted to share a movie with a class,
I'd have to bring the entire piece of equipment in as the disc are coded
so that taping to VHS is impossible, but most titles are also available
to check out at the local video store.

Some titles as you mentioned (admittedly most are flashy SF and other
fun mind-candy flicks) come with a significant portion of extra
material- missing scenes, alternate endings, multiple commentaries, and
the like.  Titles released this year are even computer-ready, with web
links, games, and complete screenplays to read or print out on your word
processor of choice.  I think a lot of film companies are slow to
release titles until they see where DVD is going in terms of technology,
who will win the sound war, and, most importantly, the general public,
but already it's surpassing DIVX and holding its own on the market.  The
prices of DVD players are coming down to a reasonable $300 for a basic
model; advanced versions that can play laser discs as well or shuffle
five DVD discs, of course, cost significantly more.

Now, if the DVD title doesn't come with what I want or need, and the
laser disc does, I'll go for that format.  For example, the 1996
adaptation of Romeo and Juliet is scheduled to come out this Spring, but
my research has told me that it won't come with anything but the
trailer.  The laser disc version, though, comes with the director's
commentary, which is what I'm most interested in right now.  Since laser
discs seem to have disappeared from "real life" stores, as soon as I
find it to purchase online for a reasonable price, I'll send away for
it.  Sure, I have to flip the disc halfway through (and sometimes the
break is really awkward) but having the extra fun stuff, with quality
picture and excellent surround sound, is a nice investment.

For movie aficionados who want to reproduce the theatrical experience in
the home, DVD or laser disc player is an excellent investment.  Forget
DIVX, though... that whole scheme just smacks of Big Brother.

Sorry for rambling!

Regards,
Mariann

Re: Women on the Early Modern Stage

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.0417  Tuesday, 9 March 1999.

From:           David Kathman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 8 Mar 1999 23:06:08 -0600
Subject: 10.0392 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.0392 Re: Shakespeare in Love

Melissa D. Aaron wrote:

>>Besides the 44 plays which shook me up a bit, Cosby's "Shakespeare" says
>>there was a law preventing women from performing on the public stage.
>>Stephen Orgel (Impersonations), however, says there was no such law and
>>points out that foreign women appeared on English stage from time to
>>time, also a few on Jacobean stage.  The film "Shakespeare in Love" also
>>claims there was a law against women performers; custom probably, law
>>unlikely.  Can anyone answer the question of "law"?  frances k. barasch
>
>Yes, (cf my earlier post) Stephen Orgel is right. There was no such law,
>only custom.  Custom is what kept Queen Anne from dancing in as many
>masques as she would have liked and caused a biggish negative reaction
>to Henrietta Maria's acting, but it wasn't illegal.  Chambers suggests
>that the Epilogue to The Roaring Girl might refer to a future
>performance by Mary Frith; but it would have been unusual.

Since Chambers wrote, documentary evidence has been uncovered that Mary
Frith (aka Moll Cutpurse) did in fact appear on stage at the Fortune in
the spring of 1611 in men's clothing, and that she faced legal
consequences as a result.  On January 27, 1611/12, Mary Frith appeared
before the Consistory Court of London and confessed as follows:

"that she had long frequented all or most of the disorderly & licentious
place in this Cittie as namely she hath vsually in the habite of a man
resorted to alehowses Tavernes Tobacco shops & also to play howses there
to see plaies & pryses & namely being at a playe about 3 quarters of a
yeare since at the ffortune in mans apparell & in her boote & wth a
sword by her syde, she told the company there p[re]sent that she thought
many of them were of the opinion that she was a man, but if any of them
would come to her lodging they should finde that she is a woman & some
other immodest & lascivious speaches she also vsed at that time And also
sat there vppon the stage in the publique viewe of all the people there
p[rese]nte in mans apparrell & playd vppon her lute & sange a songe."

The dress and behavior described by Frith correspond to those of the
character Moll Cutpurse in Middleton and Dekker's play The Roaring Girl
-- Moll wears boots and carries a sword, and in IV.i she sings a song
and accompanies herself on an instrument.  This raises the enticing
possibility that Mary Frith actually acted the part of Moll at the
Fortune in the play based on her own life.  Various topical allusions in
the 1611 quarto of The Roaring Girl make it fairly clear that the play
was written in early 1611 (see P.H. Mulholland, "The Date of The Roaring
Girl," Review of English Studies 28 (1977), 18-31, from which the above
transcript is taken), and it seems likely that the behavior to which
Mary Frith confessed nine months later occurred at one of the first
performances of the play, which fits in well with the statement in the
epilogue that "The Roring Girle her selfe some few dayes hence, Shall on
this Stage, give larger recompence."

Frith appears to have gotten in trouble with the authorities for this
performance in the spring of 1611, but unfortunately we have only
indirect evidence of this, since the Consistory Court Correction Book
for the early part of 1611 is missing.  In the January 27, 1612
document, after describing her performance on the stage of the Fortune,
Mary further confesses to "swearing & cursing &... tearing God out of
his kingdome" and to "vsually associat[ing] her selfe with Ruffinly
swaggering & lewd company as namely with cut purses blasphemous
drunkarde[s] & others of bad note & of most dissolute behaviour with
whom she hath to the great shame of her sexe often tymes (as she sayd)
drunke hard & distempered her heade with drinke."  She "further
confesseth that... she was punished for the misdemeanors afore mentioned
in Bridewell."  It's not entirely clear whether she was committed to
Bridewell for the performance at the Fortune, for swearing and
drunkenness, or for a combination of both; but since the Fortune
performance leads off the list of charges even though it had happened
nine months earlier, it's clear that the authorities took a dim view of
it.  In any case, the immediate reason for this January 27, 1612
confession was that Mary had been arrested in St. Paul's cathedral on
Christmas night "with her peticoate tucked vp about her in the fashion
of a man with a mans cloake on her to the great scandall of diu[er]s
p[er]sons who vnderstood the same & to the disgrace of all womanhood."
This was apparently akin to a probation violation, because Mary was sent
back to Bridewell, and then two weeks later she was forced to do public
penance at Paul's Cross.  This was described by John Chamberlain in a
letter of February 12, 1612:

"...this last Sonday [i.e. February 9] Mall Cut-purse a notorious bagage
(that used to go in mans apparell and challenged the feild of divers
gallants) was brought to the same place [i.e. Paul's Cross], where she
wept bitterly and seemed very penitent, but yt is since doubted she was
maudelin druncke, beeing discovered to have tipled of three quarts of
sacke before she came to her penaunce:  she had the daintiest preacher
or ghostly father that ever I saw in pulpit, one Ratcliffe of Brazen
Nose in Oxford, a likelier man to have led the revells in some ynne of
court than to be where he was, but the best is he did extreem badly, and
so wearied the audience that the best part went away, and the rest
taried rather to heare Mall Cutpurse then him."

There was great public interest in Mary/Moll's legal troubles, for
within nine days of her penance, Ambrose Garbrand had been fined seven
pence for "printinge the booke of Moll Cutpurse" without entering it in
the Stationers Register.  This could have been either the quarto of *The
Roaring Girl* or some lost pamphlet about Moll Cutpurse; at least one
lost pamphlet about her, John Day's *The Madde Prancks of Mery Mall of
the Bankside*, had been entered in the Stationer's Register in 1610.

This incident provides the best evidence I know of for a woman acting on
a pre-Restoration public stage in England.  The fact that Mary Frith was
apparently arrested for her performance is significant, although the
fact that she had a long criminal career already (she was first arrested
in 1600, and her criminal escapades continued at least until 1624)
muddies the waters a bit.  Even if there wasn't an explicit law on the
books forbidding women from acting on the public stage, there seems to
have been a de facto prohibition which the authorities were prepared to
enforce.

Dave Kathman
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.