Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: January ::
Re: Whiteface
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0202  Tuesday, 30 January 2001

[1]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 26 Jan 2001 13:34:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0189 Re: Whiteface

[2]     From:   Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 29 Jan 2001 11:43:13 +0000
        Subj:   Whiteface


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 26 Jan 2001 13:34:56 -0500
Subject: 12.0189 Re: Whiteface
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0189 Re: Whiteface

Although Alan Dessen does not make the point, from the entry in *A
Dictionary of Stage Directions in English Drama 1580-1642,* it seems to
me that white face is NOT used as a sex or gender marker. Males are just
as likely to be associated with white as females.  Am I wrong?

Yours, Bill Godshalk

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Werner Broennimann <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 29 Jan 2001 11:43:13 +0000
Subject:        Whiteface

Like David Schalkwyk I was also struck by the claim that "on stage,
whiteface was probably the primary way of signifying femininity".
Dympna Callaghan herself cites Annette Drew-Bear's book "Painted Faces
on the Renaissance Stage", Bucknell UP, 1994.  Has anyone read this
study?

Werner
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.