The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0646 Wednesday, 12 July 2006
[1] From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 15:56:53 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0638 Private Productions
[2] From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 14:27:58 -0600
Subj: RE: SHK 17.0638 Private Productions
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Briggs <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 15:56:53 +0100
Subject: 17.0638 Private Productions
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0638 Private Productions
Ben Alexander wrote:
>Is there any evidence to suspect that in private productions of the
>great plays that some of the parts were taken by women; for instance
>in MND?
Evidence of "private productions of the great plays" would be a fine start.
["It seems that the first performance of 'Hamlet' of which we have a
specific record took place, bizarrely, on board a ship anchored off the
coast of Africa in 1607." - Thompson & Taylor p.53]
John Briggs
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 14:27:58 -0600
Subject: 17.0638 Private Productions
Comment: RE: SHK 17.0638 Private Productions
Whether women played (before 1642) in private productions of MND or
other "great plays" I don't know. One place to look for evidence or at
least for leads would be a recent book: Women Players in England,
1500-1660, ed. Pamela Allen Brown and Peter Parolin (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2005). Here is the opening paragraph of the book's introduction:
"Scholars of early modern English drama are coming to recognize that
while women were never members of professional troupes, they had long
appeared as players in a variety of arenas, and at every level of
society. It is no longer enough to say, along with E. K. Chambers, that
women who performed were the exceptions that proved the rule. As Stephen
Orgel points out, 'it is no longer clear just what the rule is'
(Chambers 1: 137; Orgel, 8). Queens, aristocrats, and gentlewomen
danced, sang, and recited in masques, plays, and court and manor
entertainments; non-elite women in village, town and city took roles in
parish drama and festive pageantry; Italian prima donnas and French
actresses came to England to perform for both courtiers and commoners;
and poorer women worked as itinerant entertainers, ballad singers and
mountebanks. Despite the opprobrium heaped on the theatrical woman, a
few elite women took the female player as a model in staging their own
identities. In the alternative playing areas of the street, alehouse,
market square, parish green, manorhouse and court, women could be found
performing; connecting these places were female spectators, patrons, and
traveling entertainers. The cultural knowledge about female playing
that a spectator, actor, or playwright carried to the 'all-male' stage
was therefore enormous."
Bruce Young
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
