No description available.

The emergence of the New Woman in the 1890s was the result of a broad spectrum of feminist demands: equal advantages with men in education, entrance into "male" professions, and a share in the government of the country. Women's desire for personal freedom led to the removal of conventional restrictions with regard to dress, manners, and modes of living and to a rebellion against inequalities in marriage and double standards of morality. Within the theatre community, bold new patterns of thought developed out of a growing discontent with outworn forms. The New Drama and the New Woman became inseparable in the public mind, and socially aware dramatists attempted to create a contemporary heroine who would reflect the way modern woman was perceived. The first chapter, "Relics of the Past," documents legal and social changes in woman's status prior to 1900 and reveals how the 19th century woman was held back, not only by men claiming educational and political advantages by virtue of male superiority, but by other women who fought against any change to well-defined sex roles, and by her own reluctance to free herself from conventional patterns. The second chapter, "Removal of Ancient Landmarks," is concerned with women in the creative arts who seized the opportunities for female emancipation that life in the artistic community promised, particularly to those in the theatre. The third chapter, "Treading on Dangerous Ground," links the impact of Ibsen on British drama with the new breed of actresses who were willing to represent the New Woman on stage and to replace the feminine ideal with their defiant portrayals of selfhood. The next three chapters explore dramatic images of the New Woman as she was depicted in plays written for the London stage in the 1890s. In Chapter IV, "Shall We Forgive Her?," the former "fallen" woman of fiction and melodrama, now updated to the "Woman with a past," demonstrates the extent to which prior sexual misdemeanours make her a social outcast, even if the playwright does not condemn her to an untimely death, insanity, or suicide. Chapter V, "New Lamps for Old," deals with the "advanced" woman who is either aggressive in courtship or chooses a career over marriage, overturns parental authority, engages in activities formerly reserved for males, and often talks and dresses like a man. By pushing against conventional boundaries which define woman's intellectual and moral territory, she seeks to overthrow the patriarchal system and to upset the double standard. In Chapter VI, "A Modern Eve," another aspect of the New Woman manifests in the married heroine who attempts to establish greater freedom for herself within the old patterns of respectability yet must face the psychological pressures which tend to keep women in their traditional place. Throughout the decade, proponents of the New Drama allowed the heroine to express her own mind as a necessary step towards selfhood. Conservative playwrights clung to legal marriage and most assumed that a woman's role was decreed by Nature and was basically unchangeable. More progressive playwrights advocated free union and accepted the premise that freedom is attained only when both sexes are released from bondage to old ideals. / Graduate

No description available.

Some of the older actors of the Restoration provided a link between the pre- and post-Commonwealth stages by preserving their craft during the years from 1642 to 1660, despite the harsh and numerous restrictions enacted by the Parliament. Some of the younger players, on the other hand, quickly mastered their art and continued the tradition preserved for them by men such as Charles Hart and Michael Mohun. The greatest actors and actresses of the period certainly influenced the direction of Restoration drama in several ways. Thomas Betterton and Elizabeth Barry were so skilled that on several occasions leading dramatists asked their advice about dialogue, character development, and stage business. Other actors, such as Samuel Sandford and Colley Cibber, developed into great character actors, and the dramatists created roles especially suited to their talents. William Congreve 's admiration for Anne Bracegirdle's talent and beauty perhaps contributed substantially to the creation of the character of Millimant in The Way of the World. Actors such as William Penkethman and Joseph Haines often insured a play's success by their antics on the stage. In addition to the major figures of the period, a substantial number of competent minor actors and actresses mastered the character roles which appear with frequency in much Restoration drama. The Restoration players exerted an influence on both the direction and content of the drama of the period. A better understanding of their performances and personalities could well lead to a better understanding of the drama itself. I have followed the alphabetical listing of the actors and actresses given in Part I of The London Stage, making a few additions where I found them necessary. For the most part, each entry contains information on the player's first and last recorded performances and on his best roles. Whenever possible I have included commentary about his ability. In addition, I have tried to provide data about the character and personality of each player when possible. In some instances I felt that the physical appearance was important and included that information. Much of the information in each entry comes from Restoration and eighteenth century sources. John Downes's Roscius Anglicanus and Thomas Davies' Dramatic Miscellanies were especially valuable, as was John Genest's Some Account of the English Stage. In the twentieth century, the works of John Harold Wilson and Sybil Rosenfeld were very helpful. Finally, the massive scholarship of The London Stage pervades this dissertation. Without that work my task would have been impossible.

No description available.

Not available / text

Recent criticism has cast the suburban playhouses of Early Modern London as marginalised institutions, in at least a topographic if not a symbolic sense. This thesis will contend that marginality is a relative term, and that for the inhabitants of the suburb, of Clerkenwell, the salient social function of the Red Bull theatre was not to serve the City as a site for licence, but to provide a neighbourhood space in which bonds of community could be formed. Arguing that theatres were built in particular locations not just to escape City prohibitions, but to draw on proximate audiences, I provide a brief history of Clerkenwell and place the Red Bull in its local context. By figuring the Red Bull, both in terms of its standard repertoire and its audience, as a prototypical "community theatre," I develop a sociology of dramatic production which understands this Early Modern theatre as a crucial nexus of local solidarity.

This thesis has two aims: to make an original contribution to knowledge by demonstrating the importance of theatrical rivalry to the development of drama in the Carolean period (the reign of Charles II), and to re-evaluate the managerial career of Thomas Killigrew (1612-1683). This is the first detailed survey of the circumstances in which the King's Company and the Duke's Company competed and an analysis of the troupes' devices of plotting and counter-plotting during their twenty-two years of stage rivalry from 1660 to 1682. As well as charting the stage rivalry between the two companies, my dissertation argues that Killigrew was a competent but unscrupulous and devious playhouse-manager. A close analysis of his managerial career will show how Thomas Killigrew was the central figure in the Carolean stage rivalry in London and how he helped to shape the future of English theatre. The survey starts from Killigrew's beginnings as the manager of the King's Company from 1660 and concludes in 1682 when the King's Company was effectively taken over by its rival, the Duke's Company, to make one United Company, thus ending the span of theatrical competition in the Carolean period. Each chapter is divided in accordance with the beginning and end of significant events of rivalry and are organised chronologically at different phases of the competition. The first chapter provides the historical background of the establishment of the patent grants and the gradual consolidation of the monopoly over dramatic entertainment in London. In charting the initial stages of the development of the King's Company and the Duke's Company from 1660 to 1663, this chapter argues that it was largely due to Thomas Killigrew's underhandedness that the King's Company began the competition in an advantageous position. The second chapter focuses on the theatrical competition from 1663 to 1668. Until 1663 both companies were busy consolidating their duopoly and the competition between the two managers ended abruptly with William Davenant's death in 1668. In the survey of the Killigrew-Davenant rivalry, this chapter's overall aim is to argue for narrowing of the wide chasm often described between the managerial skills of the two managers. Chapter three explores the period from when Mary Davenant, Thomas Betterton and Henry Harris took over the management of the Duke's Company to the burning of the King's Company's playhouse in 1672. It argues that the competition in this period was evenly matched. This chapter also revises the perceived style of management adopted by both Betterton and Killigrew. The chapter argues that Betterton was perhaps less involved in the most audacious project of the Duke's Company during these years: the building of three theatres including the Dorset Garden Theatre. In the case of the latter, this chapter argues that Killigrew continually took risks at other people's expense and was little concerned with the well being of his staff and shareholders as long as the company gained notoriety and retained its success. The penultimate chapter of the dissertation covers the time span from the Bridges Street Theatre's fire to the ousting of Killigrew as the manager by his own son, Charles Killigrew. It argues that this was the crucial period in which the Duke's Company began clearly to surpass its rival. This chapter qualifies the orthodox view that the King's Company simply lost its battle against the Duke's Company by demonstrating that the two companies also had to contend with a large number of foreign troupes and the rising popularity of music concerts. The final chapter explores the period from when Charles Killigrew took over the management of the King's Company to the amalgamation of the two acting troupes in 1682. It demonstrates the negative effects of the political turbulence of the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Crisis on both the troupes' plays and players. The chapter also argues that Charles Killigrew was not as charismatic or manipulative as his father, and that he greatly contributed to the demise of the King's Company. In conclusion, this is strictly a study of theatre history that looks at the importance of management and company rivalry to the development of Carolean drama. At its peak in the 1670s, the Carolean period produced on average twenty new plays per season. The highly competitive nature of the rivalry between the King's Company and the Duke's Company and how the respective managements responded to the success or the failure of the other theatre is the background against which one must read the plays of the Carolean period. Thomas Killigrew, whose managerial career spanned the longest in the Carolean years, was an influential figure in the period and whose innovations and difficulties as a manager had a direct effect not only on theatre history but also on the dramatic traditions of the seventeenth century.

No description available.

No description available.