129607082400738طه ابراهيم سيد ابراهيم. ثالثة دراما اداب انجليزي.Pdf

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

129607082400738طه ابراهيم سيد ابراهيم. ثالثة دراما اداب انجليزي.Pdf استمارة تقييم الرسائل البحثية ملقرر دراس ي اوﻻ : بيانات تمل بمعرفة الطالب اسم الطالب : طه ابراهيم سيد ابراهيم كلية : اﻻداب الفرقة/املستوى : الثالثة الشعبة : اللغه اﻻنجليزيه اسم املقرر : دراما كود املقرر: 325/ج. ز استاذ املقرر : ماجدة مفتاح البريد اﻻلكترونى للطالب : [email protected] عنوان الرسالة البحثية : restoration age and comedy of manners ثانيا: بيانات تمل بمعرفة لجنة املمتحنيين هل الرسالة البحثية املقدمة متشا بة جزئيا او كليا ☐ نعم ☐ ﻻ فى حالة اﻻجابة بنعم ﻻ يتم تقييم املشروع البحثى ويعتبر غير مجاز تقييم املشروع البحثى م عناصر التقييم الوزن التقييم النسبى 1 الشكل العام للرسالة البحثية 2 تحقق املتطلبات العلمية املطلوبة 3 يذكر املراجع واملصادر العلمية 4 الصياغة اللغوية واسلوب الكتابة جيد نتيجة التقييم النهائى /100 ☐ ناجح ☐ راسب توقيع لجنة التقييم 1. .2 .3 .4 .5 ترفق هذه اﻻستمارة كغﻻف للمشروع البحثى بعد استكمال البيانان بمعرفة الطالب وعلى ان ﻻ تزيد عن صفحة واحدة "Restoration comedy" is English comedy written and performed in the Restoration period from 1660 to 1710. Comedy of manners is used as a synonym of Restoration comedy.[1] After public stage performances had been banned for 18 years by the Puritan regime, the re-opening of the theatres in 1660 signalled a renaissance of English drama.[2] Sexually explicit language was encouraged by King Charles II (1660–1685) personally and by the rakish style of his court. Historian George Norman Clark argues: The best-known fact about the Restoration drama is that it is immoral. The dramatists did not criticize the accepted morality about gambling, drink, love, and pleasure generally, or try, like the dramatists of our own time, to work out their own view of character and conduct. What they did was, according to their respective inclinations, to mock at all restraints. Some were gross, others delicately improper....The dramatists did not merely say anything they liked: they also intended to glory in it and to shock those who did not like it.[3] The socially diverse audiences included both aristocrats, their servants and hangers-on, and a substantial middle-class segment. These playgoers were attracted to the comedies by up-to-the-minute topical writing, by crowded and bustling plots, by the introduction of the first professional actresses, and by the rise of the first celebrity actors. This period saw the first professional female playwright, Aphra Behn. Theatre companies Charles II was an active and interested patron of the drama. Soon after his restoration, in 1660, he granted exclusive play-staging rights, so-called Royal patents, to the King's Company and the Duke's Company, led by two middle- aged Caroline playwrights, Thomas Killigrew and William Davenant. The patentees scrambled for performance rights to the previous generation's Jacobean and Caroline plays, which were the first necessity for economic survival before any new plays existed. Their next priority was to build new, splendid patent theatres in Drury Lane and Dorset Gardens, respectively. Striving to outdo each other in magnificence, Killigrew and Davenant ended up with quite similar theatres, both designed by Christopher Wren, both optimally provided for music and dancing, and both fitted with moveable scenery and elaborate machines for thunder, lightning, and waves.[4] The dramatists of the Restoration renounced the tradition of satire, as recently embodied by Ben Jonson, and devoted themselves to the comedy of manners, which uncritically accepted the social code of the upper class.[5] The audience of the early Restoration period was not exclusively courtly, as has sometimes been supposed, but it was quite small and could barely support two companies. There was no untapped reserve of occasional playgoers. Ten consecutive performances constituted a smash hit. This closed system forced playwrights to be extremely responsive to popular taste. Fashions in the drama would change almost week by week rather than season by season, as each company responded to the offerings of the other, and new plays were urgently sought. The King's Company and the Duke's Company vied with one another for audience favour, for popular actors, and for new plays, and in this hectic climate the new genres of heroic drama, pathetic drama, and Restoration comedy were born and flourished.[6] United Company, 1682–1695[edit] Both the quantity and quality of the drama suffered when in 1682 the more successful Duke's Company absorbed the struggling King's Company, and the amalgamated United Company was formed. The production of new plays dropped off sharply in the 1680s, affected by both the monopoly and the political situation (see Decline of comedy below). The influence and the incomes of the actors dropped, too.[7] In the late 80s, predatory investors ("Adventurers") converged on the United Company, while management was taken over by the lawyer Christopher Rich. Rich attempted to finance a tangle of "farmed" shares and sleeping partners by slashing salaries and, dangerously, by abolishing the traditional perks of senior performers, who were stars with the clout to fight back.[8] War of the theatres, 1695–1700[edit] The company owners, wrote the young United Company employee Colley Cibber, "who had made a monopoly of the stage, and consequently presum'd they might impose what conditions they pleased upon their people, did not consider that they were all this while endeavouring to enslave a set of actors whom the public were inclined to support."[9] Performers like the legendary Thomas Betterton, the tragedienne Elizabeth Barry, and the rising young comedian Anne Bracegirdle had the audience on their side and, in the confidence of this, they walked out.[10] The actors gained a Royal "licence to perform", thus bypassing Rich's ownership of both the original Duke's and King's Company patents from 1660, and formed their own cooperative company. This unique venture was set up with detailed rules for avoiding arbitrary managerial authority, regulating the ten actors' shares, the conditions of salaried employees, and the sickness and retirement benefits of both categories. The cooperative had the good luck to open in 1695 with the première of William Congreve's famous Love For Love and the skill to make it a huge box- office success.[11] London again had two competing companies. Their dash to attract audiences briefly revitalised Restoration drama, but also set it on a fatal downhill slope to the lowest common denominator of public taste. Rich's company notoriously offered Bartholomew Fair-type attractions – high kickers, jugglers, ropedancers, performing animals – while the co-operating actors, even as they appealed to snobbery by setting themselves up as the only legitimate theatre company in London, were not above retaliating with "prologues recited by boys of five, and epilogues declaimed by ladies on horseback".[12] First actresses Restoration comedy was strongly influenced by the introduction of the first professional actresses. Before the closing of the theatres, all female roles had been taken by boy players, and the predominantly male audiences of the 1660s and 1670s were curious, censorious, and delighted at the novelty of seeing real women engage in risqué repartee and take part in physical seduction scenes. Samuel Pepys refers many times in his famous diary to visiting the playhouse to watch or re-watch the performance of particular actresses, and to how much he enjoys these experiences. Daringly suggestive comedy scenes involving women became especially common, although of course Restoration actresses were, just like male actors, expected to do justice to all kinds and moods of plays. (Their role in the development of Restoration tragedy is also important, compare She-tragedy.) First celebrity actors During the Restoration period, both male and female actors on the London stage became for the first time public personalities and celebrities. Documents of the period show audiences being attracted to performances by the talents of particular actors as much as by particular plays, and more than by authors (who seem to have been the least important draw, no performance being advertised by author until 1699). Although the playhouses were built for large audiences—the second Drury Lane theatre from 1674 held 2000 patrons – they were of compact design, and an actor's charisma could be intimately projected from the thrust stage. With two companies competing for their services from 1660 to 1682, star actors were able to negotiate star deals, comprising company shares and benefit nights as well as salaries. This advantageous situation changed when the two companies were amalgamated in 1682, but the way the actors rebelled and took command of a new company in 1695 is in itself an illustration of how far their status and power had developed since 1660. The greatest fixed stars among Restoration actors were Elizabeth Barry ("Famous Mrs Barry" who "forc 'd Tears from the Eyes of her Auditory") and Thomas Betterton, both of them active in organising the actors' revolt in 1695 and both original patent- holders in the resulting actors' cooperative. Betterton played every great male part there was from 1660 into the 18th century. After watching Hamlet in 1661, Samuel Pepys reports in his diary that the young beginner Betterton "did the prince's part beyond imagination." Betterton's expressive performances seem to have attracted playgoers as magnetically as did the novelty of seeing women on the stage. He was soon established as the leading man of the Duke's Company, and played Dorimant, the seminal irresistible Restoration rake, at the première of George Etherege's Man of Mode (1676). Betterton's position remained unassailable through the 1680s, both as the leading man of the United Company and as its stage manager and de facto day-to-day leader. He remained loyal to Rich longer than many of his co-workers, but eventually it was he who headed the actors' walkout in 1695, and who became the acting manager of the new company.
Recommended publications
  • An A2 Timeline of the London Stage Between 1660 and 1737
    1660-61 1659-60 1661-62 1662-63 1663-64 1664-65 1665-66 1666-67 William Beeston The United Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company @ Salisbury Court Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company & Thomas Killigrew @ Salisbury Court @Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields Sir William Davenant Sir William Davenant Rhodes’s Company @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Red Bull Theatre @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields George Jolly John Rhodes @ Salisbury Court @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane The King’s Company The King’s Company PLAGUE The King’s Company The King’s Company The King’s Company Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew June 1665-October 1666 Anthony Turner Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew Thomas Killigrew @ Vere Street Theatre @ Vere Street Theatre & Edward Shatterell @ Red Bull Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ Bridges Street Theatre @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane @ Bridges Street Theatre, GREAT FIRE @ Red Bull Theatre Drury Lane (from 7/5/1663) The Red Bull Players The Nursery @ The Cockpit, Drury Lane September 1666 @ Red Bull Theatre George Jolly @ Hatton Garden 1676-77 1675-76 1674-75 1673-74 1672-73 1671-72 1670-71 1669-70 1668-69 1667-68 The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company The Duke’s Company Thomas Betterton & William Henry Harrison and Thomas Henry Harrison & Thomas Sir William Davenant Smith for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant Betterton for the Davenant @ Lincoln’s Inn Fields
    [Show full text]
  • Jane Milling
    ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE ‘“For Without Vanity I’m Better Known”: Restoration Actors and Metatheatre on the London Stage.’ AUTHORS Milling, Jane JOURNAL Theatre Survey DEPOSITED IN ORE 18 March 2013 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10036/4491 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Theatre Survey 52:1 (May 2011) # American Society for Theatre Research 2011 doi:10.1017/S0040557411000068 Jane Milling “FOR WITHOUT VANITY,I’M BETTER KNOWN”: RESTORATION ACTORS AND METATHEATRE ON THE LONDON STAGE Prologue, To the Duke of Lerma, Spoken by Mrs. Ellen[Nell], and Mrs. Nepp. NEPP: How, Mrs. Ellen, not dress’d yet, and all the Play ready to begin? EL[LEN]: Not so near ready to begin as you think for. NEPP: Why, what’s the matter? ELLEN: The Poet, and the Company are wrangling within. NEPP: About what? ELLEN: A prologue. NEPP: Why, Is’t an ill one? NELL[ELLEN]: Two to one, but it had been so if he had writ any; but the Conscious Poet with much modesty, and very Civilly and Sillily—has writ none.... NEPP: What shall we do then? ’Slife let’s be bold, And speak a Prologue— NELL[ELLEN]: —No, no let us Scold.1 When Samuel Pepys heard Nell Gwyn2 and Elizabeth Knipp3 deliver the prologue to Robert Howard’s The Duke of Lerma, he recorded the experience in his diary: “Knepp and Nell spoke the prologue most excellently, especially Knepp, who spoke beyond any creature I ever heard.”4 By 20 February 1668, when Pepys noted his thoughts, he had known Knipp personally for two years, much to the chagrin of his wife.
    [Show full text]
  • Season of 1702-03
    Season of 1702-1703 nsofar as we can judge from scrappy evidence, the two companies arrived I at a modus vivendi of sorts this season. The bitter battles of the past few years and the very real threat of the collapse of the second company are no longer evident in prologues and epilogues: the accommodation that was to lead to joint performances at court in 1704 is starting to become evident. Probably neither company was flourishing, but both appear to have been sol- vent. Nonetheless, no insider could have imagined that the situation would remain long unchanged: the tiny and makeshift Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre was not viable for the long run. Sometime in the spring of 1703, John Van- brugh, observing an opportunity, started to canvass backers for a new theatre. His intentions are manifest in the calculations he made at this time (printed below, under “ca. April” 1703). Vanbrugh’s hope was to engineer a new theatrical union and recombine the two companies in an elegant new theatre of his own design. The personnel he pencilled into his plan show that while he intended to stage “opera” and dance, his primary repertory would be English plays. The two hostile companies of 1695 had fought themselves to a stalemate: Vanbrugh turned out to be the unexpected means by which Lon- don theatre escaped the circumstances in which it had become stuck. Unfortunately, the process was to be a bumpy one. Vanbrugh’s efforts to negotiate or force a union were to fail; his new theatre proved less than ideal for spoken plays; and his successful grab at an opera monopoly in 1708 was to put him at the verge of bankruptcy in just four months.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back o f the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 WOMEN PLAYWRIGHTS DURING THE STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL OF THE LONDON THEATRE, 1695-1710 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jay Edw ard Oney, B.A., M.A.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 X 10.5 Long Title.P65
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-58215-5 - The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre Edited by Deborah Payne Fisk Excerpt More information 1 EDWARD A. LANGHANS The theatre Our will and pleasure is that you prepare a Bill for our signature to passe our Greate Seale of England, containing a Grant unto our trusty and well beloved Thomas Killegrew Esquire, one of the Groomes of our Bed-chamber and Sir William Davenant Knight, to give them full power and authoritie to erect Two Companys of Players consisting respectively of such persons as they shall chuse and apoint; and to purchase or build and erect at their charge as they shall thinke ®tt Two Houses or Theaters.1 So began the draft of a warrant, dated 19 July 1660, allowing two courtiers of Charles II to have shared control of the London public theatre. The document went on to authorize Killigrew and Davenant to give perfor- mances with scenery and music, to establish ticket prices and employee salaries, and to suffer no rival companies. This draft, written, remarkably, by Davenant himself, served as the basis for a warrant a month later stating essentially the same thing and directing the two new managers to be their own censors of plays. By 1663 they had been granted de®nitive patents not only empowering them to run the only of®cial theatres in London but giving that authority to their heirs or assigns. Not until 1843 were the patents rescinded, and even today Drury Lane Theatre and the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, derive their rights from the royal grants of the 1660s.
    [Show full text]
  • Season of 1707-08 Is One of the Strangest and Most Interesting of the T Whole Eighteenth Century
    Season of 1707-1708 he season of 1707-08 is one of the strangest and most interesting of the T whole eighteenth century. The strained and unstable situation created in October 1706 manifestly could not last, but what would replace it? The management of Drury Lane changed significantly for the first time since 1693 when Sir Thomas Skipwith gave away his share to Colonel Henry Brett (a decision he subsequently regretted and managed to rescind).1 For the pre- sent, Christopher Rich was saddled with an energetic and innovation-minded partner—and one who was friendly with the actors, Colley Cibber in par- ticular. Whether Brett and Rich could coexist, and whether Brett could keep the performers happy, remained to be seen. The Queen’s Theatre, meanwhile, was marking time during the autumn under the management of Owen Swiney, awaiting the results of Vanbrugh’s machinations. It offered un- adorned plays, feebly opposed by Drury Lane’s tattered remnant of a com- pany, which held a temporary monopoly on opera as well as on the presenta- tion of song and dance in plays. Vanbrugh had been convinced by 1704 that big money was to be made in opera—and particularly in opera of the new Italian variety. The highly profi- table success of Arsinoe and Camilla at Drury Lane in 1705 and 1706 had confirmed him (and many others) in this delusion. What Vanbrugh really wanted was a single-company monopoly on all theatrical entertainments. He had settled for a genre split in 1706, but wanted the musical half, not the dramatic half.
    [Show full text]
  • A Re-Examination of Spectacle and the Spectacular in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714
    Changing Scenes and Flying Machines: A Re-examination of Spectacle and the Spectacular in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714 Lyndsey Bakewell A Doctoral Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy at Loughborough University October 2015 ©Lyndsey Bakewell, 2015 i Abstract Changing Scenes and Flying Machines: A Re-examination of Spectacle in Restoration Theatre, 1660-1714. Key words: Restoration Theatre, Spectacle, Plays, Machinery, Scenery, Costumes, Performers, Puppetry, Automata, Special Effects. This thesis builds upon the existing scholarship of theatrical historians such as Robert D. Hume, Judith Milhous and Jocelyn Powell, and seeks to broaden the notion of the term spectacle in relation to Restoration theatrical performances, as defined by Milhous as scenery, machinery, large cast sizes and music.1 By arguing that we should not see spectacle in Restoration theatre merely in terms of machinery and scenery, as some have done, but that it properly includes a wider range of elements, such as puppetry and performers, the thesis contends that spectacle on the Restoration stage was more of an integral aspect of theatrical development than previously thought. Through drawing on the wide aspects of theatrical presentation, including setting, stage use, mechanics, costumes and properties, puppetry and performers, this thesis examines how the numerous aspects of the Restoration performance, both in their singularity and as a collective, provided a performance driven by spectacle in order to create an appealing entertainment for its audience. In order to navigate and appreciate the complexity of theatrical performance in this period, the thesis has been divided into key aspects of theatrical presentation, each of which are argued to offer a variant of spectacle.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of the LIBERTINE HERO on the RESTORATION STAGE by JAMES BRYAN HILEMAN (Under the Direction of Elizabeth Kraft)
    THE RISE OF THE LIBERTINE HERO ON THE RESTORATION STAGE by JAMES BRYAN HILEMAN (Under the Direction of Elizabeth Kraft) ABSTRACT Structured in the style of a printed play of the period (though with only three acts), this study focuses on the proto-libertine hero in the plays of the restored stage of the 1660s and on the plays from whence he sprang. My goal is to revise the thinking about this figure, to cleanse him, and the times that produced him, of centuries of cultural effluvia by taking all these accumulations into account. He attained the zenith of his cultural career during the 1670s; his best representations, outside of the poems and the lives of noblemen such as the Earl of Rochester, are on the stage. In a sense he represents and embodies the last full flowering of the aristocracy before the commercial classes and their characteristic, Idealistic, Christian-humanist, bourgeois modes of thinking came to dominate English culture and to alternately effeminize and demonize this figure as ―the Restoration rake.‖ His Epicurean Materialism also parallels the rise of experimental science, though his fall does not. I examine his practice and the theory that informs him, his emphasis on inductive, a posteriori reasoning, the fancy-wit that combines sensations and ideas in order to create new conceptions, his notion that desire for largely physical pleasure is humanity‘s (and even women‘s) primary motivation, and his valuing the freedom to act and think contrary to ―official,‖ moral constraint, often in subversive, playful, and carnivalesque ways. This character‘s primary dramatic precursors are featured most prominently in the plays of John Fletcher, the most popular playwright of the seventeenth century, but also in those of James Shirley, Sir John Suckling, and Thomas Killigrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Colley Cibber - Poems
    Classic Poetry Series Colley Cibber - poems - Publication Date: 2012 Publisher: Poemhunter.com - The World's Poetry Archive Colley Cibber(6 November 1671 – 11 December 1757) Colley Cibber was an English actor-manager, playwright and Poet Laureate. His colourful memoir Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber (1740) describes his life in a personal, anecdotal and even rambling style. He wrote 25 plays for his own company at Drury Lane, half of which were adapted from various sources, which led <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/robert-lowe/">Robert Lowe</a> and <a href="http://www.poemhunter.com/alexander-pope/">Alexander Pope</a>, among others, to criticise his "miserable mutilation" of "crucified Molière [and] hapless Shakespeare". He regarded himself as first and foremost an actor and had great popular success in comical fop parts, while as a tragic actor he was persistent but much ridiculed. Cibber's brash, extroverted personality did not sit well with his contemporaries, and he was frequently accused of tasteless theatrical productions, shady business methods, and a social and political opportunism that was thought to have gained him the laureateship over far better poets. He rose to ignominious fame when he became the chief target, the head Dunce, of Alexander Pope's satirical poem Dunciad. Cibber's poetical work was derided in his time, and has been remembered only for being poor. His importance in British theatre history rests on his being one of the first in a long line of actor-managers, on the interest of two of his comedies as documents of evolving early 18th-century taste and ideology, and on the value of his autobiography as a historical source.
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    THE FORTUNES OF KING LEAR IN LONDON BETWEEN 1681 AND 1838: â chronological account of its adaptors, actors and editors, and of the links between them. Penelope Hicks University College London Ph.D ProQuest Number: U642864 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U642864 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract This thesis examines three interwoven strands in the dramatic and editorial history of King Lear between 1681 and 1838. One strand is the history of the adaptations which held the London stage during these years; the second is the changing styles of acting over the same period; the third is the work of the editors as they attempted to establish the Shakespearean text. This triple focus enables me to explore the paradoxical dominance of the adaptations at a time which saw both the text being edited for the first time and the rise of bardolatry. The three aspects of the fortunes ofKing Lear are linked in a number of ways, and I trace these connections as the editors, adaptors and actors concentrated on their own separate concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Restoration Comedies: the Man of Mode; the Country Wife; Love for Love
    THREE RESTORATION COMEDIES FREE DOWNLOAD Sir George Etherege,William Wycherley,William Congreve,Gamini Salgado | 368 pages | 17 Jun 2011 | Penguin Books Ltd | 9780140430271 | English | London, United Kingdom Three Restoration Comedies: The Man of Mode; The Country Wife; Love for love Caroline Tweedy rated it it was amazing Mar 11, During the second wave of Restoration comedy in the s, the "softer" comedies of William Three Restoration Comedies and John Vanbrugh reflected mutating cultural perceptions and great social change. Rich attempted to finance a tangle of "farmed" shares and sleeping partners by slashing salaries and, dangerously, by Three Restoration Comedies the traditional perks of senior performers, who were stars with the clout to fight back. A unique blending of emotional and intellectual experience. When Jeremy Collier attacked Congreve and Vanbrugh in his Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage inhe was confirming a shift in audience Three Restoration Comedies that had already taken place. Nicholas Taylor-Collins rated it really liked it Mar 19, All the humour of this "comedy" is in the subsidiary love-chase and fornication plots, none in the main plot. Such an arrangement would not allow remarriage. Fashions in the drama would change almost week by week rather than season by season, as each company responded to the offerings of the other, and new plays were urgently sought. She is enthusiastic about the virile handsomeness of town gallants, rakes, and especially theatre actors such self-referential stage jokes were nourished by the new higher status of actorsand keeps Pinchwife in a state of continual horror with her plain-spokenness and her interest in sex.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Britain: Performances of Stuart Succession in Dublin, Edinburgh, and London
    RESTORING BRITAIN: PERFORMANCES OF STUART SUCCESSION IN DUBLIN, EDINBURGH, AND LONDON by Deirdre O’Rourke BA, Washington University in St. Louis, 2006 Masters of Arts, University of Pittsburgh, 2008 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Deirdre O’Rourke It was defended on April 2, 2014 and approved by Dr. Attilio Favorini, Professor Emeritus, Theatre Arts Dr. Bruce McConachie, Professor, Theatre Arts Dr. Jennifer Waldron, Assistant Professor, English Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, Assistant Professor, Theatre Arts ii Copyright © by Deirdre O’Rourke 2014 iii RESTORING BRITAIN: PERFORMANCES OF STUART SUCCESSION IN DUBLIN, EDINBURGH, AND LONDON Deirdre O’Rourke, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 Though much worthy scholarship exists about English Restoration theatre, few studies examine the intersections between theatrical activity in London and its British “sister” cities of Dublin and Edinburgh and the stakes of Stuart restoration and British union for all three kingdoms expressed through theatre and performance. This dissertation is a historiographical reconfiguration of the Restoration period that analyzes how theatre and performance in Dublin, Edinburgh, and London contributed to Charles II’s reestablishment of Stuart rule and British union. My project brings together new British history and performance studies to uncover the British theatrical and cultural performances that re-defined union during Charles II’s restoration. I examine Stuart succession through three case-studies: beheadings, Shakespeare adaptations, and the actress.
    [Show full text]