C:\Documents and Settings\Sara\My Documents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Women, Performance, and the Household in Early Modern England 1580-1660 by Sara Louise Mueller A thesis submitted to the Department of English in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September, 2007 Copyright © Sara Louise Mueller, 2007 Abstract The texts and records of the household performances of early modern women collected and examined in this thesis, which together have not yet been the subject of any extended scholarly work, reveal that women performed in the household far more often and in many more ways than is yet acknowledged in scholarship. These texts and records also show that the household could be an amenable performance space for early modern women, both amateur and professional, aristocratic and not. This reconceptualization of the place of women’s performances in the household, I argue, necessitates an adjustment of received ideas of the ethical and moral status of those performances as well as a reevaluation of the household itself. I reassess the equation between theatrical performance and immorality and interrogate the “inheren[t] subversive[ness]” that one critic argues is found in all women’s household plays. While I maintain that women’s household performances could have multiple significations, this thesis focuses on performances that permitted women to shape their own reputations positively in household space, where women were agents influencing domestic life through their theatre. Chapter 1, the Introduction, outlines the critical field, positions women within the performance tradition of the household, and discusses the status of their performances, centering on the relationship between theatrical performance, agency, and feminine virtue. Chapter 2 focuses on royal progress entertainment, discussing the performances of domestic virtue of Queen Elizabeth’s female hosts which not only had the capacity to be received as virtuous, but worked to promote familial and class ii legitimacy. Chapter 3 talks about the banquets created and served by women, identifying those banquets as a form of theatre, and linking women’s creativity with their embodiment of domestic ideals through the performance of hospitality. Chapter 4 discusses touring women performers as accepted, acknowledged, and skillful theatre professionals who were licenced by the state to perform and who were permitted to perform in households and towns across England. iii Acknowledgments I have received a tremendous amount of support and encouragement over the course of my doctoral studies from my parents, grandfather, family, and friends. I am extremely thankful for everything. The insight, rigor, and generosity of my supervisor, Marta Straznicky, and my second reader, Leslie Ritchie, have been of immeasurable help to me. I would also like to thank the faculty, staff, and students of the Department of English at Queen’s University for their kindness and intellectual stimulation at every stage of my graduate education. The librarians at the British Library, the Bodleian, and Queen’s University, Kingston helped me navigate through the archives, enriching my project substantially. Finally, I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship Program, and Queen’s University for funding my research. iv Contents Abstract ii-iii Acknowledgments iv Contents v Illustrations vi Chapter 1 The Texts and Records of Women’s Household 1-40 Theatre in Early Modern England Chapter 2 Domestic Performances in Elizabethan Royal Progress 41-83 Entertainment Chapter 3 “To the great delight and pleasure shew to the company”: Early 84-145 Modern Banquets, Receipt Books, and Women’s Domestic Theatre Chapter 4 Touring, Women, and the Professional Stage 146-93 Works Cited 194-212 v Illustrations 1. Frontispiece of John Taylor’s The Needle’s Excellency (1640). 58 2. Anonymous. “Peacocke in his Plumage to be Served at 85 the Table” (Mead 177). 3. A banqueting house at Montacute House (Sim 62). 99 4. Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire (c.1550) (Girouard 95). 99 5. The Triangular Lodge, Rushton, Northamptonshire (1595) 100 (Girouard 96). 6. Title page of Gervase Markham’s The English Huswife , 106 published with Country Contentments (1615). 7. Title page of the first edition of Robert May’s The Accomplish’t 113 Cook (1660). 8. Title page of the 1617 edition of Hugh Plat’s Delights for Ladies. 114 9. Detail of Robert May’s The Accomplish’t Cook. 118 10. Title page of a pamphlet featuring Tannikin Skinker (1640). 178 11. Barbara Urslerin, the Hairy-faced Woman (1658?) 186 (Johnston 12). vi Chapter 1 The Texts and Records of Women’s Household Theatre in Early Modern England We have not . theorized within the cultural strategies of theatre history of almost any form of event that is non-metropolitan and/or non-professional. — Peter Holland 1 The remaining texts and records of early modern women’s household theatre document a rich and various performance tradition. To give a few examples, in both 1626 and 1627, Judith Edwards staged masques for her daughter, Susan ( Sussex 198). Women in the family of Sir Thomas Salusbury performed in his plays and masques which were “presented in a variety of manor houses” in the 1630s (Stokes, “Women and Mimesis” 186). Salusbury’s A Masque at Knowsley House (1640), commissioned and performed by the Stanley family, featured male and female aristocratic actors in speaking roles. A masque was performed by the daughters of Sir John Croft at Croft’s house, Saxham Parva, on 22 December 1621 (McGee and Meagher, “Preliminary Checklist of Tudor and Stuart Entertainments: 1614-25” 101). In Eccles, the St Mary’s Parish Register records the 1616 death of “Ellen Thropp, called Mr Atherton’s fool” ( Lancashire 244). Thropp also appears in the household account books of the Shuttleworth family as 1 Holland “Theatre without Drama” 53-4. 1 a temporary dairy keeper, and, possibly, as a musician representing Atherton (Harland 39- 40). 2 The Countess of Huntingdon had a dramatic circle at house, Ashby. 3 In 1533 Thomas Cawarden was commissioned by the Earl of Northumberland “to apoynt out a couple of fayre masques, oon of men and another of women” to be performed at a number of weddings (Stokes, “Women and Mimesis” 186). 4 Margaret Robert orchestrated a spectacle for which she borrowed a horse to have it beaten, possibly as entertainment (Sussex 208). On 28 April 1607, the Churchwarden’s Presentments to the Peculiar Court in Wimbourne Minster “present[ed] margaret fuller for kyping of play at service & sermon” ( Bristol 285). And in the mid-1670s, the Bruce family commissioned two plays from R. Carleton, one of which, The Martial Queen , featured an almost all-female cast, 2 In 1587, The House and Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths of Gawthorpe Hall record a payment to “Ellen Throppe the dey [dairy keeper] for a quarter and a forte night services” (40); earlier in that year, the Shuttleworth accounts record a payment to “a musicione of Mr. Athertones” (39) who could possibly be Thropp herself, though this is not verifiable. If Thropp was the musician, she would have worked as fool to Atherton, as a temporary dairy keeper to the Shuttleworth family, and, possibly, as a musician paid by the Shuttleworths over the course of her lifetime. 3 BL 25707 contains evidence of the dramatic pieces performed by Huntingdon’s circle. Furthermore, the dramatic games included in Sloane 848 following the manuscript account of the entertainment given to welcome the Dowager Countess of Derby at Ashby by the Countess of Huntingdon in 1607 might have been played and performed by the circle as well. 4 Although the scope of this study is restricted to late sixteenth and seventeenth century drama, there is evidence, like the Cawarden record, which substantiates women’s involvement in medieval and late-medieval household theatre. See especially Suzanne Westfall “‘A Commonty a Christmas gambold or a tumbling trick’” 39-58 and James Stokes “Women and Mimesis” 187. 2 complete with women dressed as men. 5 None of these records or texts has been the subject of extended scholarly discussion. All of them confront in important ways the prevailing narratives of women, theatre, and the household in early modern England. Plays and records which document the range of women’s household performances put to rest the fiction that theatre before 1660 was the exclusive purview of men. 6 These examples also indicate that women performed in far more various ways than the few acknowledged exceptions—the silent dances of female masquers, closet dramas written (and perhaps performed) by a select group of elite women, and performances in guild drama—allow. 7 The large number of 5 Carleton’s manuscript, MS Eng Poet d2 is at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University. The manuscript also features other plays written for the Bruce family, including Concealed Royalty or The May Queen (performed 1674). 6 For more on women’s theatre, both amateur and professional, see Pamela Allen Brown and Peter Parolin’s Women Players in England, 1500-1660. Sophie Tomlinson’s Women on Stage in Stuart Drama finds too that the emergence of the actress on the Restoration stage was the culmination of the dramatic engagement of women throughout the seventeenth century, though she focuses exclusively on the performances of aristocratic women: if we take a long view of the sixty-year period leading up to the Restoration, it is possible to chart changes of attitude towards the idea of actresses in English society, culminating in the experimental productions of William Davenant in the late 1650s in which women stand on a semi- public stage. These changes can be shown to have originated in the innovative theatrical performances of the Danish Queen Anna and the French Queen Henrietta-Maria at the early Stuart courts. (2) As for the performances of women before the Restoration which are acknowledged as a part of theatrical history, there has been, of course, much scholarship.