|
Thomas Heywood was
a prolific writer for the Jacobean stage. He claimed to have had
a hand in upwards of 220 plays, though less than one-tenth of that
number survives. Although Heywood had the degree to certify him
a "University wit," his drama pandered more to the merchant
and working classes of London and its environs than to the intellectual
élites of the civic center (Farley-Hills 15-16). The
Wise Woman of Hogsdon is a case in point. The title character
is the axis on which a woman-centered subset of society—resistant
to patriarchal control of female sexuality, marriage, childbirth,
and healing practices—turns. She is the nemesis of the central
male character, a profligate city rake named Chartley, who contracts
himself to three different women over the course of the play. In
the play's dénouement, Heywood makes the titular wise woman
the playwright/director of a scene in which Chartley is sharply
upbraided for his antics and wedded to the first of his lovers.
In her seminal analysis
of The Wise Woman of Hogsdon, Jean Howard poses the question:
How would women in the audience have responded to the depictions
of their g ender
in this play? On the one hand, the two "wise women" of
the play—the titular one and, quite possibly, the "actual"
wise woman—Chartley's first fiancée, 2nd Luce—resolve
the many romantic dilemmas of the play's convoluted plot through
a series of double-crosses. However, for most of the play, including
the scene excerpted here, 2nd
Luce is disguised as the wise woman's boy servant, Jacke. Though
the audience is repeatedly told that "he" is a woman in
disguise, they are, in fact, seeing a boy orchestrate the play's
complex coupling dénouement on two levels: 2nd Luce is disguised
as a boy, and her part would have been taken by a boy actor.
This raises the more
wide-ranging question: What did women see when they saw themselves
depicted on the early modern British stage? How did they respond
to portrayals of themselves mounted by boy actors and male playwrights?
Did they perceive the forthright antics of a character like 2nd
Luce, or the social transgressions of a white witch/brothel madam/baby
broker like the Wise Woman of Hogsdon as experiments in
gender role performance which they could replicate, on some level,
in their own lived experience? Or did they see such behavior as
licensed by its place on the public stage in London's liberties,
where it was performed by male actors pretending to be transgressive
women, thus eroding the potential subversiveness of the transgressions
depicted?
When teaching and
directing such examples of intransigent early modern women, it is
probably best to steer a middle course between these two extremes
and assume, as critics such as Jean Howard and Gail Kern Paster
do, that at least some of the female audience members in attendance
would have been aware of and sympathetic to the critiques of existing
gender role strictures when they saw them spoofed, violated and,
in some cases, reified in obviously problematic ways on the public
stage.
Regina
Buccola
Roosevelt University
Suggested Reading
Farley-Hills, David. Jacobean Drama:
A Critical Survey of the Professional Drama,
1600-1625. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
Heywood, Thomas. Wise-woman of Hogsdon:
A critical edition. Edited by Michael H. Leonard. New York:
Garland, 1980
Howard, Jean E. The Stage and Social
Struggle in Early Modern England. New York:
Routledge, 1994.
Levine, Laura. Men in Women's Clothing:
Anti-Theatricality and Effeminization, 1579-
1642. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Paster, Gail Kern. The Body Embarrassed:
Drama and the Disciplines of Shame in Early
Modern Culture. New York: Cornell University Press, 1993.
|
|