Some background information:
Although the period we're concerned with for class is generally considered to be between 1740 and 1800, the landmark event of this age in drama occurred in 1737, a Licensing Act that required the Lord Chamberlain's, a government official's, approval of any new play. The political satire embedded in the theatrical world at the time was growing more and more critical of the government, sometimes even crassly so, as you may (or may not) see in the excerpt from The Vision of the Golden Rump. This play, although never performed, was the tipping point for the establishment of the Act. Pay close attention to the descriptions, especially on the first few pages. It is perhaps helpful to know that George II was particularly known for his large posterior, and Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister of London, was considered rotund in this time period. Official documents cite The Vision of the Golden Rump in the creation of the Licensing Act.
As you read the three texts for Wednesday, consider these questions for all three texts:
What is the tone of this piece?
Is the tone rude or unfair?
What is the piece attempting to accomplish for its audience?
Does the piece have its attended (as you define in the previous question) effect?
6 comments:
Rather than provide answers to the considerations posted above (sorry in advance for that), I almost find it necessary to pose more questions.
Based on what we learned in Monday's class about plays and theater-going in the C18 in general, prologues and epilogues were an important part of the overall experience. If I recall correctly, they were performed during the "farce" part of the night and they involved more audience interaction, allowing things that wouldn't otherwise be said because of censorship to surface. Keeping that in mind, I can't really read Mrs. Bulkeley's "Prologue to Percy" as anything "deeper" than what's actually written. My interpretation of it was that it meant to say what it does: express the opinion that women should have the equal opportunity to write, just like men; "to share...if not the force, the feather of the Pen." Mrs. Abington's "Epilogue," on the other hand, I have a harder time interpreting because, although she's performing it as a female (at least I assume a performance is what would have occurred), it's noted that it was written by a man. I can't help but wonder, then, if and how that alters the overall meaning. (It's also interesting to note, that the prologue has no noted writer. Are we to assume the speaker is also the writer?)
Overall I suppose I'm wondering if we're to take these prologues and epilogues at face value or interpret them at a deeper level? Does the writer vs. the speaker matter in these cases? Does it matter than these issues are being brought up during the "farce" rather than the main performance? Does that somehow reduce their level of importance, particularly when being expressed in the light and social atmosphere of the C18 theater?
Scratch my previous comment about the prologue's lack of author. I just checked the emailed citations and it looks like that it was ALSO written by a man--interesting considering I THOUGHT I had a grasp on the overall message, but now I may have to rethink it. Am I now to read it as sarcastic or is there a possibility the male author could've really been advocating for female voices?
The rest of my questions I suppose, despite my momentary ignorance, still apply overall. :)
In an attempt to answer the questions posted about tone, I need to make a disclaimer. I am a little bit confused by the Golden Rump passage, specifically the poem at the end. However, if we are supposed to compare the worshiping of the Golden Rump to the English monarchy and government, then I see a lot of satire embedded in the piece. The men are giving their fortune to the idol god in order to make him fat and wealthy. In return they get a rationed amount of food. Thus, I think the message behind the satire is that it is an unfair practice. With the background information given, it seems that the writer is also directly poking fun at the king.
The epilogue and prologue have different tones. The prologue seemed less satirical. Through the discussion on Monday, we know women like Burney were interested in writing for the theater. So the prologue is more of a genuine campaign for women writers. I am not sure whether this was the intended effect but it seems like this prologue would get the audience talking and the writer known.
The epilogue holds a middle ground between the Golden Rump and the prologue. It doesn't seem as genuine as the prologue but is not embedded with as much satire as the Golden Rump. The epilogue specifically mentions the workings of Parliament. The topic of censorship is being depicted as a bad thing, but in comparison to the Golden Rump the satire is not as harsh.
It's really nice to see women taking control and getting empowered by their gender. Usually, women act submissive and don't challenge gender roles because they are comfortable with their roles in relation to men. But, in the Epilogue and Prologue, both women explicitly state how their gender is superior to man's. The Prologue states that Mrs. Bulkeley is a female and proud of it. She says, "I come the friend and champion of my sex...we can, as well as men, do any thing; nay better too, perhaps" (343?). The Epilogue, spoken by Mrs. Abbington, says that "Ours is the wiser sex, though deem'd the weaker" (72). It is also noteworthy that Epilogue talks about politics and how women are not as ignorant and uniformed as men might make them out to be during that time period. Mrs. Abbington refers to herself as a mouse in the house, which I interpreted to be the same as being a fly on the wall. In other words, she hears and sees a lot more than others give her credit for and she is very involved with political endeavors.
I thought the voice of the Prologue to Percy was the strongest because Mrs. Bulkeley was passionate with her argument for women playwrights. She says, "Can't we rite plays, or, damn 'em, if we please?"(343?) If women are allowed to attend plays and view them with a more sentimental attitude, then why should they not be allowed to critique them as well? And if they did offer opinions, would they be taken seriously? She goes on to say that men can write plays without any guilt, like it's of no importance to them. She ends her monologue by saying, "A brave man will protect, not hurt a women; let us with modestly to share with men, if not the force, the feather of the pen" (345). "Protect" is an awkward word in this sentence because I think depending on who you ask, protection is different from men and women. I mean, women should be protected as an inferior sex who need male protection and men should protect their delicate senses. However, from a woman's perspective, women should be protected by men to a certain extent; they should not impede a woman's desire to expand her talents.
Going off of Michelle's comments on the prologue and epilogue and in addition to my interpretation of "The Vision of the Golden Rump," the most important quality to note in all three pieces is the satirizing of late 18th century politics. "Golden Rump" itself satirizes the English political system as a whole. As Aaron noted in his blog post, George II's oversized posterior clearly made an impact in the text's title, but one of the most important political digs occurs on page 7, stating "the Tickets entitled the Bearers to certain Commanderies, Privileges, and Emoluments, from which all other Citizens were excluded...and some of them, contrary to my Expectation, seemed to be dissatisfied with their Portions." This idea of certain rights and amenities being shelled out and still receiving negative reactions notes on the social hierarchy in England. "Golden Rump,"the prologue, and epilogue note the current political climate (and its surrounding issues)as a way of expressing the views of the citizenry.
The Prologue brings to mind the issues we discussed last week concerning sense & sensibility. By satirizing the woes of women in society and politics, the text works to illustrate how ridiculous the lesser treatment of women truly is. Sensibility works, in this theatrical piece, as a way to exhibit the mediocrity of how women are viewed in society and the small-mindedness of those views.
Despite my grasp on the satire, I had trouble understanding parts of "Golden Rump." Are there any other political events, issues, or references we as readers need to know to fully grasp the text?
If you have any more thoughts or comments on drama in the period, feel free to post and we'll try to answer or respond as well as we can. If not, thanks for participating!
Post a Comment