Good point. Court masques were certainly acceptable activities for nobles of
both sexes. Elizabeth herself performed in them. I'm not sure how we can
explain the difference in perception. Perhaps the fact that the theater was a
paid venue? Or that with court masques the audience was composed of equals in
rank, you didn't mix with the "hoi polloi." Or just plain moral hypocrisy, at
least from our pc point of view.
Here's a link to an article on court masques and court comedies which is
interesting. (If I stage a play and call it by another name is it still a play?
;) ) :
http://www.theatredatabase.com/16th_century/court_comedies_and_masques_001.html
Come to that, though, I vaguely recall reading of amateur theatricals at
house parties in the 18th century so I'm not sure the upper classes ever
entirely abandoned a tolerance for dressing up, as long as you weren't being
paid and you weren't being watched by your social inferiors.
I have a feeling much of the disapproval for various activities originated in
the middle class. Austen's family probably was representative of the upper
middle class rather than upper class, and her works reflect those middle class
social values. Ditto for the Londoners that wanted to ban the theater in
Elizabethan times. The push seems to have come from Parliament and from
religious reformers, not members of the uppper classes.
Sean Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From this perspective, what should we make of Thos. Campion's Maske of Flowers
>where nobility acted out and sang the parts?
Sean Smith
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new
and used cars.
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
