Theatre as an art form has a long history of pressing the boundaries of gender.
The tradition of men portraying women on public stages dates back to the theatre of the Ancient Greeks, and is presentin several other theatrical traditionsfrom around the world. The reasons for the development of these traditions, which were to endure to various degrees for thousands of years, are intricatelyconnected to how concepts of genderand sex were understood, and specificallythe role of women in society. AncientGreek women, like many women ofShakespeare’s England, did not have the right to vote or own property, and were expected to remain at home and rear children.
Many of these same concepts were to form the core of 17th century English genderdynamics. During the time of Shakespeareand the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I, English ideas of sex and gender, the legal rights of women and the social expectations of femininity allplayed a significant role in the way that theatre was performed, the stories it told and who told them. In addition to other legal restrictions on the rights of women,there was considerable social pressureon women to behave according to specificsocial roles. Women were expected to besubservient, quiet and homebound, withtheir primary ambitions entirely confinedto marriage, childbirth and homemaking;granted, social status and economic classplayed into what degree these expectationsmanifested, with the chief example being Queen Elizabeth I herself.
Acting was, in some ways, the exact opposite of those expectations, and female actors were associated with sexualincontinence, prostitution, lasciviousness and indecency. Though there is evidencethat women acted in street performances, and in other notorious venues, all commercial acting companies of the time were made up entirely of men andit was illegal for women to act on stage professionally until 1661. Despite the profession of acting having a less than virtuous reputation, as well as a growing orthodox Christian objection to the theatre, these all-male companies were deemed as socially legitimate becausethey did not threaten gender hierarchy.Only the idea of women was portrayed andembodied on stage, and not the reality.These professional companies were oftenfinanced by royal patronage, for example, The King’s Players.
Pictured: Woodcut of Mary Frith smoking a pipe and holding a sword. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia Commons.
To have a greater understanding of whythe practice of young men playing women was an accepted convention in Elizabethan England, and why women were legallyrestricted from the stage, it is helpful to examine contemporary concepts of gender. There were two central influences in the way that sex and gender were constructedin Early Modern England: medicine andreligion. Medical science of the time reliedheavily upon the work of Greek and Romanphilosophers like Plato, Hippocrates and Galen among many others, to understandand treat the human body. This medical tradition held that female humans wereessentially incomplete or unfinished males; a phenomenon caused by a lack of heat that would have otherwise resultedin the formation of male genitalia. It followed that women were understood as being weaker, more prone to psychological and physical ailment and in need of supervision, control and at times restraint by the one true sex, men.
Curiously, biblical ideas conflicted withsecular ones about sex and gender; the Bible made room for two distinct yetunequal sexes: Adam and Eve. Though theEnglish crown had split from the Roman Catholic Church during the 15th century,in the reign of King Henry VIII, Christianbiblical values still governed much ofthe way that gender was understoodand coded. Though there are conflictingmessages about sex and gender in theBible, it was deployed by Early ModernEnglish society to enforce the idea thatwomen were in need of domination andstewardship by men. Additionally, the Biblewas used to enforce gender expectations for all people, and to prohibit the practice of“cross-dressing.”
Despite a few differences, these two main influences manifested in similar legal and social expectations for women of the time and enforced a strict binary betweenmen and women. When a woman of thisperiod transgressed gender boundaries and dressed in men’s clothing in public,it associated her with the same social stigma that faced female actors, except that she was subject to arrest andimprisonment. One such woman was named Mary Frith, who was nicknamedMoll Cutpurse. Mary regularly went out in public dressed in men’s clothing and was associated with London’s criminal underground. She was also the subjectof the 17th century play The Roaring Girl. Such behavior was understood as a threat to gender hierarchies of the time, and any woman apprehended “cross-dressing” was understood to be in rebellion against her betters, i.e. men. Any man caught in similar circ*mstances was also punished, as dressing in women’s clothing was understood as a perversion of masculinity and a sign of moral and sexual degeneration.
Though the consequences for what is referred to as “cross-dressing” in public were considerable on a legal and social level, the theatre was a unique arena in which gender could be manipulated and toyed with in public, albeit by men only.Whether or not the practice of men playing women was generally perceived as a legitimate threat to masculinity is open for interpretation; it also can’t be said for sure whether or not such a practice constituted an intentional challenge to the hierarchy or construction of gender in Early Modern England. Regardless, it was standard theatrical practice for men to portray women on stage in mannerism and in costume and for playwrights to write towards this expectation, just as it was convention for audiences to be fully aware of this practice.
Pictured: Sarah Bernhardt portrays the title role of Hamlet (1899). Photo courtesy of the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division.
During Shakespeare’s time, theatres were experiencing social and legal pressurefrom the growing conservative Puritanism of the era. Tracts against the theatreoften pointed to the moral and spiritualdanger present in contemporary theatricalpractices, including the portrayal of women by young men. These tracts also pointed to the danger in the act of public commercial theatre in general, especially because it destabilized gender expectations for women. The theatre was a commercialinterest where women were, in Puritanimagination, at risk of overthrowing theirrightful masters by exercising economicand social independence. These Puritan interests succeeded in shuttering the theatres for a period between 1642 and 1660, during the political turmoil of the English Civil Wars and Restoration.Even after 1661, with the rule of KingCharles II, when women were legallyallowed to act professionally, the negative social stigma of acting and the attendinggender expectations were still in effect.As time passed and women of all races fought and agitated for expanded rights and privileges both in England and its colonies, and then later in what is nowknown as the United States, gender roles and expectations continued to change. In addition to the law, these changes were reflected (and sometimes caused by) evolutions in style, business, education and art. As women continued to be involved in theatre, gender play of a different sort emerged.
Perhaps one of the most famous examplesof a woman portraying a man is Sarah Bernhardt’s 1899 performance as Hamlet. In fact, by the turn of the 20th century ithad become increasingly common forwomen to portray men in what was termed “breeches” roles. Scientific constructionsof sex and gender have continued to shiftsince the time of Shakespeare alongside an ever-evolving social understandingof sex and gender. Of special note arecurrent social trends with regard to gender non-conformity and gender varianceamongst humans that are inviting new andexciting questions into the performanceof Shakespeare’s storied work. At a timewhen gender non-conforming people arebecoming more accepted in mainstreamentertainment, the possibilities and challenges of Shakespeare’s texts deepen.All female companies such as Phyllida Lloyd’s all-female Henry IV, and companies that include trans and gender nonconforming actors, such as Chicago’s own Eclectic Full Contact Theatre’s As You LikeIt, are continuing to push boundaries anddiscover new interpretations.
