Re: The Demonization of Shakespeare

On 09/07/2025 10:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:

Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:28:38 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:

<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from
something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>

>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.

>
I don't think its a problem here, either, except, of course, that
being 13 they are very excitable.
>
Young teenagers with swords duelling in the streets -- what could
possibly go wrong?
>

However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress.  This could be brought up.

>
I believe Hamlet remarks on the hope that a boy actor's voice hasn't
yet changed. At some point, the idea of having female actors caught
on. IIRC, there was at least one female who played Hamlet. And was
very effective in the role.

>
In Aubrey's "Brief Lives" he mentions one daring theatre manager who
allowed women to play on stage circa 1660.

That - the Restoration - was when actresses were first tolerated. It was 16662 when Charles II Charles II issued royal patents to theatre companies, formally permitting women to play women’s roles.
<https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/the-first-english-actresses/>

>
In the comedy "Upstart Crow" Kate aspires to be an actress but only
succeeds once by disguising herself as a boy.  I recall figuring out
that if Kate were real, she'd have been about 85 before being allowed on
the stage.

She'd have been a riot as the nurse.