Play-Boys on the Renaissance Stage

[Ganymede]

Boys as women.  Seems unbelievable to us, yet was probably commonplace to Shakey and his contemporaries.  How do you think audiences reacted to these boys?  What do you think these boys looked like?  Were they believable?  Do you think the audience had to suspend disbelief and give into fantasy?  What do you make of the anti-theatricalists' panic over the tradition?  

[shaxper]

I think that, since the class system was more concrete back then (though things were certainly begining to change) people were often trained to see a person more as the garments they wore (indicating their station in life) more than the face.  There weren't many concrete ideas about what femininity was, for example, other than the fact that women wore dresses and were expected to do different things in their life station (often cook, clean, and rear children).  A boy playing a woman would have no facial hair, a high voice, could probably stuff his chest, and would be wearing a dress.  I think that would be enough to convince an Elizabethan audience.  Keep in mind too that there is a willingness to believe the actor when viewing a play, and so even in a modern production today, if a boy were to play Cleopatra for example, we might find it odd at first, but would eventually learn to accept it.  

I don't think the Elizabethan audiences were tricked or fooled.  They knew full well that these were boy actors (as suggested in both Cleopatra and Rosalynd's self aware lines that refer to their being played by boys), but they were able to get past it for the duration of the show.

[Ganymede]

Well, boys and women were considered to be very similar, and not just in physical appearance (beardless, shorter, higher voice), psychologically as well (not as smart as men, childish, ruled by passions over reason, etc.).  Thinking of women and boys in this way allowed men to dominate both groups, who had to submit to male authority.  I suspect audience reaction depended on who was watching.  For example, women may have responded with more skepticism than men.  (There are a few such responses from women that have survived-- the few I've seen pointed to a hightened awareness of the contrived nature of the boys' performances.  Interestingly, the one male reaction I found was one of awe at the skill of the boy, whom the man referred to as a "she.")  

Also, I think reactions would depend on the costumes these boys wore.  Did they wear padding to indicate breasts?  What sort of makeup did they wear?  Did they look like women, or like boys trying to be women?  I suspect this varied depending on the role that was being performed-- whether humor or deep emotion was the desired effect.  

Then there's the question of eroticism on the stage.  The anti-theatricalists recognized the erotic nature of the play-boy costume.  These boys could be objects of desire for both sexes because as boys in women's clothing, they blended the sexes.  The anti-theatricalists took this further, believing that the female clothing had the power to transform the boy into a woman, even going so far as to transform genitalia "magically."  Because the genitalia was covered under all that clothing, it becomes mysterious.  Also, let's not forget that if the boy were to leave the stage in costume, unless there was a festival going on, he would be taken for a woman.  If his portrayal of femininity was believable, what does that say about gender roles?  It could imply that gender is constructed, not natural.  This conclusion would have deep repercussions in Renaissance society, which was entirely based on patriarchy-- on the domination of one sex by the other.  

I find this topic fascinating, which is why I decided to bring it up.  

If anyone has anything else to add, please do!  
Thanks!

[shaxper]

You raise some very interesting points!

It's important to mention also that much of Renaissance England was carefully constructed, and anything but natural.  Dress, for example, was highly complicated, uncomfortable, and often required hours of preparation and the help of servants for the high class.  The rising middle class probably dressed themselves, but put a similar amount of work into their appearances so as to rise in status.  Then there were the peasants, who toiled all day and were too busy to worry about constructs and social dividers at all.  Let's also not forget that each class was required by law to wear clothing that was fitting of their own social status.  Where's the nature in that?

In fact, the very social hierarchy of Renaissance England was highly constructed.  Belief systems were enforced by law in the same way that types of dress were.  The English were Catholic until Henry VIII ordered them to be Protestant.  They were Protestant until Mary killed anyone who wasn't Catholic, and they remained Catholic until Elizabeth ordered them to be Protestant and attend Protestant Church every Sunday.  You could argue that life in Renaissance England consisted largely of laws that shaped and defined your personality.  There was very little freedom (and certainly no incentive) to discover yourself or get in touch with one's natural, innate self.  

Thus the power of cross dressing on the stage.  If life was one giant construct based upon artificial signs of class and identity, then maybe wearing a dress DID make you a woman.  You could even say the idea of "woman" and "female" might have been seperate ideas at the time.  A female had breasts and a vagina and could give birth.  A woman was a person with a certain status, and expectations in terms of dress and duties, and in most cases, a woman WAS a female.  But were the two ideas really interchangable back then?  Who knows?

[Harry]

My own guess is that the boys did a credible job of imitating women. I don't think they fooled many, but the audience didn't have to work too hard to suspend disbelief. The believability of the men playing women in Shakespeare in Love might give an indication of how believable such roles could be. The boy who played Juliet (before his voice broke on opening night leading to a last-minute substitution) looked like a boy playing a girl, but playing it straight and fairly believably. The older man playing the Nurse was doing it for laughs and looked and sounded like a guy in drag.  

[The_Turtle]

Forgive me for not being scholarly, but I think they didn't give it a thought. Just as we today do not bother with the notion that aliens in Star Trek are just dressed up human beings. Perhaps the comparison is a bit off but I think it might just hold. No doubt there's a lot of hilarity backstage at a Star Trek shoot, but the audience just accepts the 'alien' although they full well know it's a man or woman playing a role.

[shaxper]

I can see where you're coming from, but I'd also argue that the difference between a Cardassian (a guy in heavy makeup) and an "Alien" (From the Ridley Scott/James Cameron films) might be similar to the difference between a boy in women's clothing and a boy wearing padding, makeup, and carefully emulating feminine movement.  While we don't think about it much while watching Star Trek, there's never a moment when we doubt that there are people beneath the Klingon, Ferengi, Cardassian, and Romulan makeup, yet the sophisticated robotic puppets used in Aliens can scare the heck out of you because they are so convincing that the doubt is placed.  It's hard to remember that it's only a movie.

[Ganymede]

I guess it really depends on the role.  Constantly remembering that Desdemona is being played by a boy might take away from her onstage power and believability, but remembering the boy underneath Rosalind's costume can actually add to her depth, which is why Shakespeare places lines in As You Like It that remind the audience of the boy underneath.