+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Other (/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: The Theater in the Victorian Age (/thread-2058.html)
Pages: 1 2
The Theater in the Victorian Age - LincolnMan - 11-30-2014 07:21 AM
While reading Tom Bogar's Backstage At The Lincoln Assassination- reference is made to the theater being thought of by some as the "gates of hell." What made the theater such a place? Was it the the programs? Was it simply because the theater was secular?
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - BettyO - 11-30-2014 08:10 AM
Quote:....reference is made to the theater being thought of by some as the "gates of hell." What made the theater such a place? Was it the the programs? Was it simply because the theater was secular?
In the early 19th Century, and on through the Victorian era, theatres were thought of as places of "ill repute." Actresses were thought of as being of "loose morals" because some wore tights; exposing their "limbs", and they thus strutted around on the stage. They were not classed as "proper ladies." Ladies were supposed to be the "Angels of the House"; i.e. they were to remain quietly in the background, very religious (it was their job to reinforcement religious feeling within their family and thus adhere the family together.) This was not to be done if they were publically darting about on stage. Lady actresses were making a public display of passion and emotion; something else which was looked down on. It was also thought that these "demimondes" of the stage were freely giving of their passions and persons to their fellow actors and others; indeed many did become the mistresses and paramours of many wealthy and influential men. Likewise, the handsome "leading men" were also free with their passions amongst the ladies within their cast as well as those who came to see them act.
In the 16th Century and earlier, the roles of ladies (such as Shakespeare's Juliet) were initially played by young boys. Nell Gwynn (mistress of Charles II of England, was one of the first actresses.)
It wasn't until the mid to late 17th Century that ladies appeared on stage in various roles in great part. One such was Sarah Siddons (1755-1831), an actress of great repute.
Thus the theatre was something which was frowned upon by the general population as a "sanctuary of sin."
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - LincolnMan - 11-30-2014 08:31 AM
Betty: what a great response. You should write a book on it! Everything being such as what you described- it's interesting to me that President and Mrs. Lincoln (as well as other dignitaries)- attended the theater with the regularity that they did. This must have been frowned upon by a great many. I know Lincoln had committed a faux pas by choosing to attend the theater on Good Friday.
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - Eva Elisabeth - 11-30-2014 08:38 AM
My additional ideas:
- Originally, theater was an invention by the Ancient Greeks to serve religious purposes - but from the Victorian point of view I'd guess a religion worshipping multiple Gods is a sin.
- The Shakesperian theater was mainly a light amusement for a certain class of society. The Globe Theater was located in Bankside on the south side of the River Thames where the brothels were and such as ***** fights took place. Plus as there was no artificial illumination (the stage had no ceiling!), performances were given during the daytime - when honorable people had to work.
(**** should be male hens)
- Speaking of brothels, if I remember correctly, Tom wrote that what Ford called "family circle" formerly had served similar purposes.
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - BettyO - 11-30-2014 09:06 AM
Quote:- Speaking of brothels, if I remember correctly, Tom wrote that what Ford called "family circle" formerly had served similar purposes.
Very good, Eva! At the Globe in England, prostitutes would sit in the audience, looking for clients. This continued into the Victorian era - although I doubt that this sector of society was in the audience at Fords; good possibility, but I've never heard that it was so.....
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - Gene C - 11-30-2014 09:30 AM
Speaking of male hens (roosters), does one with a loosing fight record only get two ** ?
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - Eva Elisabeth - 11-30-2014 10:05 AM
What is the difference between a rooster and a kcoc (read in the mirror)?
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - BettyO - 11-30-2014 10:33 AM
Same thing - although c**k is the correct term for a male bird; just like b***h is the correct term for a female canine. Dog is the correct term for a male canine. Tom is the correct term for a domestic male cat and queen is used for a female cat.
Vulgar people over the years have turned certain words in the English language into vulgar terms. One really good book (and I believe it is online free) is The History of the Vulgar Tongue - an early 19th century book of naughty words....I have both an eBook and a hard copy of it.
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - Eva Elisabeth - 11-30-2014 02:06 PM
Thanks, Betty!
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - Tom Bogar - 11-30-2014 02:28 PM
Thanks for the shout-out, Bill. And Betty, kudos for a great summation! (You beat me to the punch.) I would add that the use of the "infamous third tier" (usually with a bar located conveniently behind it) was almost universally present in both England the U.S. until the 1860s, when it tapered off, largely due to principled men like John Ford and (one of the few things they agreed on) Leonard Grover, who refused to perpetuate it. Ford's idea, of calling it the "family circle," and hiring off-duty police officers to patrol its (separate stairway) entrance finally put the kibosh on the prostitution. (Plus, anyone really seeking such pleasures of the flesh merely had to head down to Ohio Drive and Murder Row, near the White House). Theatre reviewers used to use the code word "a fashionable audience" to indicate that it was safe for ladies to attend--that they would not be embarrassed (and I've found a host of anecdotes about hussies mocking proper ladies in prior eras) and that their men would not be openly solicited. (Oh, the stories I've uncovered of goings-on in that third tier--much of which is going into my current book on the Bowery Theatre in the 1830s and '40s.) Another part of the poor reputation that theatres had was a holdover from Elizabethan days (and even before, from Italian Comedia Dell-Arte troupes)--their itinerant nature ("who knew what these vagabonds were bringing into our town?") and respectable Victorian folk did like their stability. Actresses, as Betty alluded to, were not held in high repute b/c they associated with men alone while single, and spouted in public (on stage) sometimes vulgar sentiments.
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - LincolnMan - 11-30-2014 03:58 PM
Excuse my ignorance on this- but what did the area at Fords designated "The Dress Circle" signify?
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - RJNorton - 11-30-2014 04:15 PM
(11-30-2014 03:58 PM)LincolnMan Wrote: Excuse my ignorance on this- but what did the area at Fords designated "The Dress Circle" signify?
Hi Bill. I think it was the name for the first balcony.
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - LincolnMan - 12-01-2014 03:14 PM
Roger: that's not exactly what I meant. Is there some significance to it be called the "Dress Circle" - or is that it? It simply refers to the first balcony?
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - RJNorton - 12-01-2014 03:27 PM
Bill, I checked an online dictionary and it says:
Dress Circle: A section of seats in a theater or opera house, usually the first tier above the orchestra...So called because it is a circular row of seats at an entertainment, the spectators of which are expected to be in dress clothes.
RE: The Theater in the Victorian Age - Tom Bogar - 12-01-2014 07:13 PM
(12-01-2014 03:27 PM)RJNorton Wrote: Bill, I checked an online dictionary and it says:
Dress Circle: A section of seats in a theater or opera house, usually the first tier above the orchestra...So called because it is a circular row of seats at an entertainment, the spectators of which are expected to be in dress clothes.
You got it, Roger. That was the expectation, primarily b/c the denizens of the pit below throughout the 18th c and first half of the 19th c, seated on crude benches rather than separate seats, were so ill-mannered--mostly working class folk. Those in the boxes and dress circle liked to be "above" the riff-raff. (Also, those in the pit were subjected to objects and spittle descending from the gallery and third tier; those in the dress circle were more protected.)
