Women Writers and the Dutch Stage: Public Femininity in the Plays of Verwers and Questiers

M. Elk
{"title":"Women Writers and the Dutch Stage: Public Femininity in the Plays of Verwers and Questiers","authors":"M. Elk","doi":"10.1163/9789004391352_007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the seventeenth century the plays performed at the Amsterdam Schouwburg, the only public theater in the city, were overwhelmingly written by men. Dutch theater shared with English theater a long-standing prohibition on female acting in institutionalized theatrical spaces, which was not lifted until 1655, when the first actress played a leading role in the Schouwburg. By then two women playwrights, Catharina Verwers and Catharina Questiers, had seen their plays produced for the stage. Verwers’s only play was performed in 1644, over ten years before Ariana Nozeman made her debut, while Questiers’s plays were written and performed between 1655 and 1665. Given the vexed position of women in the public sphere and in particular their complex relationship to the public theater, this essay explores these playwrights’ representations of women in public and private. Both Verwers and Questiers present women in public as lacking in power; they must submit to conventional versions of public femininity and empty themselves of private desires and motivations in order to occupy a public space. An effective public femininity that is coherent, strong, and independently articulated is not yet possible without sacrifice in these plays. Still, by presenting a range of female public presences and conflicted attitudes towards them, Verwers and Questiers allowed their audiences to reflect on and consider the nature of the public sphere itself and its relationship to gender. Before we turn to the plays, some historical context for the relationship of Dutch women to the public-private divide is necessary. As extensive study has shown, those terms were unstable and in flux in the seventeenth century. Traditional understandings of the public and private realms were influenced by absolutist political systems, which presented the two as mutually constitutive and parallel spheres of being, as the familiar tendency to treat the home as the microcosm of the commonwealth suggests.1 Yet, Jürgen Habermas has argued,","PeriodicalId":198400,"journal":{"name":"Women and Gender in the Early Modern Low Countries, 1500 - 1750","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women and Gender in the Early Modern Low Countries, 1500 - 1750","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391352_007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the seventeenth century the plays performed at the Amsterdam Schouwburg, the only public theater in the city, were overwhelmingly written by men. Dutch theater shared with English theater a long-standing prohibition on female acting in institutionalized theatrical spaces, which was not lifted until 1655, when the first actress played a leading role in the Schouwburg. By then two women playwrights, Catharina Verwers and Catharina Questiers, had seen their plays produced for the stage. Verwers’s only play was performed in 1644, over ten years before Ariana Nozeman made her debut, while Questiers’s plays were written and performed between 1655 and 1665. Given the vexed position of women in the public sphere and in particular their complex relationship to the public theater, this essay explores these playwrights’ representations of women in public and private. Both Verwers and Questiers present women in public as lacking in power; they must submit to conventional versions of public femininity and empty themselves of private desires and motivations in order to occupy a public space. An effective public femininity that is coherent, strong, and independently articulated is not yet possible without sacrifice in these plays. Still, by presenting a range of female public presences and conflicted attitudes towards them, Verwers and Questiers allowed their audiences to reflect on and consider the nature of the public sphere itself and its relationship to gender. Before we turn to the plays, some historical context for the relationship of Dutch women to the public-private divide is necessary. As extensive study has shown, those terms were unstable and in flux in the seventeenth century. Traditional understandings of the public and private realms were influenced by absolutist political systems, which presented the two as mutually constitutive and parallel spheres of being, as the familiar tendency to treat the home as the microcosm of the commonwealth suggests.1 Yet, Jürgen Habermas has argued,
女作家与荷兰舞台:弗维尔斯和奎斯提尔戏剧中的公共女性气质
在17世纪,在阿姆斯特丹唯一的公共剧院——阿姆斯特丹Schouwburg上演的戏剧,绝大多数都是男性编剧。荷兰戏剧和英国戏剧一样,长期禁止女性在制度化的戏剧空间中表演,直到1655年第一位女演员在《斯考伯格》(Schouwburg)中担任主角,这一禁令才被解除。那时有两位女剧作家,卡萨琳娜·弗维尔斯和卡萨琳娜·奎斯提尔,她们的剧本已经搬上了舞台。维维尔斯唯一的戏剧是在1644年演出的,比阿丽亚娜·诺兹曼的处女作早了十多年,而奎斯捷尔的戏剧是在1655年到1665年之间创作和演出的。鉴于女性在公共领域的棘手地位,特别是她们与公共戏剧的复杂关系,本文探讨了这些剧作家在公共和私人领域对女性的表现。弗维尔和奎斯提尔在公共场合都把女性描绘成缺乏权力的人;为了占据公共空间,她们必须服从公共女性气质的传统版本,清空自己的私人欲望和动机。在这些戏剧中,如果没有牺牲,一种有效的、连贯的、强大的、独立表达的公共女性气质是不可能的。尽管如此,通过展示一系列女性公共存在和对她们的矛盾态度,Verwers和Questiers让他们的观众反思和考虑公共领域本身的本质及其与性别的关系。在我们转向戏剧之前,有必要了解一下荷兰女性与公私分裂关系的历史背景。广泛的研究表明,这些术语在17世纪是不稳定和不断变化的。对公共和私人领域的传统理解受到专制主义政治制度的影响,专制主义政治制度将两者视为相互构成和平行的存在领域,正如将家庭视为联邦缩影的熟悉趋势所表明的那样然而,j rgen Habermas认为,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信