{"id":245,"date":"2012-10-01T20:37:48","date_gmt":"2012-10-01T20:37:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/?page_id=245"},"modified":"2012-10-19T11:48:03","modified_gmt":"2012-10-19T11:48:03","slug":"sex-and-sensibility-shakespearean-actresses-rebel-on-the-page","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/issues\/volume-i-2007\/sex-and-sensibility-shakespearean-actresses-rebel-on-the-page\/","title":{"rendered":"Sex and Sensibility: Shakespearean Actresses Rebel on the Page"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peggy A. Russo,\u00a0The Pennsylvania State University<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

In 1890, George Bernard Shaw wrote The Quintessence of IBSENISM<\/em>, a collection of essays celebrating the new realism of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, whose plays had scandalized London society during the 1880s.\u00a0\u00a0 In his discussion of Ibsen\u2019s new realistic approach to theater, Shaw notes that British actors and playgoers alike eschewed what they saw as an attack on Victorian society\u2019s ideals and values.\u00a0 Shaw, on the other hand, defends Ibsen and praises him for \u201chis thesis that the real slavery of to-day is slavery to ideals of virtue\u201d (63). Ever the champion of the rights of women, Shaw included a chapter entitled \u201cThe Womanly Woman,\u201d in which he attacks the Victorian ideal of womanhood.\u00a0\u00a0 While noting society\u2019s decree that women must be \u201cpure\u201d and more importantly, self-sacrificing, he points out that in reality, \u201ca womanly woman . . . is not only taken advantage of, but disliked . . . for her pains\u201d (17).\u00a0 According to Shaw, \u201ca typical Ibsen play is one in which the \u2018leading lady\u2019 is an unwomanly woman\u2026. It follows that the leading lady is not a heroine of the Drury Lane type\u201d (23).\u00a0 Indeed, at a time when Melodrama was at its most popular, the leading ladies of Drury Lane and other theaters of the Victorian period portrayed the Victorian ideal:\u00a0 pure, self-sacrificing, womanly women.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Victorian ideal was also portrayed by the two most popular Shakespearean actresses of this period:\u00a0 Helena Faucit (1817-1898) and Dame Ellen Terry (1847-1928).\u00a0 Even though they were playing Shakespearean rather than typical melodramatic heroines, Faucit and Terry felt compelled to conform to the image of women dictated by the cultural politics of the Victorian era; thus, they projected the image of the womanly woman when performing onstage. In addition, they were directed by actor\/managers who dominated them and dictated the interpretation of the characters they played.\u00a0 In their writings about these characters, however, they felt free to \u201cdirect\u201d the roles themselves and rebelled against the Victorian ideal, basing their interpretation of character on their own study of the texts and their own understanding of the characters.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although they were born forty years apart, Faucit and Terry lived parallel lives. Both were members of established theatrical families and went on the stage early in their lives, eventually emerging as the foremost Shakespearean actresses of their respective generations. Loved by the public, revered by prominent critics and literati, both actresses had lengthy professional careers.\u00a0 And although they were lauded for their performances in Shakespeare’s tragedies, both preferred Shakespearean comedies in which they could play characters labeled by Terry in Four Lectures on Shakespeare<\/em> as “triumphant women”:\u00a0 Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing<\/em>, Portia in Merchant of Venice<\/em>, and Rosalind in As You Like It<\/em>.\u00a0 Thus, it seems no accident that when she emerged from retirement in 1879 for the opening of the Memorial Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon, Faucit, who might have played Lady Macbeth ( long considered one of her greatest roles), instead chose to play Beatrice. (Beauman 21-22).\u00a0 Likewise, while Terry\u2019s Lady Macbeth was considered one of her great roles, for her Jubilee performance in 1906, Terry also opted to play Beatrice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Both actresses established themselves professionally in partnership with two of the great Shakespearean actor\/managers of their time\u2014Faucit with William Charles Macready from 1836 to 1843; Terry with Henry Irving from 1879 to 1902.\u00a0 Although both Macready and Irving were married, both actresses shared closet romances with their respective directors.\u00a0 In her biography of Terry, Nina Auerbach has convincingly argued that Irving’s influence over Terry was Svengali-like.\u00a0 Terry\u2019s reminiscences and the letters between her and Bernard Shaw verify this.\u00a0 Shaw\u2019s comments are particularly telling when he writes to Terry in 1897:\u00a0 \u201cYour career has been sacrificed to the egotism of a fool.\u201d\u00a0 In particular, Shaw complains that Irving \u2018cannot work out his slow, labored, self-absorbed stage conceptions unless you wait for him and play to him.\u00a0 This is a frightful handicap for you\u201d (qtd. in Manvell 268).\u00a0 Similarly, Faucit’s memories of Macready reveal that for several years, he, like Irving with Terry, dominated Faucit both on and off the stage.\u00a0 Macready\u2019s journals contain many examples of his grudging acceptance of<\/span><\/p>\n

Faucit\u2019s passion for him and his insistence on teaching her the craft of acting.\u00a0 During this period, some of Faucit and Terry\u2019s sister actresses were emerging as powerful authorities in their companies:\u00a0 Madame Vestris (1797-1856), Ellen Tree {Mrs. Charles Kean} (1806-1880),<\/span><\/p>\n

Madame Celeste (1814-1882) in London; and Laura Keene (1820-1873) in America.\u00a0 On the continent, two actresses known primarily by their last names\u2013Bernhardt (1844-1923) and Duse (1858-1924)\u2014had by the 1880s established companies of their own in which they performed as actors, managers, and directors.\u00a0\u00a0 Indeed, Bernhardt\u2019s lifestyle, which reflected her desire to be free of anyone else\u2019s influence or control, seems almost the opposite of Terry\u2019s desire to be \u201cuseful,\u201d which is her excuse to Bernard Shaw for remaining under Irving\u2019s control for so many years:\u00a0 \u201cI appear to be of strange use to H. [Irving], and I have always thought to be useful<\/em>, really<\/em> useful to any one person is rather fine and satisfactory\u201d (Terry\/Shaw 370-71).<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite the fact that both Faucit and Terry revealed a potential for directing, they were allowed few opportunities to practice.1<\/sup> Even so, Faucit and Terry had the last word.\u00a0 Dominated on the stage by Macready and Irving, so much so that they often could not play the roles that they wanted or could not act their characters as they wished; in their writing, they chose, directed, and interpreted their roles themselves.\u00a0 Ironically, despite being perceived as models of Victorian femininity and labeled “womanly women” on the stage; in their writing, both found evidence of masculinity in characters they favored.\u00a0 Masculinity\u2013the ability and desire to control\u2013was the opposite of the womanly woman described by Shaw and attacked by Mary Wollstonecraft in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman<\/em> in which she laments: \u201cAll women are to be leveled, by meekness and docility, into one character of yielding softness and gentle compliance\u201d (151).\u00a0 During a period when Shakespeare’s heroines were interpreted both on the page and on the stage as the epitome of femininity, Faucit and Terry found evidence to the contrary.\u00a0 Their partiality for the roles of Beatrice, Portia, and Rosalind is clearly based on their perception of them as strong central characters who direct and control themselves as well as other characters in the plays in which they appear.<\/span><\/p>\n

Faucit’s On Some of Shakespeare’s Female Characters<\/em> appeared in 1855 in response to a friend’s request to share her knowledge of Shakespeare; Terry’s Four Lectures on Shakespeare<\/em> reappeared in 1932 and was based on a series of lectures that she had presented years earlier during tours of Australia and America.\u00a0 Both actresses’ books have invited comparisons to Anna Jameson’s Characteristics of Women, Moral, Poetical, and Historical<\/em> (1832) and to Mary Cowden Clarke’s The Girlhood of Shakespeare’s Heroines: in a Series of Tales<\/em> (1874).\u00a0 Indeed, like Faucit and Terry, Jameson and Clarke\u2019s books involve extensive fabrications of the lives of Shakespeare’s women outside the text, but their purposes are not the same as Faucit and Terry\u2019s. Jameson, an early feminist, attempts to show that women of the Victorian era had fewer opportunities to achieve their potential than some of the heroic women in Shakespeare\u2019s plays.2<\/sup> Clarke, as her title suggests, \u201cfabricates\u201d the early lives of each heroine, attempting to show them in their formative years.\u00a0 Faucit and Terry\u2019s purpose, on the other hand, is to show part of their acting process and to reveal their personal interpretation of characters and scenes.\u00a0 In doing so, they reveal their shared habit of creating full lives for their characters during the process of preparation for a role.\u00a0 For them, the text was not enough; in order to enact characters to their satisfaction, both invented versions of characters’ lives outside the texts and within themselves.\u00a0 According to Faucit, \u201cI have had the great advantage of throwing my own nature into theirs, of becoming moved by their emotions: I have, as it were, thought their thoughts and spoken their words straight from my own living heart and mind\u201d (Martin viii-ix). Terry felt the same; according to her, an actress’s<\/span><\/p>\n

task is to learn how to translate this character into herself, how to make its thoughts her thoughts, its words her words.\u00a0 It is because I have applied myself to this task for a great many years, that I am able to speak to you about Shakespeare’s women with the knowledge that can be gained only from union with them. (Terry, Four<\/em> 80)<\/span><\/p>\n

In order to understand their compulsion to write about this process, we should note that Faucit and Terry shared the conviction that their preparation of characters for the stage enabled them to become one with those characters.\u00a0 The result was conflict with their directors who often interpreted those characters differently than they.<\/span><\/p>\n

While maintaining what appears to be an objective candor, both actresses reveal their subjective and negative attitudes toward their all-powerful actor\/managers.\u00a0 Even though she admitted that “Mr. Macready was a great actor, and a distinguished man in many ways,” Faucit was not one to forget that “he would never, if he could help it, allow any one to stand upon the same level with himself.”\u00a0 With tongue in cheek, she reminds us that Punch<\/em> “supposed Mr. Macready thought Miss Helen Faucit had a very handsome back, for, when on the stage with her, he always managed that the audience should see it and little else.” (Martin 293). Similarly, Terry, though she considered Irving to be a genius, knew that he, like Macready, possessed a supreme egotism:<\/span><\/p>\n

So much absorbed was he in his own achievements that he was unable or unwilling to appreciate the achievements of others.\u00a0 I never heard him speak in high terms of the great foreign actors and actresses who from time to time visited England. . . . He simply would not give himself up to appreciation. (qtd in Manvell 113)<\/span><\/p>\n

Faucit and Terry\u2019s working relationships with their directors appear strikingly similar.\u00a0 Often, they were not allowed to play their parts as they felt the texts indicated they should; at other times, they were given no direction at all.\u00a0 Faucit, for example, tells of the first time that\u00a0 she acted Lady Macbeth in Dublin.\u00a0 After only one rehearsal, during which Macready taught her only the “business of the scene,” Faucit “confided to him the absolute terror [she] was in.”\u00a0 He assured her that she “should get on very well.”\u00a0 After the curtain, “desirous of running away from and forgetting it as quickly as possible,” Faucit changed and immediately left the theatre only to learn later that Macready had wished to honor her with a curtain call (Martin 288).\u00a0 This is uncannily like Terry’s first-ever performance as Ophelia and her first as Irving’s leading lady at the Lyceum Theatre.\u00a0 Like Macready, Irving could appear “diffident” when it came to giving direction to women, especially his female co-star (Manvell 119).\u00a0 During rehearsals for Hamlet<\/em>, he ignored the scenes with Ophelia.\u00a0 But when Terry asked him about this oversight, he merely replied, “We shall be all right.”\u00a0 Similar to Faucit in her first performance as Ophelia, Terry, after her first performance as Lady Macbeth, left the theatre immediately, feeling that she had failed, and rode “up and down the Embankment in a cab before she . . . had the strength to go home.” And similar to Faucit\u2019s experience with Macready, Terry later learned that Irving had wanted her to go on for a curtain call (Manvell 120).<\/span><\/p>\n

Faucit complains somewhat bitterly about Macready’s direction when she compares his methods to those of Charles Kemble:<\/span><\/p>\n

Each helped me, but by processes wholly unlike.\u00a0 The one, while pointing out what was wrong, brought the balm of encouragement and hope; the other, like the surgeon who “cuts beyond the wound to make the curemore certain,” was merciless to the feelings, where he thought a fault or a defect might so best be pruned away. (Martin 372)<\/span><\/p>\n

Although Macready did not see himself as “merciless,” in recalling some of his directorial advice to Faucit, he, himself, reveals his cutting tone:<\/span><\/p>\n

Spoke to Miss Faucit about her habit of acting with her arms in<\/em> to her side, and thus bringing herself so close to another person as to destroy all outline; also about her smothering up<\/em> the last scene.\u00a0 She behaved very weakly upon these kind and good-natured remarks, and I thought would have had an hysteric in my room.\u00a0 I was distressed and annoyed. (Macready, 2: 173)<\/span><\/p>\n

According to Terry, Irving’s methods were not so surgical; he sounds more like a subtle steamroller:\u00a0 “He was very diplomatic when he meant to have his own way.\u00a0 He never blustered or enforced or threatened” (Terry, Memoirs<\/em> 170).\u00a0 In preparing for Ophelia, for example, Terry planned to wear a “transparent black dress” rather than traditional white in the mad scenes because it seemed to her “right<\/em>\u2014like the character, like the situation.”\u00a0 After trying gently to dissuade her, Irving seemed to approve of her choice of costume, but the next day, allowed her to know his true opinion through his assistant, Walter Lacy, who told her:\u00a0 “My God! Madam, there must be only one black figure in this play, and that’s Hamlet!”\u00a0 Immediately, Terry backed down and wore the traditional white dress (Terry, Memoirs<\/em> 171).\u00a0 She soon became very good at backing down.\u00a0 Always, when playing Beatrice, for example, although she wanted Beatrice to be “swift, swift, swift,\u201d she was forced to slow down in order to match Irving’s plodding Benedick.3<\/sup> Eventually, Terry gave up fighting the inevitable, and in her own words, became a “useful” actress, there only to serve Irving, the genius, in every way.<\/span><\/p>\n

The similar experiences of these two actresses with their Svengalis may explain why in their writing, their favorite Shakespearean roles became those \u201ctriumphant women\u201d who dominate their respective plays and direct those around them:\u00a0 Beatrice, Portia, and Rosalind.<\/span><\/p>\n

Both Faucit and Terry describe Beatrice as being brilliant, witty, intellectual, and independent.\u00a0 Moreover, both celebrate the way in which Beatrice wins out over her adversary, Benedick.\u00a0 Winning out over Irving\u2019s Benedick must have pleased Terry immensely, since behind the scenes, she could not win out over Irving. During rehearsals for Much Ado<\/em>, Terry appears to have been thwarted at every turn.\u00a0 Told that as Beatrice she was to play some traditional “gags” in the Church scene, Terry balked.\u00a0 When Walter Lacy directed her to reveal her “jealousy” when Benedick supports the fainting Hero by “shoo[ing] him away,” she refused because “it was so inconsistent with Beatrice’s character that it ought to be impossible for any actress impersonating her to do it.” (Terry, Four<\/em> 96).\u00a0 She held out against Lacy but not against Irving when it came to two other \u201cgags” which she did not want to perform (although they are different gags, she seems to have conflated them, telling one version in her autobiography and the other in Four Lectures<\/em>).\u00a0 The first gag involved ending the church scene with “Kiss my hand again”; the second ended the scene with Terry’s Beatrice saying, “kill him if you can” and Irving’s Benedick responding “As sure as I’m alive, I will!”\u00a0 According to Terry, she held out against the first for “many rehearsals” (Terry, Four<\/em> 96) and against the second for a week (Terry, Memoirs<\/em> 178).\u00a0 But in recounting both stories, she ends with the memory of bursting into tears and giving in to Irving.\u00a0 This directorial decision did not, however, result in Irving’s Benedick being hailed by critics.\u00a0 Indeed, neither Irving nor Macready’s Benedick succeeded in being viewed as the quintessential Benedick.\u00a0 Macready, for example, was reviewed at Drury Lane as follows:\u00a0 “Macready’s Benedick though able wants ease and grace\u2014he is violently gay.” (Robinson 170).\u00a0 How delicious it must have been for Faucit and Terry (both viewed as supreme Beatrices) to outdo their Benedicks within the parameters of the play and the stage.<\/span><\/p>\n

As with Beatrice, Faucit and Terry are in general agreement about Portia’s qualities.\u00a0 Both perceive her as a woman of power and authority who directs the actions of others.\u00a0 But there is an ironic quality about Terry\u2019s discussion of her impatience “when [she was] told that it is strange that a woman of this type, in the habit of directing<\/em> herself and directing<\/em> others, should be willing to be directed<\/em> by a man so manifestly inferior to her as Bassanio” [author’s italics] (Terry, Four<\/em> 117).\u00a0 Both also celebrate what they see as Portia’s masculine qualities.\u00a0 Faucit’s Portia, for example, “combines all the graces of the richest womanhood with the strength of purpose, the wise helpfulness, and sustained power of the noblest manhood.” (Martin 30).\u00a0 Faucit even refers to Portia as “he” in the trial scene (Martin 41).\u00a0 Similarly, in her discussion of Portia, Terry sees fit to quote Norwegian critic Georg Brandes who says, “in spite of her self-surrender in love there is something independent, almost masculine in her attitude towards life. . . .She is used to acting on her own responsibility, without seeking advice first” (qtd. in Terry, Four<\/em> 117).\u00a0 As well, both Terry and Martin argue that it is a mistake to play Portia as a comic role since such an approach undercuts her dignity and nobility (Martin 295; Terry Four<\/em> 116).\u00a0 Of course, their approaches on the stage differed somewhat.\u00a0\u00a0 Faucit believed that Portia would follow the dictates of her father\u2019s will to the letter; Terry, on the other hand, was convinced that Portia should sing the song in the casket scene and make the words \u201cbred, head, nourished, fed\u201d\u00a0 important enough to lead Bassanio to choose the lead casket (Foulkes 31).\u00a0 This difference in attitude may explain why Terry\u2019s portrayal of Portia on-stage was viewed by some critics as being too forward in the scenes with Bassanio.\u00a0 Henry James, for example had this to say: \u201cWhen Bassanio has chosen the casket which contains the key of her heart, she approaches him, and begins to pat and stroke him.\u00a0 This seems to us an appallingly false note. \u2018Good heavens, she\u2019s touching him!\u2019 a person sitting next to us exclaimed\u201d (James 143-44). Obviously, for some, Terry\u2019s Portia at this moment had gone too far and was not portraying the \u201cwomanly woman.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Neither Faucit nor Terry accepts the idea that Portia’s victory over Shylock is the result of advice from Bellario; instead, they both believe that Portia\u2019s intellectual ability defeats Shylock. Faucit insists that Portia herself discovers “the flaw in the bond” before she leaves Belmont to visit Bellario for legal advice (Martin 37), and Terry maintains that during the trial, Portia discovers the \u201cflaw\u201d and sets “the trap in which Shylock [is] caught” (Terry Four<\/em>, 120).4<\/sup> One must wonder if the triumph over Shylock tickles their fancy so much because for them, it suggests or reflects their triumphs as actresses over the Shylocks portrayed by Macready and Irving.\u00a0 Indeed, Henry James found that Irving\u2019s Shylock was \u201cneither excited nor exciting, and many of the admirable speeches, on his lips, lack much of their incision. . . . The great speech . . . this superb opportunity is missed; the actor, instead of being `hissing hot,’ . . . draws the scene out and blunts all its points” (qtd in Victorian Actors<\/em>, 258).\u00a0 Terry agreed with James.\u00a0 In her Memoirs<\/em>, she points out that \u201cIrving\u2019s Shylock necessitated an entire revision of my conception of Portia, especially in the trial scene, . . . I had considered . . . that Portia in the trial scene ought to be very quiet. I saw an extraordinary effect in the quietness.\u00a0 But as Henry\u2019s Shylock was quiet, I had to give it up.\u00a0 His heroic saint was splendid, but it wasn\u2019t good for Portia.\u201d (128). Of course, Irving believed that Shylock was the central character\u00a0 in Merchant<\/em>, so much so that soon after the play opened, he did away with the final scenes in Belmont.\u00a0 Instead, the play ended with Shylock\u2019s tragic exit from the trial scene.<\/span><\/p>\n

While celebrating the characters of Beatrice and Portia, both Faucit and Terry viewed the role of Rosalind as their favorite.\u00a0 Unfortunately, Terry was never allowed to act it.\u00a0 Indeed, it was one of Terry’s “greatest disappointments” that she never played Rosalind:\u00a0 \u201cWould that I could say \u2018I have been Rosalind.\u2019\u00a0 Would that the opportunity to play this part had come my way when I was in my prime! I reckon it one of the greatest disappointments of my life that it did not!\u201d (Terry, Four<\/em> 97).5<\/sup> The reason:\u00a0 Irving could find no appropriate leading role for himself in the play (although like Macready, he might have played Jacques).\u00a0 Like Terry, Faucit “loved Rosalind with [her] whole heart” (Martin 295), and long before Terry, she used the same adjective as Terry in describing Rosalind as “triumphant” (296).\u00a0 She considers the cross-dressing scenes “delightful” and celebrates Rosalind’s “playfulness: the wit, the sarcasm bubble up, sparkle after sparkle, with bewildering rapidity” (328).\u00a0 Most uncanny, perhaps, are the similarities between Terry and Faucit\u2019s comparisons of the cross-dressed Rosalind and Viola in Twelfth Night<\/em>.\u00a0 According to Terry:\u00a0 “Viola is less witty than either Rosalind or Beatrice.\u00a0 She seldom says a clever thing. . . . Imagine Rosalind or Beatrice in Viola’s situation!\u00a0 Could either of them have resisted a jest at the unfortunate Orsino’s mad passion?” (Terry, Four<\/em> 126-7).\u00a0 Faucit sees Viola as “gentle, self-sacrificing, generous, but with no spirit of the heroic in her nature. . . . if placed in Viola’s situation, Rosalind’s mother-wit and high spirit would, I fancy, have enabled\u00a0 her to extricate herself handsomely” (Martin 330).\u00a0 Obviously, it is Rosalind\u2019s wit plus her control of the \u201csituation\u201d that makes her a more \u201ctriumphant woman\u201d than Viola.<\/span><\/p>\n

Proof of Faucit’s ability as Rosalind to outshine her co-star occurred in 1843 when Queen Victoria commanded a performance of As You Like<\/em> It<\/em> with Faucit as Rosalind.\u00a0 Macready, playing Jacques, recorded his response:\u00a0 “I was much annoyed by the selection, which does me no good<\/em>.\u00a0 Suffered from annoyance about the Command, the benefit of which is gone, as far as any remote good is concerned” (Macready, 2:, 212).\u00a0 Obviously, Macready felt that the queen should have selected a play in which he<\/em> could shine instead of one dominated by Faucit.\u00a0 Doubtless, had Terry played Rosalind to Irving’s Jacques, she too would have irritated and annoyed him by her domination of the production.\u00a0 Clearly, both actresses viewed Rosalind as the power figure in her play and realized that playing her meant being able to direct the action of the play, to resolve conflicts, and to bestow bounty to all.\u00a0 No wonder both actresses found Rosalind to be their favorite character.<\/span><\/p>\n

Before Virginia Woolf announced that Shakespeare was an androgynous writer, Faucit and Terry too found evidence to suggest it.\u00a0 Both understood that Shakespeare was able to project himself into the mindset of women just as easily as that of men.\u00a0 Better still, he was capable of creating female characters whose strength and power were alien to Victorian perceptions of what women should be.\u00a0 Clearly, their freedom as actresses allowed them to see beyond the narrow bonds of Victorian sensibility.\u00a0 And just as surely, their bondage to dictatorial directors led them to revolt against that sensibility in the pages of their books.\u00a0 For them, Shakespeare spoke for independent women of his own time as well as theirs.\u00a0 Terry, for example, speaks of Shakespeare’s “vindication of woman in these fearless, high-spirited, resolute and intelligent heroines” (Terry, Four 81).\u00a0 Moreover, Terry shares views with modern critics like Juliet Dusinberre, when she notes that Shakespeare created strong women based on real women of his own time, citing:\u00a0 Lady Jane Grey, Mary Stuart, Queen Elizabeth and Katharine of Aragon\u00a0 (Terry, Four 81-2).6<\/sup> We can only wonder what kind of productions Faucit and Terry might themselves have mounted had the mores of Victorian society allowed them the freedom and power enjoyed by Macready and Irving.\u00a0 Unfortunately, we can never know for sure; but we can imagine, just as they did, through their writings.<\/span><\/p>\n

Notes<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a01. Note:\u00a0 Terry became manager of the Imperial Theatre in 1903, where she had artistic control, but the venture was short-lived.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0\u00a02. See Gail Marshall\u2019s discussion of Jameson\u2019s book in relation to Helena Faucit in \u201cHelena Faucit: Shakespeare\u2019s Victorian Heroine.\u201d Translating Life:\u00a0 Studies in Transpositional Aesthetics<\/em> (1999) 298-300.<\/span><\/p>\n

3. See Nina Auerbach\u2019s discussion of Terry\u2019s problems with Irving\u2019s Benedick in Ellen Terry:\u00a0 Player in Her Time<\/em> (New York:\u00a0 W. W. Norton, 1987) 225.<\/span><\/p>\n

4. For a study that includes the differences between the two performances, see Richard Foulkes, \u201cHelen Faucit and Ellen Terry as Portia\u201d Theatre Notebook<\/em> 31:3 (1977 27-37.\u00a0 Also see Georgianna Ziegler, \u201cThe Actress as Shakespearian Critic:\u00a0 Three Nineteenth-Century Portias,\u201d Theatre Survey 30 (May\/Nov. 1989) 93-109.<\/span><\/p>\n

5. For further discussion of Terry\u2019s identification with the role of Rosalind and her disappointment at not being allowed to play the role, see Nina Auerbach, Ellen Terry:\u00a0 Player in Her Time<\/em> (New York:\u00a0 W. W. Norton, 1987) 230-32, 237.<\/span><\/p>\n

6. See Juliet Dusinberre, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women<\/em> (New York:\u00a0 Barnes and Noble, 1996) 2, in which Dusinberre cites Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Parr, Princess Elizabeth, Lady Anne Bacon, Lady Margaret Beaufort, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

Works Cited<\/span><\/p>\n

Auerbach, Nina.\u00a0 Ellen Terry:\u00a0 Player in Her Time<\/em>.\u00a0 New York:\u00a0 W. W.\u00a0Norton, 1987.<\/span><\/p>\n

Beauman, Sally.\u00a0 The Royal Shakespeare Company:\u00a0 A History of Ten\u00a0<\/em>Decades<\/em>.\u00a0 New York: Oxford U. Press, 1982.<\/span><\/p>\n

Carlisle, Carol J.\u00a0 “Helen Faucit’s Lady Macbeth.” Shakespeare Studies<\/em> 16\u00a0(1983):\u00a0 205-233.<\/span><\/p>\n

—.\u00a0 “Passion Framed by Art:\u00a0 Helen Faucit’s Juliet.”\u00a0 Theatre Survey<\/em> 25:2\u00a0(Nov. 1984):\u00a0 177-192.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clarke, Mary Cowden. The Girlhood of Shakespeare’s Heroines: in a\u00a0<\/em>Series of Tales<\/em>. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1874.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dusinberre, Juliet.\u00a0 Shakespeare and the Nature of Women<\/em>.\u00a0 New York:\u00a0Barnes & Noble, 1996.<\/span><\/p>\n

Edwards, Ifor.\u00a0 Lady Helena Faucit Martin:\u00a0 Shakespearean Actress<\/em>.\u00a0Wrexham:\u00a0 I. Edwards, 1985.<\/span><\/p>\n

Foulkes, Richard. \u201cHelen Faucit and Ellen Terry as Portia.\u201d Theatre\u00a0<\/em>Notebook<\/em>. 31:3 (1977):\u00a0 27-37.<\/span><\/p>\n

James, Henry. The Scenic Art.\u00a0 Notes on Acting & the Drama:\u00a0 1872-1901<\/em>.\u00a0Ed. Allan Wade.\u00a0 New York:\u00a0 Hill and Wang, 1957.<\/span><\/p>\n

Jameson, Anna. Characteristics of Women, Moral, Poetical, and\u00a0<\/em>Historical<\/em>. 2 vols. London: Saunders and Otley, 1832.<\/span><\/p>\n

Macready, William Charles.\u00a0 The Diaries of William Charles Macready,\u00a0<\/em>1833-1851<\/em>. 2 vols. London:\u00a0 Chapman and Hall, Ltd., 1912.<\/span><\/p>\n

Manvell, Roger.\u00a0 Ellen Terry<\/em>.\u00a0 New York:\u00a0 G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1968.<\/span><\/p>\n

Marshall, Gail.\u00a0 \u201cHelena Faucit:\u00a0 \u201cShakespeare\u2019s Victorian Heroine.\u201d\u00a0Translating Life:Studies in Transpositional Aesthetics<\/em>.\u00a0(1999):297-313.<\/span><\/p>\n

Martin, Helena Saville (Faucit), Lady.\u00a0 On Some of Shakespeare’s Female\u00a0<\/em>Characters<\/em>. London: W. Blackwood and sons, 1885.<\/span><\/p>\n

Matthews, Brander and Laurence Hutton. Eds. Actors and Actresses of\u00a0<\/em>the United States and Great Britain<\/em>. 4 vols. New York:\u00a0 Cassell &\u00a0Co., Ltd., 1886.<\/span><\/p>\n

Robinson, Henry Crabb. The London Theatre, 1811-1866:\u00a0 Selections\u00a0<\/em>from the Diary of Crabb Robinson<\/em>. Ed. Eluned Brown.\u00a0 London:\u00a0Society for Theatre Research, 1966.<\/span><\/p>\n

Shaw, George Bernard.\u00a0 The Quintessence of IBSENISM<\/em>.\u00a0 1904.\u00a0 Reprint:\u00a0New York:\u00a0 Dover, 1994.<\/span><\/p>\n

Stoker, Bram.\u00a0 Personal Reminiscences of Henry Irving<\/em> (2 volumes).\u00a0New York:\u00a0 MacMillan, 1906.<\/span><\/p>\n

Terry, Ellen and George Bernard Shaw.\u00a0 A Correspondence<\/em>,\u00a0 London:\u00a0Constable and Co., 1931.<\/span><\/p>\n

Terry, Ellen. Four Lectures on Shakespeare<\/em>.\u00a0 Ed. & Intro. Christopher St.\u00a0John.\u00a0 London:\u00a0 M.\u00a0 Hopkinson, 1932.<\/span><\/p>\n

—.\u00a0 Ellen Terry\u2019s Memoirs<\/em>. Preface, notes and biographical chapters by\u00a0Edith Craig and\u00a0 Christopher St. John.\u00a0 New York: G. P. Putnam\u2019s\u00a0Sons, 1932.<\/span><\/p>\n

Victorian Actors and Actresses in Review:\u00a0 A Dictionary of\u00a0<\/em>Contemporary Views of Representative British and American\u00a0<\/em>Actors and Actresses<\/em>, 1837-1901. Ed. Donald\u00a0 Mullin.\u00a0 Westport,\u00a0Connecticut:\u00a0 Greenwood Press, 1983.<\/span><\/p>\n

Wollstonecraft, Mary.\u00a0 A Vindication of the Rights of Woman<\/em>.\u00a0 Ed.\u00a0Charles W. Hagelman, Jr. New York:\u00a0 W. W.\u00a0 Norton & Co., Inc.,\u00a01967.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Peggy A. Russo,\u00a0The Pennsylvania State University In 1890, George Bernard Shaw wrote The Quintessence of IBSENISM, a collection of essays celebrating the new realism of Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen, whose plays had scandalized London society during the 1880s.\u00a0\u00a0 In his discussion of Ibsen\u2019s new realistic approach to theater, Shaw notes that British actors and playgoers […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1384,"featured_media":0,"parent":54,"menu_order":7,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-245","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1384"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":543,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/245\/revisions\/543"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/54"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ovsc\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}