Michael Dobson asserts “Shakespeare’s plays belonged to the theatre more significantly than they belonged to Shakespeare” in the 1660s; after researching adaptations of The Tempest, I believe his assessment to be assuredly true (Dobson 18). John Dryden and William D’Avenant adapt The Tempest into one of the most influential adaptations of the period, The Enchanted Island—published in 1660 and performed in 1667. The Enchanted Island later spawns an operatic adaptation by Thomas Shadwell in 1674 and Thomas Duffet’s The Mock Tempest in 1676. Dobson’s poignant statement is not only true because of the pervasiveness of The Tempest’s influence to writers and orchestrators of the 1660s but also because of the pervasive influence of the theatre upon the play. Already communicated in class: In 1660 women are allowed to act on stage, a shift that inevitably affects the audience’s—particularly male—relationship to the play. To complicate the female stage presence further, Dryden and D’Avenant add a male character named Hippolito to be performed by female actress Mary Davis. Dobson illuminates that the meta-theatricality already present in Shakespeare’s The Tempest is elevated in The Enchanted Island as Hippolito jokes about the evident transvestitism on stage:
[FERD.] So give me leave to ask you, what you are.
HIP. Do not you know?
FERD. How should I?
HIP. I well hop’d I was a man, but by your ignorance/Of what I am, I fear it is
not so: Well, Prospero! This is now the second time you have deceiv’d me!
The liminal gender and racial identity of Shakespeare’s Caliban is therefore overshadowed by the more overtly ambiguous gender identity of newly added character, Hippolito. Through meta-theatricality Hippolito directly engages the audience in discourse over the social positions of men and women and what exactly the qualifications for these positions are. The ambiguity of Davis’/Hippolito’s sexuality functions, as Dobson claims, “to dramatize the fact that sexual roles are just that—roles”.
I find this point to be particularly relevant given the discussion at the end of our last class about the presence of meta-theatricality in The Tempest; a device obviously embraced and proliferated by Dryden and D’Avenant through the advent of the female actress.
Dobson, Michael. The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-1769. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. 39-52. Print.
I think possible reasons for theatres to cast women in male parts, especially in a role where the male has never seen a woman before is both economical and practical. It would appeal to a whole different group of audience who would be curious how a woman could possibly fulfill such a role and thus draw in more profit and on the other hand woman are not normally attracted to other women so hence the acting on stage would be more believable. Because in my opinion for a man who has never seen a woman before to see one for the first time he would not initialy be attracted to her at first and perhaps even more reserved and hesitant and hence having a woman play that part would add a better level of credibility of innocence instead of a vibe of attraction and chemistry that we might get with a male actor playing that role.
ReplyDeleteSarah - I definitely agree that Davenant and Dryden's adaptation explores gender issues and the roles of sexuality while Shakespeare's original focused on questions of humanity versus beastliness. While Caliban and Trinculo's shenanigans allowed for the audience to contemplate the division between man and beast, Shakespeare's The Tempest also provoked questions about colonization as Caliban turns from Prospero's political power to Trinculo as his new Lord. However, Davenant and Dryden not only force the audience to contemplate gender roles by adding the characters of Dorinda and Hippolito (a man who has never seen a woman), highlighting the naivety of both genders in their natural state, but they also focus on colonization as well especially in terms of marriage (with the addition of Sycorax as Trinculo's wife).
ReplyDeleteThis adaptation was confusing enough when keeping up with the communication and the nuances of the relationships between the characters - but I'm sure the audience was further enticed and confused by a woman playing Hippolito (especially with the textual wordplay and the sexual innuendos regarding Hippolito's sex and Miranda and Dorinda's naivety regarding sexual relations).