Ellen Terry, circa 1880. |
Shakespeare was the only man she had ever really loved. 'When I was about siteen or seventeen, and very unhappy, I foreswore the society of men...Yet I was lonley all the same. I wanted a sweetheart! I read everything I could get hold of about my beloved one. I lived with him in his plays.' (Marshall, 155)But this "romance" with Shakespeare was not particular to Terry. Many women of the Victorian era used "images of domestic or sentimental attraction[...]in relation to Shakespeare (Marshall, 155)." This, in some ways, makes me think of the trouble that Jane Austin (and Stephenie Meyer, I suppose...) caused in setting too high of standards for men, so much that women wouldn't even look at a man if he was not a "Mr. Darcy," and, well, the Victorian men must've felt some sort of anguish that they couldn't be like the Bard in wooing women. But because of Terry's infatuation with Shakespeare, she was able to become a most sincere and engaging Shakespearean actress: it was as if it was her duty and obligation to show audiences how powerful Shakespeare wrote his female characters, and Terry did a bang-up job at that. Many reviewers responded quite favorably to Terry's role as Imogen in the 1896 production of Cymbeline:
Miss Terry plays the part with a radiance and a charm all her own, with a pathos and a grace of which she, among modern actresses, seems to possess the unique secret...It is long since we have seen such girlish abandon, such womanly tenderness [...]. Time seemed suddenly to be effaced, the years to roll back, and before us stood Miss Terry as young, as fragrant, and as bewitching as ever she was in the seventies. (Marshall, 156)And yet another reviewer, from the Times said:
Imogen is a very beautiful character, and Miss Terry (for whom it might have been designed) plays it with rare grace and charm...with her airy grace and tender womanliness [she] is Imogen to the life...it is in the true womanliness of Imogen that the actress excels, and here voice, manner, looks and temperament combine to help her. (Marshall, 156)Now, I think that these reviews are quite interesting, especially compared to Sarah Bernhardt's reviews in her roles as men, because neither actress was seen more favorable in the eyes of the public, yet these two famed actresses engaged very different roles: Ellen Terry as the ideal, perfect woman, soft and sweet and "tender; Sarah Bernhardt as the sensual woman who later turned to leading men's roles. I think it is safe to say that while the ideals of womanhood were in flux and changing, society was beginning to open up to either which way a woman wanted to go, be it to further embrace the dying angel of the home, or the upcoming, bicycle-riding, woman who wore pants and left the home to seek other opportunities.
Well, whatever the case may be, I still feel strongly that Shakespeare helped educated women of the late 19th century to see the possibilities of what womanhood could mean, be it the soft and feminine Terry or the tough and strong Bernhardt, women who were familiar with Shakespeare's works at this time were embracing him because of the women he created. Elizabeth Wordsworth firmly stated that "a well-educated girl ought to be, at 12 or 15 years old, in love with Miranda, Cordelia, Desdemona, Portia, and Perdita...she ought to catch some of their beautiful feeling, their dignity (Marshall, 177)." I think that helps my point a bit.
This was a really cool post. I never made the connection that women could fall in love with Shakespeare/ his characters like women today fall in love with ideals and fictional characters. I just assumed it was a modern thing to fall in love with an ideal. After reading this, I wonder if Shakespeare helped beacon in the start of women falling in love with fictional ideals. Anyway, Ellen Terry looks/seems like a character of herself.
ReplyDelete*Jennifer
ReplyDeleteI agree! It's like the whole idealistic Edward/ Jacob fad. (Oh, here we go with Twilight again... drama of being an English major... ;)
Ellen Tarry, by writing about Shakespeare and becoming part of her woks, actually has made herself a character. In fact, someone one could read her works and begin to idolize her in the same way! What if someone fell in love with her words of falling in love with Shakespeare? I don't think that was her intention. I don't think it was Shakespeare's intention to have people fall in love with him either, maybe with his plays and characters, but not him... at least in this way.