Dana responded: 'Not entirely sure it is fair to make a strong distinction between
'respectable' and 'working', some women were there to pick pocket, show-a-leg, or shill for some house in sou'ark; others to see the show with friends or family. Life for a single girl lacking family support was hard then (as it is now). Some amount of adult-relations was to be expected then (as now); so long as it was done circumspectly it was accepted by most (some in the pulpit would have made their moans of course).' I thought my use of 'working girl' in inverted commas indicated (in a slightly tongue-in-cheek manner) that I meant prostitutes? Women have always worked, whether what they do is regarded as 'work' or not. In this period women's status was in a state of change, reaching a highpoint of legal rigidity in the 18th century. But, yes, indeed, at this point women's status was generally held to be tied to a male, either as daughter, wife, sister etc. a 'femme couvert'. Very rarely a woman achieved the legal status of 'femme sole' i.e. entirely responsible for herself (a notable example of this was Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII, a redoubtable lady in every way). In reality, however, there are many instances of women being very involved in areas that they were generally barred from, as you pointed out, e.g. taking over businesses when husbands died (even instances, I am assured, of women claiming a vote on these grounds, not sure if successfully). Widows could be high prizes in the marriage stakes if they came with money and/or business interests, but were otherwise viewed doubtfully as not being sufficiently under suitable male control. Useful education was usually denied women, deemed neither necessary or desirable. There are always, of course, notable exceptions to this generality, women of high rank could receive education but not always in useful areas. Standards of moral behaviour were as always not quite according to the rule, but in general loose sexual behaviour, in women, was not acceptable as it also showed some kind of escape from male control. As for the audiences in public theatres, all one needed was the price of entry, the time and, often, the permission of whoever was in charge of you - this applied to plenty of men as well as women. And on portraits, Dana: 'It was not cheap to have your portrait done, and those who could afford it were likely to be busy people as well, so surrogates were generally employed for the bulk of the detailing part. It was thus useful for an artist to have props available, and we sometimes see the same items in several portraits.' Well, the instrument used as a model might have been a prop kept by the artist, but the choice of what items were included your portrait was down to the sitter, as this was an indication of how one wished to be viewed. So that theorbo must have been part of the image Lady Mary wished to promote, whether it was hers or not. And certainly a person of wealth or rank (or both) was not required to sit around for hours while the artist (in fact a mere craftsman, usually of lower status) daubed away. Karen [1]karen.h...@gmail.com -- References 1. mailto:karen.h...@gmail.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
