Dea ex machina or Queens and machines: theater technology, royal female producers, and actresses
Renaissance Conference of Southern California

Melissa D. Aaron
Department of English and Foreign Languages
California Polytechnic State University at Pomona
Pomona, CA 91768
(909) 869-3839
maaron@csupomona.edu

In Charles Ludlam's play Isle of the Hermaphrodites, the Duke de Guise makes the fatal error of calling Catherine de' Medici "pretty," and is immediately rebuked for the poverty of the compliment. He apologizes:

GUISE: Forgive me. I forgot that you were raised in Florence, the queen of cities.
CATHERINE: Yes and we aging queens must stick together.

This paper sticks together four queens, and explores the transmission of theater technology from Italy, through France and into England by non-native Queens: Catherine de' Medici, Marie de' Medici, Anne of Denmark, and Henrietta Maria. These women were the patronesses-and I would argue, the producers-of a form of theater heavily reliant upon spectacle, dance, and the manipulation of visual elements by lighting and machinery. They also encouraged the visible and active participation of women in the theater by commissioning actresses and performing themselves. The introduction of women as actors, and eventually as directors, designers, producers and financial backers, to the professional English-speaking stage is the natural result of two major and related factors: the strong involvement of royal female patrons and the increasingly more sophisticated use of theater technology. Theater technology, then, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, is directly connected to the growing importance of women in the professional theater in the seventeenth century.

Of course women not of royal rank also worked in other capacities in the theater. The seminar "Women Players in and Around Shakespeare" at the Shakespeare Association of America this April in Montreal demonstrated a wide variety of involvement, from performing mountebanks, women who acted in provincial productions, women who were employed in the theater business as gatherers, tirewomen, and shareholders. None of these women were upper-class, let alone royal. But the royal female producer, often described under the somewhat dismissive sobriquet "patroness," has a level of clout well worth examination. Queen consorts were, as has been noted by others, the exogamous exporters of culture. They brought foreign social customs, technology, and habits to the country they married into, and combined this cultural importation with great social and financial power. It's also worth noting that all four of the queens I am discussing end up related, either by marriage or by birth. But before I examine their individual and corporate contributions, I wish to define the word "producer," and why I consider it more apt than "patroness."

What is a producer, anyhow? The Oxford English Dictionary defines a producer as "The person who produces a dramatic performance or film, or broadcast programme." Its verb form, "to produce," meaning "To bring (a performer or performance) before the public; to administer and supervise the production of (a film or broadcast programme)" appears first as early as 1585, where Orpheus is described as a producer. By contrast, the first recorded use of "stage-manager" is in 1805, and "director" does not appear until the early 20th century.

"Producer" suggests supervision; administrative and perhaps aesthetic control. Leeds Barroll has described Anne or Anna as "an appropriate subject for the history of Early Modern artistic production" ("The arts" 55). David Bergeron has argued eloquently for an expansion of the concept of female patronage, but the word "patron," while useful, suggests to me a certain passivity, a lack of involvement that I am reluctant to endorse. If Catherine de' Medici, Marie de Medici, Anne and Henrietta Maria were administering a separate budget, hiring artists, and making aesthetic decisions, then surely they could be seen as as much of a producer as Henslowe, and possibly even more so. Certainly Henry III, Louis XIII, Louis XIV, James I and Charles I are seen as very influential, indeed almost founders, of the arts they sponsored. Their mothers and consorts, who took even more active roles, but whose involvement has often been trivialized as extravagant, frivolous, and decadent, should be viewed on at least equal footing.

Catherine de' Medici brought both stage technology and commedia dell'arte with her to the French court when she married the Dauphin. Francis I's court was already amenable to artistic innovation and stage technology; Leonardo Da Vinci died in the arms of Francis himself. Catherine, however, came from a court which was renowned for its stage machinists, particularly Giorgio Vasari, Bernardo Buontalenti, and Giulio Parigi and his son Alfonso (Nagler 2). The Medici court produced a variety of courtly entertainments, including barriers, plays with intermezzi, operas and court ballet, as well as spectacular pageants, and used them to distract and defuse political rivalry. Catherine, whose political career suggests that she had completely absorbed the teachings of her ancestor Lorenzo's advisor, Machiavelli, also used courtly entertainment for this purpose, as Wiley and McGowan have suggested.

In 1581, the Balet comique de la Royne was produced in honor of the marriage of Henri III's favorite M. D'Arques to the Queen's sister. Balthasar de Beaujoyeaulx, the choreographer put in charge of the ballet, makes it clear in his introduction who was making the primary decisions-"ie retournay aui tot en Cour, le presenter à la Royne, à fin de çavoir de sa maieté, i elle auoit esté ervie de mon labeur & industir à on qué & contentement" and "ie uppliay treshumblement a maieté de donner la charge des poeies, muiques & peintures, à peronnes qui peuesnt dignement 'en acquieter." The Queen was in control, both artistically and financially.

According to Brantôme, Catherine ceased to patronize tragedy after the performances of Sophonisbe in 1556. While the performances themselves went well, she was convinced that tragedies brought bad luck. So, "she had no more performances of that sort, but only of comedies and tragicomedies, particularly those of Zani and Pantalon. She took great delight in them, roaring with laughter just like everyone else". It might be worth noting that the genre favored by all of these queens was overwhelmingly comedy, which might have something to do with Catherine's own preferences. Despite her dislike of tragedy, Catherine's one indisputable connection with the English stage is her appearance as a character, indeed the villianess, of Christopher Marlowe's Massacre at Paris. Whatever her generic preferences, she was responsible for the introduction of commedia dell'arte, especially I Gelosi and their lead actress Vittoria. Her son Henri III particularly requested that the actress perform, perhaps because actresses were still a novelty (Howarth 82). But by the time Marie de' Medici arrived at the French court in 1600, Italian comedy, including actresses, had become a staple of court and popular performance.

Marie de' Medici represents the second influx of Medici culture into the French court. She also supported actresses, particularly the extremely popular Isabella Andreini. In addition, she supported acting in her own family, for Malherbe reported on 21 July 1611 that "the royal princesses are rehearsing a comedy which they will recite for her pleasure" (Howarth 92). She also had her son, the future Louis XIII "'dance Pantalone' before her" (Wiley 24), and the fascination for acting seems to have transferred itself to her children, for Héroard quotes the young Louis as saying excitedly "Let's go and see mama; we're actors" (Howarth 88).
Marie de' Medici also directly supported the theater financially, because in 1611 she commissioned a ballet to be performed every Sunday (Howarth 90) and in 1613 she hired the Hôtel de Bourgogne for the Italian actors. If Wiley is correct that the Italian actors helped "clear the way for a [French] public theatre," then Marie de' Medici must be credited as part of that process.

Finally, she made extensive use of stage machinery, and employed Francini to construct elaborate effects (Howarth 93, 96). This influence was so strong that in 1607 the French actor-manager Valleran LeComte was already employing a scene painter (45) and by the 1620s and 1630s plays would have been unthinkable without the artistry of scene designers like Laurent Mahelot. But the effect of French stage machinery was to have an influence in another direction, too-across the English Channel.

Leeds Barroll has credited Anne of Denmark with inventing the Stuart masque, even from her first production, The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, in 1604. There's some evidence to suggest that Anne was modeling this first masque, not on earlier English models, but the French balet de cor, at least in the number of masquers. Eight masquers were typical of English masques, but The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses uses twelve, typical of the French balet (Barroll "Inventing" 125). It was not the last time that Anne was to use and introduce a European, and specifically a French, convention. Her close friend Henrietta Stuart, the Countess of Huntley, and her husband, Esme Stuart, had both been educated in France and retained an interest in French culture (Barroll, "The court" 194). Perhaps it was through them that Anne became or remained aware of French theatrical and court productions.

While this first masque still used older English scenic conventions, every subsequent masque for Anne was designed by Inigo Jones. John Summerson claims that "from 1605 till 1611 Jones probably regarded himself as primarily under the Queen's protection" (22). It has even been suggested that Anne gave Jones his first real masque commission and may have been instrumental in bringing him from the continent in the first place (Graham Parry Golden Age Restored 149; cited in Barroll "The arts" 54).

Jones is usually considered to have been influenced directly by Italian models. John Peacock, however, has pointed out that Jones's early work shows considerable French influence as well, "from the school of Fontainebleu, from sixteenth-century architecture, and from the ballet de cour" (149). Anne's interest and connection to French art and culture, demonstrable even prior to Jones's employment in 1605, possibly drew her attention and approbation to Jones in the first place, as a theatrical worker who could import the latest Italian and French styles. Tethys' Festival (1610), produced to celebrate Prince Henry's investiture as Prince of Wales, was the last but one that Inigo Jones designed for Anne, although he had been working for her since 1604. Tethys' Festival made use not only of changeable perspective scenery and machines, but also moving lights and falling water. Sebastiano Serlio does not mention these effects in his treatise, first published in England in 1611. The water effects appear in Nicola Sabbatini's book Pratica di Fabricar Scene e Machine ne' Teatri, which was not published until 1638, and the lighting effects are described in Joseph Furttenbach's Architectura Recreationis , printed in 1640. The theater technology used by Jones in Tethys' Festival was then comparable to the latest technology being used in Europe and possibly influenced by Jones' trip to France in 1609.

Tethys' Festival was also, as Orgel and Strong note, incredibly expensive. Jones was forwarded money on three separate occasions, the embroiderer submitted a bill for £55, and over a thousand pounds was spent for gold and silver lace alone (1.191-92). In other words, the budget was going up. Usually this is cited as an example of Anne's reckless extravagance, but it could also be seen as a reflection of the importance attached to the masques she produced.

Samuel Daniel, the author of the masque, seems to acknowledge Anne's importance outside the masque itself. Ostensibly "to avoid the confusion which usually attendeth the dissolve of these shows" (Orgel and Strong 1.195.311-12) Anne is brought back with her ladies "in figures of their own" (350). Anne's presence extends outside the borders of the masque, a form which depends on the tight frame the architect draws around it in the shape of the proscenium arch. The person who escorted her and her ladies back, presenting the figure of Zephyrus, was the young Duke of York, who would later become the masque-loving Charles I. Charles, of course, married Henrietta Maria, the daughter of Marie de' Medici, thus bringing our survey of queens full circle.
Henrietta Maria brought acting experience from the court of her mother. My colleague Melinda Gough has even pointed out that she had theatrical experience in utero, for Marie performed in a balet de cour while pregnant with Henrietta Maria. Almost upon arrival at the English court, on 21 February 1626, she produced Racan's pastoral L'Artenice. Not only did she suggest the play and spend quite a lot of money on it , she also trained the actresses. Sophie Tomlinson has pointed out that the first recorded use of the word "actress" occurs in reference to this first play produced by Henrietta Maria (189). John Chamberlain was perhaps a bit dubious about this innovation:
On Shrove Tuesday the Queen and her women had a masque or pastoral play at Somerset House, wherein herself acted a part, and some of the rest were disguised like men with beards. I have known the time when this would have seemed a strange sight, to see a Queen act in a play, but tempora mutantur et nos. .

In 1632, Henrietta Maria produced her masque Tempe Restored, which was strongly modelled on Catherine de Medici's Balet Comique de la Royne and which featured Madame Coniack in the role of Circe. Orgel notes Suzanne Gossett's essay on this subject, and in particular the moment when the female performer playing Circe dismisses the male performer playing Pallas Athena with "Man-maid, begone!" As Orgel states, "the theatre at this moment in 1632 calls into question the whole culture of the naturalized transvestite actor." This move towards an increased role for women on the stage was extended in Henrietta Maria's next dramatic production, The Shepheard's Paradise, 1633.

Acted on 9 January 1632/33, Shepheard's Paradise was one of the first plays to have an entire set of purpose-built costumes designed by Inigo Jones and the second to have an all-female cast made up entirely of aristocrats and royalty. The Queen's cast also took lessons in acting for their performance, and the Queen chose the leading man from the leading company to be their instructor: Joseph Taylor of the King's Men. Pory wrote to Viscount Scudamore on 15 September of the Queen's daily rehearsals, and added, "Taylor the prime actor at the Globe goes every day to teach them action." He wrote in a later letter that "Mr. Taylor, the player, hath also the making of a knight given him for teaching them how to act the Pastoral." Henrietta Maria seems to have made further efforts at acquiring professional polish. Though she had herself trained the actresses of L' Artenice, never had English royalty requested acting lessons before. William Prynne, the author of the anti-theatrical tome Histriomastix, insisted that women actors were not an improvement on male actors in female guise, but if anything worse; they
speak to the people without shame, and usurp impudency to themselves with so great premeditation [the lengthy rehearsal period?]. . . and infuse so great lasciviousness into the minds of hearers and spectators that all may seem . . .to disgrace the female nature.
(Cerasano and Wynne Davies, Texts 171).

Prynne was both prophetic here and futilely trying to stem the tide, for it was the very argument of decency that Thomas Killigrew was to advance, a mere thirty years later, for the exclusive use of female actors in female roles. What is striking here, though, is that all the roles, male and female, were played by women. This type of company personnel is relatively rare and relatively new in the theater world. Was this merely the exigencies of courtly feminine performance, or something more subversive-the founding of an all-female company?

Very possibly it was the latter, at least in part, for Henrietta Maria did not even act in the next play, Florimène, (1635), even though it has been speculated that she wrote it (Cotton 38-39). All that remains of Florimène is the argument and a booklet of antemasques written for the play by Aurelian Townshend.

It is worth noting the heavy technological preparation for this play and its possible all-female cast. B.M. Lansdowne MS 1171, reprinted in Orgel and Strong 638-45, show ground plans for the stage and auditorium, an elevation, and sectional view of the stage and the scenery. It's also worth noting the extraordinary number of French plays this particular year, presented by the Floridor company, which of course included actresses, and sponsored by the queen (MSC 13:131-33).
Further technological innovation can be seen in the Queen's masques Luminalia (1638) and Salmacida Spolia (1640). The very title of Luminalia, subtitled The Queen's Festival of Light, suggests the emphasis this masque placed upon lighting effects. It opens in darkness, gradually increasing the use of colored lights until the Queen herself enters: "behind all was a bright sky, and in the midst, about the Queen's majesty's seat, was a glory with rays, expressing her to be the queen of brightness" (Orgel and Strong 2: 709). Luminalia also makes use of especially elaborate and complicated flying machines:

After this song the upper part of the heaven opened, and a bright and transparent cloud came forth far into the scene, upon which were many zephiri and gentle breasts with rich but light garments tucked about their waists and falling down upon their knees, and on their heads garlands of flowers. These to the violins began a sprightly dance, first with single passages, and then joining in hands several ways. Which apparition for the newness of the invention, greatness of the machine, and difficulty of engining was much admired, being a thing not before attempted in the air (709).

Salmacida Spolia not only made use of exceptionally complicated flying machines and shutter-and-groove scene changes, carefully drafted by Jones's assistant John Webb, but also contained a song addressed to the Queen Mother-not, of course, Anne of Denmark, but Marie de' Medici, who might have been expected to appreciate both the compliment and the marvels in the masque itself.

When Henrietta Maria's various theatrical activities-attending the Blackfriars, patronizing French troupes with actresses, incorporating ever more elaborate theatrical technology in productions such as Luminalia and Salmacida Spolia- are looked at as a whole, it becomes clear that whether she intended to or not, Henrietta Maria was spearheading a drastic paradigm shift in the British theater. The new emphasis on spectacle required the outlay of capital funds by a producer, probably a royal one; this shift from the verbal to the visual worked to the benefit of actresses. And while, as Elizabeth Howe pointed out, actresses at first were exploited as a form of eye candy, by 1695 Elizabeth Barry and Anne Bracegirdle were full sharers in a theatrical company, a state of affairs impossible to conceive of a century before (29). The repertoire was English, and so was the economic structure-the continuity in those areas truly are striking-but the technology and style was continental and opportunities for women in the theater had changed forever. It almost certainly required the influence of several powerful and wealthy royal women, including the women I have mentioned in this paper, importing continental techniques and ideas, to open up those opportunities. Queens, aging or not, indeed did stick together.

Argument of the Pastorall of Florimene. London, 1635.

Barroll, Leeds. "The Arts at the English court of Anna of Denmark." Cerasano and Wynne-Davies. 47-59.

---. "The court of the first Stuart queen." The Mental World of the Jacobean Court. Ed. Linda Levy Peck. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. 191-208.

---. "Inventing the Stuart masque." Bevington and Holbrook. 121-43.

Beaujoyeaulx, Balthasar de. Le Balet Comique. A facsimile with an introduction by Margaret M. McGowan. Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1982.

Bergeron, David. "Women as patrons of Renaissance drama." Cerasano and Wynne-Davies. 69-80.

Bevington, David, and Peter Holbrook, eds. The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998.

Birch, Thomas. The Court and Times of Charles the First. London, 1848.

Brome, Richard. The Antipodes. London, 1640.

Butler, Martin. Theatre and Crisis, 1632-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge, 1984.

Campbell, Lily B. Scenes and Machines on the English Stage during the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1923.

Cartwright, William. The Plays and Poems of William Cartwright. Ed. with introduction by G. Blakemore Evans. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1951.

Cerasano, S.P., and Marion Wynne-Davies, eds. Readings in Renaissance Women's Drama: Criticism, History and Performance 1594-1998. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.

Chambers, E.K. The Elizabethan Stage. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923.
Chibnall, Jennifer. "'To that secure fix'd state': the function of the Caroline masque form." Lindley 78-93.

Cook, Ann Jennalie. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare's London, 1576-1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981.

Cotton, Nancy. "Women Playwrights in England: Renaissance noblewomen." Cerasano and Wynn-Davies Readings, 32-46.

Cox, John D. , and David Scott Kastan, eds. A New History of Early English Drama. Foreword by Stephen J. Greenblatt. New York: Columbia UP, 1997.

Daniel, Samuel. The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. Ed. Joan Rees. A Book of Masques in honour of Allardyce Nicoll. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1967. 17-42.

Deierkauf-Holsboer, S(ophia) Wilma. L'Histoire de la mise en scène dans le théâtre français à Paris de 1600 à 1673. Paris: A Nizet, 1960.

Dutton, Richard. Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1991.

Feil, J. P. "Dramatic References from the Scudamore Papers." Ssur 11 (1958): 107-16.

Fletcher, John. The Faithful Shepherdess. Ed. Cyrus Hoy. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon. General Ed. Fredson Bowers. Vol. 3. 10 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1976.

Gossett, Suzanne. "'Man-maid, begone!' Women in masques," ELR 18 (1988). 96-113.

Gotch, J. Alfred. Inigo Jones. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1968.

Gurr, Andrew. Playgoing in Shakespeare's London. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.

---.The Shakepearian Playing Companies. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1996.

Harbage, Alfred. Cavalier Drama: An Historical and Critical Supplement to the Study of the Elizabethan and Restoration Stage. New York: MLA, 1936.

Hotson, Leslie. The Commonwealth and Restoration Stage. New York: Russell and Russell, 1962.

Howe, Elizabeth. The First English Actresses: women and drama, 1660-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.

Howell, James. Familiar Letters, or Epistolae Ho-Elianae. 3 vols. London: J.M. Dent, 1903.

Lacroix, Paul. Ballets et mascarades de Cour de Henri III à Louis XIV (1581-1652). 6 vols. Geneva: J. Gay et Fils, 1868.

Laud, William, archbishop of Canterbury. Works of William Laud. Ed. William Bliss. Oxford, 1848.

Lindley, David. The court masque. The Revels Play Companion Library. Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 1984.

Ludlam, Charles. Isle of the Hermaphrodites. The Complete Plays of Charles Ludlam. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. 329-55.

Lytle, Guy Finch, and Stephen Orgel. Patronage in the Renaissance. Folger Institute Essays. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981.

Malone Society Collections 13: Revels Accounts. Oxford: Malone-Oxford UP, 1966.

MacIntyre, Jean. Costumes and Scripts in the Elizabethan Theatres. Edmonton: U of Alberta P, 1992.

Maland, David. Culture and Society in Seventeenth-Century France. New York: Scribner's, 1970.

McLuskie, Kathleen E. and Felicity Dunsworth. "Patronage and the Economics of Theater." Cox and Kastan. 423-40.

Montagu, Walter. The Shepheard's Paradise. London, 1659

---. The Shepheard's Paradise. Ed. Sarah Poynting for the Malone Society. Oxford: Malone-Oxford, 1998.

Nagler, A. M. Theatre Festivals of the Medici. 1539-1637. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1964.

Nicols, John. The Progresses, Procession, and Magnificent festivities of King James the First. 2 vols. London, 1828.

Nicoll, Allardyce. Stuart Masques and the Renaissance Stage. New York: Benjamin Blom, 1938.

Norman, Marc, and Tom Stoppard. Shakespeare in Love: A Screenplay. New York: Hyperion-Miramax, 1998.

Orgel, Stephen. "Florimene and the Antemasques." Renaissance Drama IV (1971): 135-53.

---. Impersonations. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.

---, and Roy Strong. Inigo Jones: The theatre of the Stuart Court. 2 vols. Berkeley: U of California P, 1973.

Pardoe, (Miss). The Life of Marie de Medicis. 3 vols. London: Colburn and Co., 1852.

Peacock, John. "The French element in Inigo Jones's masque designs." Lindley, Court Masque. 149-68.

---. The stage designs of Inigo Jones. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.

Pitcher, John. "'In those figures which they seme': Samuel Daniels' Tethys Festival. Lindley, Court Masque. 33-46.

Prynne, William. Histriomastix. Rpt. Garland Series: The English Stage, Attack and Defense 1577-1730. Ed. Arthur Freeman. New York and London: Garland, 1974.

Racan, Honorat de Bueil. L'Artenice. 8o. London, 1626.

Richards, Kenneth R. "Changeable Scenery for Playing on the Caroline Stage." Theatre Notebook 23 (1968). 7-20.

Rosenfeld, Sybil. A Short History of Scene Design in Great Britain. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1973.

Shapiro, Michael. Children of the Revels: the boy companies of Shakespeare's time and their plays. New York: Columbia UP, 1977.

Southern, Richard. Changeable Scenery: Its Origin and Development in the British Theatre. London: Faber & Faber, 1952.

Summerson, John. Inigo Jones. London: Penguin, 1966.

Thompson, Anne. "Women/'women' and the stage." Women and literature in Britain 1500-1700. Ed. Helen Wilcox. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 100-16.

Tomlinson, Sophie. "She that plays the King: Henrietta Maria and the threat of the actress in Caroline culture." The Politics of Tragicomedy: Shakespeare and After. Ed Gordon McMullin and Jonathan Hope. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 189-207.

Veevers, Erica. Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and court entertainments. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.

Welsford, Enid. The Court Masque: A Study in the relationship between Poetry and the Revels. New York: Russell and Russell, 1927.

Wiley, W. L. The Early Public Theatre in France. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1960.

Williams, E. C. Anne of Denmark: wife of James VI of Scotland: James I of England. London: Longman, 1970.

Wood, Anthony à. Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis Oxoniensis. Oxford, 1674.

Wright, James. Historia histrionica: an historical account of the English Stage. London, 1699.

Return to the Professional page.
To return to my home page, click here.