1.) All of the performers mentioned in the articles were solo performers. What were the advantages to performing alone? What made it appealing to to performers during this time period?

The advantages of performing solo were many. To begin with, the performer had full control of all executive decisions regarding his or her performance. The content, structure, pace, style, and duration are all determined by the performer. This meant that the performer was free to include any content that might otherwise have been considered 'taboo' in society at the time. As a result, many social and political issues of the day were topics of the Platform Readers, and were delivered to their respective audiences through comedic means. To illustrate this point, one need search no further than David Ross Locke, who, under the guise of alternate-persona "Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby", used satiric wit and humor to publicly lobby on behalf of many paramount civil rights issues. McManus states that Locke, "...advocated reforms that are incorporated in six ratified or proposed amendments to the Constitution: the 13th (slavery abolished), 14th (equal rights), 15th (right to vote), 19th (vote for women), 24th (barring poll tax in federal elections), and proposed 27th (womens rights)." The article by David Thompson lends insight into the great creative control that performers had over their work and how it impacted the performance. In regard to Charlotte Cushman, Thompson states that, "By reading all the characters, she [Cushman] became, in effect, the director of a company of Charlotte Cushman."

I would contend that this practice was made appealing to performers of this time period by the puritan laws in the United States that forbid plays, such as the "Act for the More Effectual Suppressing and Preventing of Lotteries and Plays", as discussed by Kurt L. Garrett. The fact that there were negative attitudes toward plays simply incubated a movement of platform readers. If there were not going to be plays, then a creative performance community simply found a way to circumvent the law. The "unknown reader of 1769" came into existence as a reaction to the bizarre puritan laws forbidding plays. As a result of not being able to perform as a group, the unknown reader would simply recite poetry, song and plays. Although this method was still somewhat suspect by the puritan community, the unknown reader was largely successful in his presentation of material in a solo context.

1.) What was the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi? How did these festivals serve as celebrations of "the body"? What socio-political groups interests were served by the festivities?

The sociocultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi was so unite the people and reaffirm their roles in society. In much the same way that a parade might serve the functions of both celebration and community identity, the feasts of the Corpus Christi did the same. The feasts were celebrations of "the body" because of the hierarchy of participants. The Guilds of the time were constantly competing for the right to present a display (or float) in these celebrations and this created a sense of status and hierarchy amongst participants. It would be easy to recognize the most successful organizations and guilds who compose "the body" based on their pomp and elegance. The town leaders and church elders would follow at the rear of the celebration and represent the head of "the body".


Clearly, the Guilds were a major group whose interests were served by the celebration. In a type of modern-day PR and advertising, these organizations would flex their muscle and display their power, and this served to affirm their integral position in society. The town leaders and church elders were also groups whose interests were served because they were being represented in the celebration as the powerful and controlling elements. It would be fair to say that all persons involved, and not just groups alone, had interests that were served in these celebrations. If you belonged to a Guild, then your interest was served indirectly by the success of that Guilds presentation. Regardless of your role in society, your status in society was reflected in some manner through your level of participation in the celebration, so it would be fair to say that everyone's interest was presented, yet not necessarily served.

1.) What role did women play in the performance of cultural texts in this era? Why were there differences between the performative roles of men and women? Were the contributions of one gender valued more highly than the other?

An exemplary illustration of women’s role in the performance of cultural texts can be found in the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus’ Germania. Where he states that, “The barbarian women, excluded from hand to hand combat, participated importantly through theatricalized performance on the sidelines.” Dwight Conquergood explains how women played an integral role on the battlefield through performative ritual in which they would literally cheer the men to victory. Conquergood states, “The women were not content to stay at home and await the outcome of the battle…” Conquergood further cites that women were witnesses to the valor of their men and in a sense served as performative directors through, “…womanly shrieks, applause, or scorn…” while the men engaged in battle.

Performative differences existed between men and women primarily because of the boasting custom. In a boast, men would proclaim their glorious past achievements in public. This practice of boasting would occur in drinking halls in front of community members, and as Conquergood point out, “Boasts, then, are personal narratives in which the speaker recollects and shapes past experiences into a sequence which inexorably calls for a sequel.” The role of these ‘boasting men’ was to fulfill their boast in battle and thereby the performative action was predicated by the boast itself. If a man were to not fulfill his boast, he would be ostracized and scorned. Although Conquergood gives one 'legendary' example of a woman baosting (Minutia), the boasting was largely a male tradition and served, primarily to be used in battle. As previously discussed, women would engage in their own form of performative action on the edges of the battlefield, although not held personally for these actions as in the case of a male boast.

We can discern from the text that contributions of both men and women were valued in Anglo-Saxon society. While they may not have participated in physical combat, Anglo-Saxon women were attached in a type of performative tandem to their men while a battle ensued. Just as it can be said that without men, there would be no warriors to defend a village, it can also be said that without women there would be ineffectual support for these warriors. It is certainly worth mentioning that absent the battle, men did very little, while women took over nearly all of the responsibilities in the village. Conquergood cites Tacitus’ report that when not in battle or hunting, men digressed to ‘sloth and feasting’, “surrendering the management of the household, of the home, and of the land, to the women….”