by Emme Corbett, dramaturg
As a senior student studying history at BYU. One of the first concepts you learn as a history major is that when you study history, it is vital that you do not bring your modern-day biases with you. As strange as some past behaviors or occurrences may be to our modern eyes, understanding the reality of what life was like in historical societies allows for a more authentic and rich study of the past. It also becomes evident fairly quickly that no matter what point in time you’re studying or where you are in the world, there will be commonalities across many cultures. The shared similarity of the human experience allows these connections to occur, so it is no surprise that researching various time periods could be related back to Caesar in Ancient Rome.It was necessary in our dramaturgical research to explore three major time periods that are encompassed within this play in one way or another. These time periods are first, 49 B.C. Rome, when Julius Caesar first became a dictator of Ancient Rome, and the setting for the original script. Second, 1599 England, when William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar was first performed, most likely at the Globe Theatre. And third, 1919 Italy, when Italy was recovering from participating in the First World War, and the setting for our performance at BYU. This weakened state created a situation where authoritarianism could ensue.It was an interesting experience to be able to connect the culture of Ancient Rome to that of Italy in the early 20th century. The reason for choosing this production of Julius Caesar to take place in 1919 Italy is not random. The significance of that time period is to draw upon the reality that history repeats itself. An aspect of history that is repeatedly detrimental to countless societies is when a group of people finds itself weak and vulnerable--whether that is due to lack of resources, a change in leadership, exiting a war, or simply evolving generations--and a power vacuum is created. This moment in time when desperation allows for someone to assume leadership (based purely on the need to rely on anybody) and provide temporary relief is often too quickly turned into an authoritarian government. The third time period that we also had to account for in this production was the time of Shakespeare in 1599 England. Some of the questions we had to ask ourselves were: Why Julius Caesar? What elements from the story of Caesar’s assassination did Shakespeare feel would resonate with his audience? From these questions and further research on the Elizabethan period, we discovered that, like in 1919 Italy, there was a concern with the succession to the Crown. Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne at the time and created conflict among the people beyond her just being a woman in power. Queen Elizabeth never married and subsequently never bore any children, thus failing to secure a successor who was in her direct line. Another element of the play that related to Shakespeare’s audience was the role of the plebeians. Their behavior in the play could symbolize how the lower class in the Elizabethan Era, while uneducated and changeable, contribute largely to the success of their society.
Dramaturg's note by Sammy Daynes Utah women of the 19th century believed in many of the same doctrines that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in today. They also believed in and practiced the doctrine of polygamy, which was accepted as not only revelation from God but also an unremarkable way of life. Many women found happiness in plural marriages, formed close relationships with their sister wives and helped each other in raising children. One woman, after being proposed to, asked that the man marry both she and her sister. Hundreds of women accepted plural marriage- “some because they believed plural marriage was a glorious doctrine, others out of a hope for future exaltation or because conforming seemed a lesser idea than abandoning their homes and faith.”* To be a Mormon at this time meant to fight to practice your religion. The people were full of faith, because the very choice to be a Mormon was in effect equal to outcasting yourself from the rest of America. The rest of the country saw polygamy as a great evil, and as a result, Congress rescinded women’s right to vote, something that had already been permitted in the territory for 17 years. Utah was unique in the sheer number of women who campaigned for suffrage. Utah had a higher proportion of its population affiliated with the national women's suffrage unit than any other state or territory in the nation. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other famous suffragettes came often to Utah and found the women there to be some of the most incessant campaigners for women’s votes in the country. A gathering of Utah suffragettes was called “one of the most remarkable, perhaps, that has ever congregated on the Continent. To see a mass of between 3,000 and 4,000 women…meeting together to advocate the claims of polygamy and defend the men who practice it.”* [caption id="attachment_7360" align="alignleft" width="300"] (Courtesy of National Women’s Party) Local leaders in Utah encouraging rights of Women’s Suffrage[/caption] These women were full of faith and would not back down. In a New York Times editorial, a writer supposed that if women received the vote, they would use it to eliminate polygamy. No one suspected that the women would fight to defend it. Phebe Woodruff said that if Congress chose to imprison Mormon men they would have to “make their prisons large enough to hold their wives, for where they go we will go also.”* When Wilford Woodruff finally issued the manifesto advising the saints to desist in practicing polygamy, the reaction was mixed- some joyous, some sorrowful, most simply confused. If anything, it further spurred women in the fight for suffrage, and they were rewarded when Utah received statehood in 1896 and its constitution gave women the right not only to vote but also to hold office. Suffrage brings us right into the lives of two sister-wives who valued not only the vote but also their polygamous marriages. The struggle of Ruth and Frances to balance their faith, their freedom, and their responsibilities is one the play tackles with heartbreaking grace. Hearing their story reminds us that despite their wildly different circumstances, the women of the 19th century were very similar to Utah women today: fiercely loyal to their families, devoted to their faith, and avid supporters who lifted each other. **All quotes taken from A House Full of Females: Plural Marriage and Women’s Rights in Early Mormonism, 1835-1870 by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Even though this performance will be an audio drama, it was originally conceived as a live, in-person production, including costume design by Claire Eyestone. We hope you enjoy these pictures of Eyestone’s original costume designs, and that they give you perspective as you listen to this performance of Suffrage.
