https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1661/01/03/
and after that to the Theatre, where was acted “Beggars’ Bush,” it being very well done; and here the first time that ever I saw women come upon the stage.
and a few years later: https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1664/10/04/
Thence-setting all them at home, I home with my wife and Mercer, vexed at my losing my time and above 20s. in money, and neglecting my business to see so bad a play. To-morrow they told us should be acted, or the day after, a new play, called “The Parson’s Dreame,” acted all by women.
tangentially, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/oct/18/nell-gw...
"Tommorow they told us should be acted, or the day after, a new play..."
It's like declaring a bunch of helper variables before getting to the main body of a function.
Or maybe we're both right? Could be a co-relation.
The analytic/synthetic divide doesn't make sense anyway, it's just pulling from Kant and a poor reading of him at that.
It's crazy that it took so long for women to walk upon the stage, but even crazier, that once they did, they put on entire plays acted by only women in such short a time.
Charles II also spent almost his entire adult life in the Netherlands and France where the arts were much more advanced. Theaters being banned for ~20 years also meant that they had begin do pretty much everything from scratch
A Woman Appeared on the English Stage for the First Time on This Day in 1660, Transforming the World of Theater Forever