Women, Status and the Popular Culture of Dishonour
Author(s): Laura Gowing
Source: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, Vol. 6 (1996), pp. 225-234
Published by: Royal Historical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3679238 .
Accessed: 12/09/2013 15:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WOMEN, STATUS AND THE POPULAR CULTURE
OF DISHONOUR
By Laura Gowing
READ 25 MARCH 1995 AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
THE history
ofhonourin earlymodernEnglishsocietyhas tendedof
to
focus
on dishonour.
The waysin whichwomenand men
necessity
weredefamed,shamedand dishonoured
have seemedto offera vivid
intohowwhatwe call 'honour'workedin earlymodernsociety.
insight
And yethonourand dishonour
werenot exactlycorrespondent
points
on thesameaxis ofvalues:whatwas dishonouring
was riotnecessarily
theoppositeofwhatconstituted
honour.Thiswas especially
truewhere
in all sorts
sex was concerned;sexualconductcouldbe dishonouring
was
ofways,but rarelyifeverdid it conferhonour.Sexual dishonour
of
a conceptand a processwitha disrupting
its
own,applied
power
mostpowerfully
to women.
as one of the meansby
Honourhas generally
been conceptualised
whichstandardsof behaviourand social relationsbetweenmen and
womenwereregulated.Insultsto honourhad theireffect
by shaming
But ifwe focuson thedishonourthatwas the
peopleintoconformity.
threatcontainedin theidea ofhonour,thefunctioning
of
omnipresent
an honourrhetoricbecomesmore problematic.Dishonourwas far
morethana threatthatcould be pressedintoserviceto ordersocial
relations;it could be an active,disruptive
processin whichshame
dislocatedrelationships
and hierarchies.
This was particularly
so in the
case of the dishonourof women.In the culturaldiscoursesof early
modemEngland,themodelofhonourablefemininity-passive,
chaste,
offemaledishonour,
obedient-had one kindofpower;thediscourses
readveryoftenthrough
sexualmisconduct,
quiteanother.Indeed,the
was imagined,ridiculedand
forcewithwhichwomen'sunchastity
of dishonour
proscribedmade fora culturein whichthepossibilities
seemalmostto erasethoseofhonour.
The literature
of femaleadvice,litigation
overdefamation
and the
of
insults
of
women
centred
on
language
chastity.'
Chastitywas no
'On defamation
seeJ.A. Sharpe,Defamation
andSexualSlander
inEarlyModern
England:
TheChurch
Courts
at rork,Borthwick
Courts,
PapersV (York,I98o); MartinIngram,Church
SexandMarriage
in England,
1570-164o (Cambridge,1987),ch. io; I discussthelanguage
ofslanderand honourin chapters3-4 ofLaura Gowing,Domestic
Women,
Words,
Dangers:
London
andSexinEarlyModern
(Oxford,1996).
225
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
simpler a term than honour; like honour, it was negotiable and
depended on appearance as well as deeds, on social as well as sexual
behaviour. But in public discussionsof female honour, chastityessentiallymeant passivity,the avoidance of sin. It was the absolute opposite
of the activity,work and consequence thatconstitutedmale honour. In
practice this equation of women's honour with doing nothing, and
men's with doing something,was impractical and largely irrelevant,
particularlyfor workingwomen. Garthine Walker's work shows the
range of deeds and identitiesthat mightconstitutehonour forworking
women: honour was not just what was done to them but what they
did; and the readiness of working women to go to law over their
reputationalso suggeststhat honour, for them, mighthave an active
component. For higher status women, I want to suggest here, the
ideology of passivity had more purchase. Honour, for them, was
likelyto be neithera resultof public deeds, nor a reward that could
be won by battle: for the countess of Castlehaven, as Cynthia
Herrup has shown, fightingfor her good name would not have
restoredit.'
The meaningofwomen's dishonourwas neitherconstantnor unvariable. The forcewithwhich much contemporaryculturemade chastity
central to women's honour has tended to obscure, in particular,the
differencethat status made to the constructionand destructionof
reputation.In practice, social and economic statuswas central to the
culture of dishonour. The rare cases in which disputes about the
reputationof higher status women reached the courts can be exceptionally revealing about the specificitiesof dishonour and shame as
applied to women in-or aspiring to-high places; and, I want to
suggest,about a misogynisticlanguage that sought both to underline
and to blur the divisions of status. The cases of libel and slander
discussedhere come fromtheJacobean court of Star Chamber. There,
such complaints came very largely-in about 8o percent of casesfrom plaintiffsabove the rank of yeomanry,complaining very often
were not only
against defendantsof a lower status.3Status differences
of
Star
Chamber
but
fundamental
to
their
libel cases,
typical
meaning:
they record a rhetoricof dishonour which centred on the disturbing
intersectionof status and gender and which both undermined and
buttressedthe hierarchiesof rank and gender.
The libels sued at Star Chamber representeda very specificgenre
of early modem culture that has been most powerfullydescribed by
'See hereGarthineWalker'sand CynthiaHerrup'spapersin thisvolume.
and theirCounsel,1596-1641',
in Legal
3ThomasG. Barnes,'Star ChamberLitigants
Records
andtheHistorian,
ed.J. H. Baker(1978),9-0o. Womensuingcases as femessoles
wereevenmoreoftenofgentry
and noblestatus.
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WOMEN, STATUS AND THE POPULAR CULTURE OF DISHONOUR
227
Martin Ingram and Adam Fox.4 They were simultaneouslypart of both
or songs,read
literateand oralculture:mostofthemwerelongrhymes
or sungaloud in streetsand alehouses;occasionallyplansweremade
to printthem.Audiencesrespondedto them,it seems,withlaughter
in Dorsetin 16o9,a rhymeread out by
and sometimes
tookoffence:
to
aroused
some
JohnKing
'good laughingthereat',but his mother,
in
him
told
to
childbed,
lying
'gettout of her company... she could
not abide to heare her neighbours... to be abused'.5 The words that
such men, and a fewwomen, said or sung combined insults,jokes and
rumoursand referencesto popular culture,folkstoriesand even classical
mythology.As public performancesor documents,libels were designed
to publicise dishonouringsecrets,imaginingor elaboratingon complex
episodes of sexual dishonour and stressing,in particular, the gaps
betweenpublic statusand privateshame. The multipleauthorsof
slanderous textsassumed a certainkind of speakingvoice that gloried
in bringing
theirclaimsto theear ofthevictimor thepublic,opening
withphrasessuchas this:'WalterRobbinsall healthI wishuntoyou,
I am verysorryto hearetheReportethatgoethabroade.'6Overlaying
the force of this censorious, shaming voice, the sheer mass of words
contained in most libels carried its own power. In the culture of
and disrepute,
reputation
anywordsaboutwomencould be takenas
dishonouring:
simplyto be talkedaboutseemedto presupposeshame.
The highstatusofthewomeninvolvedin libelsuitsat StarChamber,
theirsupposed distancefromstreetculture,gave theseslandersa special
stickingpower. For one thing,to be insulted in the oral culture of
streetsand marketplacesnecessarilyhad a different
impact on working
womenwho labouredthere,and gentlewomen
who did not.As well,
the potentialforresponseand negotiation
dependedon status:proceedingsat the more local courtswhich workingwomen used to
respondto slurson theirreputations
maywellhave had considerably
morepurchasethanthoseofthedistantStarChamberon theintricate
ofcreditat a local level.And in a societyin whichverbal
negotations
insultwas becomingincreasingly
associatedwiththe idea of legal,as
well as informal,responses, the unwillingnessor inabilityof higher
statuswomento defendthemselves
in courtgave a further
weightto
theinvectives
designedto shamethemand theirhusbands.
Whilethe touchstone
of libelstargeting
femaledishonourwas, not
sexual
their
concern
was a materialand
surprisingly,
chastity, greatest
4MartinIngram,'Ridings,Rough Music and MockingRhymesin Early Modem
in Seventeenth-Century
England',in PopularCulture
Englanded. BarryReay (London and
Sydney,1985);Adam Fox, 'Ballads,Libelsand PopularRidiculeinJacobeanEngland',
PastandPresent,
no. 145(1994),47-83.
v. Lawrence
5King
(I6o9),PublicRecordOfficeSTAC 8 190/o7, m. I4,15.
v. Corniche
6Robbins
(16Io), STAC 8 254/29m. 2.
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
tangibleissue that bore directlyon the mechanics of social status:the
most of these cases were sued
economics of marriage.Correspondingly,
by couples ratherthan by individualmen or women. It is by no means
always clear who was the mostinsultedby theirwords: attacks,however
bitterlypersonal, on married women could always be perceived as
bearing on theirhusbands' reputations.Libels featuredstoryafterstory
in which the whole processof exploitsand endeavoursby whichwomen
and men contractthemselvesin marriage was fraughtwith potential
for dishonour,so much so that the problems women brought to the
marriagecontractseemed to make an honourable marriageimpossible.
Relativelyrarelydo these libels actually referto whoredom, or frame
specificaccusations of women sellingtheirhonour or theirbodies. Yet
the exchange of women's bodies for men's money underlies much of
what they say about husbands and wives: thus the frameworkof
whoredom turnsout to be at the heart of maritalrelations.
The dishonour of these women was effectedin the context of an
economic, sexual and material marketplace. In Buckinghamshirein
1607, Dorothy Poole was the protagonistand victimof a song set 'to a
new tune called Pride and Lecherie' and with the chorus 'daynty
Dall Lee'. Its narrator-the usual composite voice of a concerned
neighbourhood-charged: 'when she came firstunto the Towne ... she
had but one poore thredbare gowne ... and now she hath gownes
eithertwo or three ... But how she gotte them, I cannot tell yee.' As
well as the gowns, Dorothy had gained 'stockingesof watchettblewe'
and 'Shee hath a hundred powndes before ... some say tys with
layeinge her legges soe wyde'. Her precise, corrupt economic and
sexual position was clarified:'her maydenhead is not to sell'. It had
gone already,in exchange for betterclothes. Although this song was
entirelyabout Dorothy Poole, 'dayntyDall Lee', it was not Dorothy
who took it to court,but the man, 'ould baldepate', who featuresin it
as her paying lover. It was he, William Abraham, who construed
himself as the more dishonoured and sued the nine perpetrators,
claiming that theyhad not only caused theirchildrenand servantsto
sing the rhyme,but had also sent it to a London printer.7Dishonour,
here, runs deeper than the purelysexual. Women's sexuality,however
neatly it seems to fit into a sexual and economic marketplace, is
fundamentallya devalued commodityand a waste of money. It is so,
at least, for William Abraham; but Dorothy Poole comes out rather
the betterfromthe transaction,having made some apparent progress
upward with her new dresses.
It was in the lightof thissexual and materialeconomy thatmarriage
could be read as dishonouring.The contextof marriagewas, of course,
v. Tyckell
7Abraham
(16o9),STAC 8 036/06.
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WOMEN, STATUS AND THE POPULAR CULTURE OF DISHONOUR
229
whatdefinedwomen'ssexualrole;but it also definedwomen'sstatus.
The combinationof thesetwo processesemerged,in the wordsof
dishonour,as a peculiarlytroublingnexus of statusand sexuality.
Centralto thisvisionofthesexualeconomywasthesizeand significance
of a woman'smarriageportion.AgnesNightingale,
formerly
Bellamy,
and the husbandshe had recently
married,a Staffordshire
yeoman,
came to courtin 1611to complainofa rhymethatwas firstcirculated
In the familiar
formof a narrativeof
locallyand eventually
printed.8
hearsay,it ran:
Abroadeas I was walking
I hearde some people talking...
one said it greivedhimwonderfully
to partwithsweeteAn Bellamy
tuttsaid theotherletthergoe
thanherI troe
we have bettermarriages
herportonis so extreamesmall
it is notto be countedon at all
we have choiceoffiveor sixI say
thatbe herbetterseveryway
herbettersayyou how can it be
she exceedsall maydesin huswiffery
withit theysayshe willreapethegane
a man mayliveand takeno payne
The rhymegoes on to tell the storyof Ann Bellamy'smarriageto
in precisedetail
RichardNightingale,
'kinsmanto a foole',expounding
the bad bargainof marriage.At the top of the listis Ann'slack of
portion:
heire
althoughshe is herfathers
and a velvetthattdothseemeto weare
it is notthirty
poundsofmony
willmainteine
herwiththechargeofherconny
turnsout to be irrelevant:
insteada relationship
between
Huswifery
statusand portionemerges.Ann'sconstant'runningabroade'
chastity,
at night,and a liaison-encouragedby her mother-withthe miller
mean a directlossofbothmoneyand honourto herhusband.A 'nice
wiefand a backe dore',concludesthe rhyme,'do oftenmake a rich
man poore.'9Women'ssideofthemarriagebargainappears,in stories
likethis,tobe totally
theirsexualcreditis easilyundermined,
unreliable;
in EarlyModernEngland'
8AdamFox, 'AspectsofOral Cultureand itsDevelopment
(D.Phil. thesis,Universityof Cambridge, 1992), 233-4.
v. Rotton(1611),STAC 8 220/31, m. 15.
9Aightingale
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
theirwifelyskillsdo not compensatefora lack of portion,and the
moneytheydo bringto themarriagecan be tainted.
Slanderousrhymeshomed in on the tensionsof the intersection
statusuponwomen,but
betweenclassand gender.Marriageconferred
theirdishonourable
charactersor pastscould undermineit. So Lucy
wife,ended up in courtin 1616
Bressy,a Warwickshire
gentleman's
ofbase lifefrom
her
and
honour
against
allegations
defending breeding
herservant.Lucy'shusbandopenedhiscomplaint
to StarChamberby
she had alwayslived 'in thefashionand habiteof a gentleinsisting
womanaccordingeto herqualityeand degree',and thatshehad taken
a place beforeher marriageas a 'wayteinggentlewoman'
to Lady
but had neverundertaken
any 'inferiour
place of attendHarrington
ance'. Lucyhad been slanderedbythecouple'sservant,
GeorgeJames,
describedby them as a 'notoriouslewd fellowand of verybase
life':in herhusband'sabsence,
and riotousand intemperate
swaggering
he had had begun to grow 'dissoluteand outrageous',givingLucy
'many opprobiousraylingand revylingspechesunbeseemingeany
and provoking
sarvanteto givehis maystrisse',
'by his lewdexample'
othersof the servantsto do the same. Lucy'sparticularfears,here,
werenotso muchforherstatusas foritssymbol,theliverycloakthey
insistedthathe
had boughtforGeorgeto wear.They had specifically
was not to be entitledto it untilhe had completedhis servicewith
them,and Lucy,fearinghe wouldrunawaywithit,had lockedit up.
This,thecoupleargued,was thespurthatsetGeorgeJames'sfuryoff,
himto attackLucywithfurther
abuse and reproachesand
provoking
to 'deceaveherofherhonestand vertousreputation'
byplotting
trying
withone ElizabethBanckes-'a womanofverylewdebehaviour'-to
inventa rhymewhichtheywrotedown,deliveredto severalpeople
and sangand repeatedin Lucy'shearing.The essenceof theirrhyme
her
to undermine
was a storyofLucy'sbaseness:it setout deliberately
claimsto gentility,
herpositionas a gentleman's
wife,and, hence,the
with
statusthatenabledher and her husbandto be so high-handed
the liverycloak. If ElizabethBanckeswas as base as the Bressyes's
was intendedto
complaintmade out,thelibelshe helpedto contrive
bringLucy-and withherherhusband---toherlevel.It ran:
Roysters
giveRoome,forherecomesa Lass:
ThoughesheeneversoldeBroome,norhad a good face.
Yet is sheestoute,courageousand bolde:
moreshamelesand impudent,
thansheeis yeresolde.
For takingoffalseoathesshe dothnotcare
or lockesshe is rare.
For pickingofpocketts,
or Bandes:
For stealingofcloakes,goldButtons,
Or cuffes
forto weareto graceherfalsehandes.
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WOMEN, STATUS AND THE POPULAR CULTURE OF DISHONOUR
231
No oysterqueane putteth
herdowneforuse ofTongue:
Nor kitchin-stuffes
Drabbe ifshe doe doe a wronge.
To sellAqua-vitaesometyme
she did use:
No labournortravaylethisDowde did refuse...
are wovenintothe
The rhymerevealshow neatlysexualimplications
If Lucy is not a whoreherself,
she is an equal
languageof dishonour.
to any 'queane' or 'Drabbe': herveryabilityto matchwordsbetrays
herhonour.It is herethatLucy'spretensions
to highstatusmaketheir
thefighting
mark.For gentlewomen,
overwordsthatmightvindicate
markthemoutas further
lowerstatuswomencouldsimply
dishonoured.
to highstatuscarrywiththem,it seems,the obligationto
Aspirations
thathonour
avoid'courage'and 'boldness',
thosedouble-sided
attributes
men,but dishonourwomen.In thesame vein,Edwardand Elizabeth
Frances,a gentry
couplefromMelburyOsmond,Dorset,foundthemselvesin 1623 the buttsof a rhymeby a tannerand some others,
'to maisterall the Towne', and her,more
accusinghim of striving
and
of a moresexualkindof self-assertion.
specifically discreditingly,
'Bes thebeare',it ran,
dothswelland swershewillmaisterbe ofall thewyvesfor
hyedegree
in London
And wellshe mayeI tellyou truesbe maistres
ofthestues
forPompeand Prideshebearesthebell
Shee is as proudeas thedevillofhell'
tookcare to pointoutin theircomplaint
this,theplaintiffs
Countering
thattheyenjoyed'quietand peaceableestates'(infact,Edwardhimself
had been accusedof seditiouswordsagainstthequeen in 1598:trying
to persuadea womanto 'lead an incontinent
lifewithhim',he had
claimedthat 'the beste in England:had much desyredthe plesure
of the fleshe,and had allso threebastardesby nobell men of the
courte"').
The creditand statusofwomensuchas ElizabethFranceswereseen
to be fragile,easilydamaged commodities
of shifting
value. Work,
all
and
demeanour
women's
not
status; justat marriage,
money
changed
but continually
women'sstatuscould be subjectto probthereafter,
lematicand veryvisibleshifts.
JohnEliotcomplainedin 1609 ofa series
of libelsinsulting
him,tellinghow he had fallenin love firstwith'a
as it is sayd';but
propsyyoungmayed,a good yeomangentlewoman
her friends
'wouldnot suffer
her' to marryhim,and he movedon to
'a fivehundredpoundwenchnotfarrefromhisbrother'.He 'brought
& Frances
v. Auncell
'oGordon
(1623),STAC 8 153/29, m. 2.
"PRO SP 12/269,no. 22.
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232
OF THE ROYALHISTORICAL
SOCIETY
TRANSACTIONS
her hitherlike a gentlewoman
borne,in a hat and a featherand
perhapswitha home, withmanyfineguegawesand otherpretty
hercountenenance
thinges,
lovelyherhandeswithgolderinges'.The
rhymetracesthe changesof statusof a man who, in court,styled
himselfgentleman;it has Eliot turningwithfortune's
wheel 'froma
meane man to a playerfroma playerlet himreele/ to a gentleman
born or else a proudbragger/ thento a yeomannextturneheile
turnebagger'.But the main sign,and cause, of thosechangesis his
married.
wife,the 'fivehundredpound wench'whomhe eventually
Her clothesand demeanourtestify
to his downwardmobility.
The
and hershakyclaimsto gentry
statusare
?500 is,ofcourse,deceptive,
undermined
he 'wood herin seacret
by themanneroftheircourtship:
a truncke/ as playersuse to deale witha puncke'.
and spakethrough
She endsup sitting
in a taffata
hatt/ her handesdoe so
'yeomanlye
workeshee cannotbee fatt'.'2The bodies,dressand behaviourof
womenmarktheirhusbands'status:theirchangeability
reflects
suitably
ofwomen'sholdon status.
theslipperiness
Far more slipperywas the femalebody itself.In the rhetoricof
dishonour
women'sbodieswereboththecause and register
ofshame;
slanderousrhymeseffected
shameby describing
the femalebody as
Anne,Elizabeth,Francesand DorothyVenables,daughters
grotesque.
ofa Northamptonshire
in 1604ofbeingdefamed
gentleman,
complained
men
three
who
had
called
them
and
their
motherwhores,jades
by
and queanes'trulls
Bitches
whores
hedge
hackneys,
puncks
twelvepenny
divillsfaces'.A rhyme,
munckeyfaces,
put'to thetuneofpanderscome
away' elaborated:'theyare liketo munckstheyare soe uglyshaped,I
feartheyll
provepuncks,theybeingso often
japed'. Theywereaccused
of having'sweatingarses','theirmunckys
fallan itchinge',and 'they
hang down theirchynnas thapesin Paris Garden'. The Venables
claimedthesewordswerea plotto 'scandalizetheirparents
daughters
in marriage'.Indeed,theydid so in a
and hindertheirpreferments
way:callinggentlemen's
lookingforpreferment
veryspecific
daughters
of
'base trulls'and 'twelvepenny
made
sexual
insulta precisely
hackneys'
economicattack.'3
More fantastic
visionsprovideda particularly
fertile
way of underofrhymes
andlibelsofwomen's
bodies.The imaginings
miningsuperior
bodiesrunon one theme:thatwomen'sbodiesarein a stateofincipient
was theonlysalve.James
decay,forwhichthemedicineofmasculinity
a gentlewasaccusedin 16ogofdefaming
mercer,
Cowane,a Gloucester
man'swifein a longrhymethat,amongstotherstories,toldhow she
"Eliot v. Deering(i609), STAC 8 138/05. Both John and his accusers gave themselves
the rank of gentlemenin court.
v. Knight(1603), STAC 8 288/12, m. 51.
'~ Venables
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WOMEN, STATUS AND THE POPULAR CULTURE OF DISHONOUR
233
chanced 'to catch a fall' and bruisedherself'agaynsta stonywall'
a sexualmetaphor),
(presumably
'puuled'withpain,and couldonlybe
curedby'oyleofman'.'4The finedelineation
ofthewoundsand decayin
theselibelsconjuresup a peculiarly
dangeroussexualeconomy.It is sex
withmenthatwoundsthesewomen;andyetthoseverywoundsalsocall
formento mendthem,often,explicitly,
formoresex.These imagesof
recallthegross,lasciviousalewivesof storiesand
grotesquefemininity
tradeswomen
of citycomedies,and the proballads,the incontinent
miscuouswomenofbawdysongswhosegenitals
aremistaken
forgaping
wells.They suggest,too, pornographic
and medicaldiscoursesabout
anda muchbroadertrope,familiar
inRenaissance
ragingnymphomania;
ofwomenas leakyvesselsand unenclosed
culture,
wildernesses,
leaking
bothwordsand fluids.'5
oftheserhymes,
Longestand grossest
takingthe
leakinessofwomento itsutmostlimits,
was a songaboutMaryLawrey
thatwas circulatedin thetownof St Columbin Cornwallin 1616.It
describesat lengtha fantasy
ofmonstrous
incontinence.
Aftera 'thrust'
her 'floodhatch'was broken;she 'alwaysdothbedue her sheats',her
waterbursting
outin an unstemmable
tide.In an attempt
to 'changeher
she
'sold
her
and
lief',
away maydenhood isbecomea wief'.Herhusband,
a carpenter,
triesto 'mendherfloodgate'--with,
ofcourse,a pin(penis);
'butallhislabourwasinvaynehecouldnogoodeatall'.The incontinence
shehastohirea maidtoholdherchamberpot;theonlycure,
continues,
thesonggoeson,is forherto eat skinnedmicebakedin piesand cover
her'whatI call'withtheskins.Finally,
ifthisdoesn'twork,sheis to 'take
some heare and sue [sew] her geare and bit away the threade'-closing
her dangerousorificeentirely.'6
Underthe exuberantbrutality
of this
as itdoesinboththescaleofbodilycrisisand itsremedy,
piece,revelling
liesa predictable
ofwomen'srespectability
messageaboutthebetrayal
by
theirbodiesand theirdesires.
and investing
them
Tappingintoestablished
languagesof misogyny
withthepowerof local specificity,
rhymeslikethesedependfortheir
connections
betweenalltheseimagesoffemininity:
poweron theimplicit
'4Taylorv. Cowane(16o9), STAC 8 285/27.
Womenof
'5On whichideas see Gail Kern Paster,'LeakyVessels:The Incontinent
'Patriarchal
Drama,n.s.,XVIII (1987),43-65; PeterStallybrass,
CityComedy',Renaissance
Territories:
The BodyEnclosed',in Rewriting
theRenaissance:
TheDiscourses
ofSexual
Difference
in EarlyModemEurope,
ed. MargaretFerguson,MaureenQuilliganand NancyVickers
(Chicago, 1986), 123-42; JudithBennett,'Misogyny,
Popular Culture,and Women's
XXXI (1991),i66-88; and MargaretMiles,Carnal
Work',History
Workshop
Journal,
Knowing:
Female
andReligious
intheChristian
Nakedness
West
Meaning
(Boston,1989),ch. 5. It is perhaps
worthnotingherethatElizabethanpopularfantasiesabout the highestwomanin the
land,theQueen,focusednoton theopennessofherbodybutitssupposedclosure--her
Carole Levin,TheHeartandStomach
allegedincapacityforsexualintercourse:
ofa King:
Elizabeth
I andthePolitics
ofSexandPower(Philadelphia,
1994),836Lawrey
v. Dier(1616),STAC 8 202/30, m. 3.
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234
SOCIETY
TRANSACTIONS
OF THE ROYALHISTORICAL
ofstatusandclass,
theinstability
ofsexualhonour,thedeceptive
mobility
thefragility
ofthedishonoured
body.As theystripawaythesignsofhigh
womento a planein whichtheyare defined
status,theseimagesreturn
oftotalcorruption
andcollapse.Here,women'splaceisnever
byfantasies
ofstatus;and
fixed:notin themarriagemarket,
norin thehierarchies
Above all,
can
female
hold
the
bodytogether.
nothing
disintegrating
the rhetoricof dishonouris a disruptiveone. It makes nonsense of the
establishedrules of precedence, hierarchyand dress codes by insisting
that,as faras womenare concerned,no evidenceof statusis reliable.
hasdescribed
Theselibelsexemplify
theprocessPeterStallybrass
where,
throughmisogynisticdiscourse, 'the eliminationof class boundaries is
producedby the collapsingof womeninto a singleundifferentiated
can destabilise
womencarryfordishonour
group'.'7Thus,thepotential
It was a
thewholeeconomyof domestic,socialand maritalrelations.
focusor
status
men
and
women:
for
servants
middling
powerful
language
thetrappings
ofhigher
on sexualsins,itactually
dismantled
ingostensibly
statuswomen'srankand thecreditoftheirmarriages.
Ifthiswasa disruptive
gender
language,itwasalsoonethatbuttressed
ofgrotesque
order.Misogynist
fantasies
femininity
forcefully
exposedthe
of statusand genderand in particular
the
tensionsof theintersection
and supported
the
nexusofthatintersection,
marriage;
theyalsofulfilled
women.It is
and undermine
orderto marginalise
powerofpatriarchal
rarelypossibleto measurethematerialdamageofwordsto reputations:
we mightmoreusefully
bylookingat a
appraisethepowerofdishonour
victims.
widercontext
thanitsimmediate
Shamingwomenbydescribing
themas theselibelsdid notonlydrawon a setofestablished
images;it
ofimages
Itwastheapplication
creatednew,potentvisionsoffemininity.
that
Libelssuggested
suchas thesetorealwomenthatmadea difference.
or
the
on
the
most
exalted
could
be
and
dishonour
pinned
bodily public
noneof
women.Allwomenwerepotentially
leastimportant
grotesque;
oftheselibels
themhad stablebodiesor lastingcredit.The achievement
fromtherealmofjokes and songsintothe
was to transposemisogyny
ofdishonoursuggested
thathighstatus
everyday
world.'8The rhetoric
withactivity
or'boldwereincompatible
andhonestwifehood
femininity
ness',thathonourablemarriagecould alwaysfounderon therocksof
and thatwomen'sbodiescouldalwaysbe reduced
women'scorruption,
to a stateof grotesque,
incapablecrisis.It bothpresupposedand connormsdrew
tributedto a culturein whichthe powerof patriarchal
ofbrutalmisogyny.'9
fromthedailyapplication
strength
'Patriarchal
Territories',
133.
'Stallybrass,
'8For an analysisofthematerial
in theworldofwork,see Bennett,
powerofmisogyny
'Misogyny'.
'I wouldliketo thankFaramerzDabhoiwala,CynthiaHerrupand Sarah Watersfor
on thispaper.
theircomments
This content downloaded from 193.61.13.36 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:01:23 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions