Ornamentalism h rt if Renaissance Accessories
'cIitd nd with an introduction by Ua tr Ila
illt:.. ~tV£f\SITY OF MICJIICA PRE S
"" R80R Fisher.' Figure a:. Bagged codoiapIece 111 Albrecht DUrer's The Standard Bearer(1498)
Fisher Figure 2: Detail from Albrecht DUrer, The Standard i\ Bearer(1498) I
en Fisher Figure 4: Henry VIII's annor. C\lrn,'ntl) on display in the Tower of London Fi Il(-' F,(ulT 5 Po"tall nne, Ilolbeins Whll -hall Muml of Hennj VIll
Fisher Figure 6, Edward VI, Prince of Wales 5 WILL FISHER
"Had it a codpiec , 'tw rail an in 1 • l": The Codpiece as on titutiv A I') in Early Modem Engli -J ultur
The Oxford English DicliOIltinJ d < nix· thl" 'I'll . 'I'" pendage (worn on] . , . the front of tl", cia -.11111"1:" - r b . lin England] from the rgth to the (earl)') '7th 'lIlt'I)" I IW"()III" 1"""'" ' plain that men first began to 'war Ihl , • 01)' ,,1"'11 II.., lIdoplcd "lOft doublets in the place of longer, kne -·Iell th u II III ....'1...r u II.. sureoats had completely cove,cd Ih !I"'"I in for men's genitalia, It is not theref I'(' urprt III l 1111') tI I d...,'abodilllll that this accessory was a ern iul compoll -nt of Ul .In UbI'. 11. helped to make its wearer into n "rnan tntl ,«J" aUI I til< .... b need to recognize that codpieces "'''' III " • fl., b,.lId thus the OED's definition is somewhal nu I, ,dmlllll 1I~" .1 II U sian of a single, uniform object. In f.~ • tI.t'1'(> " ..... l\' U II l\ ol c0d- pieces, The first was the "bagg d nppenW'I((" til' nlx-.l III 11M . and tho second was a more phallic ppendllg Ih u 11 f. ,h 11 I daam> looked like a "permanellt erection,"lflh l\' f. nIl ftl>.. th emphasized two dift f I h erent parts 0 t I Illl,le '1lI1a1I,. III till t at they also helped to materiali, two IlIpellnrt Idt''<»D!Zi .... the first equated masculinity with ....produ • n, nd II MI:n/ II WIthsexual conquest. and speciRcall "ilh ph.ul P':II I The Rrst main style of codpiece--lh "I". od PI" llcl n IIbOIlt I 102 I the OED-is d pleted in Albr ht Durer's engr'lVing The St I I B 6 c @c~ W~ (q gure. and 2). This accesso,y was essentially a tri I. n H. ( nangu ill nap or go I that" attached to the front of the hose or breeches. The bottom rom 'oflh triangl was sewn to the inseam of the garment, and the top two eorners w trached n ar the hips either with buttons or with laces called "codpl poin oW n writer from the late seventeenth centUly describes this tyl of codp. • in his account of "the Suits that [were] generally worn hcreto~ re In EOJ!,lont": h a the codpi ce "came up with two wings fas- t ned to .th r sid wilh points." The writer notes, moreover, that this "large .00 ampl pi uppliccl the want of Pockets," for when the points were "unknit,· th "made w to the Unnen bags tyed to the inside between the hut ami pi. the B h lei very thing they carried about them." The od 1)1 of eodpi was an ornate phallic sheath that protruded conspicuousl from the front of the outfit.2 This type of codpiece is portrayed in Agnolo Bronzino' Portrait of Cuidobaldo della Rovere (1542) (see figure 3 Th ry was con truer -d out of layers of woven cloth with inner paddin nd ta) ccordin 10 the fashion historian Aileen Ribeiro, the "1IlOlIt>st codp e of the lal fifteenth century ... assumed the shape of a per- manent rection -a John Bulwers proto-antropological text Anthropometa- """.,111(>, (I ) compare the people who wear this second version of the cocIpoea; 10 til "Intl/I/11$ of th Island of La Trinidad" who "beare their mem- bers lila Gourd 0' Rced. as It w r in a sheath, letting their stones hang out." I nOlccl rh or.thl essay sets out to analyze the gendered work per- fonned b) th eodpt in early modem English culture. In particular, 1 "OUltto anaIy.e th relationship between the codpiece's forms and the ide- ologic>of 1Il&!C1Jlinll)'circulating at th time. 1y argument is, however, ulti- lI10llChmort' m terinli t than miotic: I believe that the codpiece wasn't Slmp~ " of 1n.1SCUlim • but that it quite Literallyhelped to mold the body and lll -HoJ iI 0 codl' ',,,,,,,.,, (I mon i,uked" / 103 dition, and yet it is also a necessanj nddul n ( I 1l1/ttl.-,:n,1 part ,fl<, I_ since it reconstitutes what the whole I Anne Hollander's study "'e/III!. IhnHll!.h 1,,/11/" p,.,."j, II aI model for understanding how c1011Illl!": h••p<· ,d.·.., ~I .1 II...III.flUl. bod, Hollander's study begins by l'xnmilllull OI.dl· frooo \11"1\ d.n: "11111111('pt'fI- ods and noting the drastic varintlon in th .. carport· I '''' f II", IIlMI cI<- preted those paintings, Hollander the-n "'Ilul" Ih.•1 I" I,~...J r. nn of tJ,.. body presented in each imagl' rf/"poncll mlllt"'. Ie>I... · 0"" f I"" pro ments popular at the time. . fOI example. h ul 1'\ I~I II", 01' women in paintings by Tlntoretto 01 0, .wn I ,. m..ll R I ,,", and cylindrical torsos. and stmultnneou In.· 11t.1l II,. shape of dresses from the period. 11011.lid '1 dill "" that it is as if the nude bodies in these pi' 1I1111l: tr 'illi • by the "absent" clothing, and us II'SUIt, III a If invisible clothes when we look at Ihc\I1.6 Following Hollander. 1 want 10 "AAI' I th.11 Iht· I .1 tb< ideas about the body (and sp ciOeali Ih· 11",1,· 'mlull~l m ri) nwxlrm England. And while we mighl be II'mptl'd Ie> .\ Ih.'1 tI COl~pi"""~ helped to shape the psychiC contours of Ih 1>0<". I bt-ll'" tI I til 'b' ble to completely separate ideas nbout Ih,. body r. III II... bcx~ tI If Ju- dith Butler puts it. the body i n't impl bound 111'111 1I,m-dllClblc, I.... with tl,e culturally constn.et d fX'lCt'pli n of ,I. III It . Ihe " dUI tension.7 Texts from early modem . nglond th .1 d., U th II'I< II,. tend perfonn two types of cultuml wOlk with II ... ttI Ie>till lIIld "'II. ... gard to gendered ideologies of Ih rn. fil\1 n'.Il" of""·10 \\ tit to r. accessory as an integral lem nl e>fmt Inlll . r I IIpl<- Henry Medwall's FIlI{!,cns find L."cn:CI' lm\l1 tlllll - nM\ ,; nowaday" must have a "cod' I.. ' ill • pIece "':'Or<" 111 I ll: ..1" the greatest charge.". ledwall' plo I ..... • wa fi ,,(' ",.". I I nl ,"",,,,Lit In this ge. lc:cols de ribes an ambiguously gendered figure who is ",~1l1 of tho...- portrayed in the Ifle Mulier and Haec Vir pamphlets. AWlOUftthh IlKl.v'dual that i lcools depicts already has a number of mascu- lim- altnbut u h. the "hat," "halre." "band," and "doublet," Niccols im- pbn tI \ltlLhout the pi de ~ sistnnce. the "bodie" remains feminine. and ~. the 1.01 • a "men trous" amalgam of eontraries. wuh a codpiece, '- r Ihe ul will be upped and the individual will become "a man in- drfd -nutS. for m) purpos' . th crucial thing to note is that even though th<- p doc- not net aIon ,it is imagined to constitute the gendered Klmll!) of lIn mdJ, dual--lo help make him/her definitivel), into a man. Ldu. \lech"11 and ;>:ic:cols.th satirist John Marston suggests that the eed .blosh the m ulimt)' of the person who wears it. Indeed, the nonnaII) ,rica! \l.u-ston i at 6rsl urprisingly restrained in front of this ar- br....t.II that he will -Hod rJ tl codp; . ·tteerc 0 mon indeel/" / 105 never raile at those That weare a codpis, thereby to drsclo What sexe they arc, since trumpet bree h(o \ ". And all men's eye save Lin u un nbu .11 In these lines, Marston suggests lhat II", cotlp,£ . h ------. 10 hakespear es pia. it becomes evident that this conue ti C C Ion was not same- thin. on rural" or unr III. rknble, but rather something th ey Iabored to es- IlIbh h. Thls w don. In part. by downplaying the codpiece's derachabil . •1).lran. ~ robili!)' and h nee fast ning the object Rrmly to men. But . rlv mod m t lllon. cLUmlll~ that the III n that wore tIus accessory , tllell. tI I J lIal\lre taught I" m.- . OtJx.r '111 nth-<:enlul)' writ rs, like John Bulwer, had a less nostalgic 'ofdK" I) and the era in whi h it was worn. Bulwer descnbes .the d A . h" and claims 8....-dx· tI p""ious centul)' as being "filthy an pIS • . parts ,vith the vuine aI,d unpmfitable tll<'\ open!) h .d our ret. d "14 AI modell;.r n m""r "i"d, we may not so much name with mo esty. f . . . th dically different mm thoog/l 8"", r' n;alllulwn of the codplece.s uS ra § Ho Iyd ays,' I'liS description of II", 1I('1ll I ("IIl,1f 11\ '"'' says that the codpiece "shewls ] ull thnt nl"" ,."." " "shew]s]" mens "secret parts," For Bul\\ -t. htr\'f f" tin. item's unnaturalness rather dum Its IMt1Ir~'-IJtfI • fll [ • t sizes the indecency of the codpu-ce- h\ II UI~ t U' Irn., to the genitalia-thus indicating rhnt tl.(",\ u ,he to J view rather than "openly" dlspla ('(I Bulwers condemnation or tlw ,"OC-JpIC t U1 Co erature [rom sixteenth-century Cenu ill) \udr. In .1.. for instance, was a book-length Ill\l I,,· "I(.'m I \ .tll~ r&ll..,,,n served some of its sharpest critter III for ti,,, II' , IUit(.'twlI others like it, have been pcrt'eptlv(·I) ,nlll I( II, ' W R and the Devil. Roper maintain IIMt III ilt t If h..1 (IDIto demned the codpiece not because II p.' cclt.. ltI, pi II... b... ""euu,.. a form of nudity, It drsplayed th" (X'nl I t,,,, ., man denunciations clearly res -mbleB"I" 'f (II 1111 I, writers claim that the codpk-ee ",Ii'plll~ 1 ." ... ,..,,, • "It'tI ron. of nudity," Bulwer asserts that II "openl ',I,,'w'd or I saying, however, that in the process of ,n, "I '''nl( tI..." item, these writers ironically perform 111(' f tI.. those writers with a mare favorabl, 01'''''1''' of I", I Medwall: they all eO'ectively f",· th,' codp , ,u,rl tI.., " sequently, I would argue that ev an Ih "d' III II I I.l uh- Jus condemn the wearing of Ihis a • I). I" as a masculine feature. It should, I hope, be clear by now th ... thl" 1:0<11' ' ing that helped to mak early mod,'", ",ru"ld, ... 1 II .. '" return to the phrase 1m, ntiOlll'd ,-"rlll'r), \\1. t \ ", some of the steps through willeh 1111 r, III 111111: \\ I the accessory to nal bod' I I ' I < e Ie . t len. connilllllll..1 I a so IJlsisting that it n 1 th . I \1" I I ac C lilt wich. b lIit n It If ear ~ modem writers maintained Ih II til 1:0<11" ',\"D'''cd' ture gave men, and that it could" '""h h Ih III cultural fantasies have too oft I be .1 ; ans 17 Le S . I " 'J\ t U\("n I (, S ' /, 0 temberg, for exmnpl . discu ' tI. , e"Ua .ty of Christ I R tl· ' 11 e'Uli anc(, 1-\11 (l'nl.\""l 1at thiS accessory indicates .. ". therefore a "t k < a penn .. nl .. { or o en of [sexuall pro.. , I,u~""".r ,! 108 I Ot\~\\It, \LI that the codpi , also an "instrum nt of I)ower" and that the " it of th 1''''1 " c e conceit 0- e p .....u I a manif tation of powe r" (go) was~ "constant"~ tllfoug Ilout Re- nee eu h~~.I ~\'ould argue that this description does not achieve enou h m t, nl.ea! d tanee on the codpiece 0 r on the dirscourses aboutout Iti and Iherefore d n I adequately acknowledge the probl em 0 f' representa- ' bon posed brllll • ry. In reality, of course, the codpiece did not "man- ifl .. tkn'tJuo; n the contrary. its purpose, as we have seen, was to conceaL :-lor r. r that matt r did thl elaborately decorated cultural artifact have any t:nUISpiU"ntcooo i 0 wuh nature. Marjori arber i tOuch more attentive to the ambiguous status of this IIC(~'OI}'. In \'e 1('(/ lntrrrst . she emphasizes the detachability of the cod- piece nd 10 t that the Item bears no oece ary relationship to the body be- neath, In r. . h g SO far' to assert that the codpiece is a "sign of gen- der uodec1dab.l•. - he put it. the object "confounds the question of ender, n it I igmf)' or no. full or empty. lack or lack of lack."w If arbcr pJ'O\ides mu h n eel corrective to critics like Steinberg who as- ume lilt> I} to be tran par ntly related to the phallus, I would argue that h.:r "mph i on th Ind tenninacy of this item, while true, is also ulti- 1l1 109 conRate the codpiece with the male g nllal .11 ill':' \ '''111'''1)c""" . tomtcal feature the writer had in nund 10. ,.,pIc. tIM) "'" actywlaI I t ana (. fl' I .~ .• ""n' 0 I It' • Ill< II...... character m. tIie pat'>I Y lViley Beeutled F~ pro- found" contents of his codpiece. I. could be rt-f('mnR 10 lei r II pi or the testicles (or, for that matter, both or n(·ltll(·' f II., .) What I am trying to suggest h 're i Ih.11 rh . " .. , fONII rei worked to fashion slightly dlffcr lit "('I',-iOIl of 1),(' ", ..I. '" '" tension, slightly different versions fill 111111l) RI "' rr...... ,d" gested tilat in the early modem period. the co, '1'1 of ", ... 1 urdt .... '1l1 a significant shift. According to [enn Ilow ••rd IIltll')"lh R 'n' '·j·I::t'IId<'t. ing a Nation, "a man's identity" had. prior 10 11.• f t-lI.d II on the basis of patrtlin al tnhcritnnee" lIltlllll~. 1 "II), 1., 10 duce, but over time, an "emergent culture- rooprfron'MU' flJ,i,l alull" de- veloped in which masculine identlly " ."" Ipnrn..,,~ el, ual "conquest" of wornen.F' So if thr- older .nlXl,·1 of II.. liuli. 1Ip1 reproduction as a key to establlshing n mil "Iiiit' Itl IIUl,' II... ~ formative" one emphasized scxunllty, alld C' IX 1••11> 1'1•••11 1"'" Howard and Hackin sugge I that tho dark Ulltl""I!4' or III ""M' can be glimpsed in changing ideas about rupe 11", III • I eI I III "where the logic of patrilineal f,'ud"l II~ I II I I'n\11. I tap<" usually] associated with military conqlle I r \ lotill I. eI". 'c llra1 of men. Instead, it serves to sepaml 'low' r III I),rlt ),rUrn- (, III coo- trast, in texts that exemplify the new "p<·.fonllolll\ III .lUl'l): "'I"'" times serves as a "model of mr tiline dOlhlUar .- wi ( on • tt"'...... for the gendered hierarchy"' ('96). Gary Taylor's work on castmlion corrobo I" .... 11.\ made by Howard and Radon. In a,rmll" .. ,I.. VJ,' Western Manhood, Taylor poinlS out 11.011a1tl. ulUl eI, 1('r11l nally referred to ti,e surgical PJ'OC<'Sof rem 1111: til I I ~am~ to be associated with the ampulall n tl. ' I""nh enn s use wlthm Freuclian p rch anal>, 11., • I tration are. for Taylor, indicath'e fa 1(\ '. )"Ii m tI tI,at had Its roots in the R nais an • 11, I • I••bd, masculi 'ty "th . ... :;' e regimc of th scrotum." th n , r e s r : ." Rebecca Ann Bach similarl)' r." t Ih ty s testicular" and says thaI it -"alu' b I sexual act. "'" tI 11I1( r. Ifboth of these "rem "f E I d o·mes 0 mas ulm'I\ " ' .. ng an and stood' t ' . 10 enslon wilh on noth ~r.tlu· fit 110 / anI1\. Mr'T\1 I f the Iorrn r b) the latt r is sugg ted by the cI"'ngingc accounts. 0 f-thet 1e tesftesticles inanatom)' books from the period. According to the anat . 1 d! ..'" C C Oll1lCa tra ition, the eeddes w re con Id red to be one of the "principal parts" of the body, alongwuh 'lao uch r th heart, the liver, and the brain. In fact Galen im that th t tiel ar not simply one of the principal parts, but rather th<') ore tl,,· pnu ,pal part, edging out ven the heart, As he puts it, "The Ikortl.f iutl. 'fit· ,1J~anthor of Iioin/!.:but the Testicles are they which adde a btttt.."ln r"(trlartlt rr!t"1!.f'l'{·(if perfection to the life. because if they be taken 1\\ ). the )Oil. and urag of th reeturc is extinguished."26 Dunng th .l,t nth nd eventeenth centuries, however, the traditional ~InWI .of III ie 1I I n t wane. I lcholas Udall's '553 translation of ~ mini' (UU/)Nlflio$a Totius Ana/omle Delineatio still claimed that the t 'tie prin ipal part: it tat s that they are "numbered amongest t~ 'ne II' membree, a It i a priyncipal rnembre, for withoute it is no liou"" imll.crl· in '5 . Thorn Vicary asserted that "The Coddes ... IS k-d n prioop.'l1 m mber .....s In .6'5. however, Helkiah Crooke ac- kno\\'ledgl'dthaI th 1\ W lie "adversaries who would thrust them out of this .... of dignil) • rcling to rooke, th se "adversaries" claimed that "the do n g>' Io~· t an- and therefore "there is no necessity of them, for Eu,wcJ. 11\'1: without them," rooke, however, did not agree with these ,"I rs h adm' thaI th t ticle "are not necessary for conservation of the h~ ofdlC I,.ull. ,II""" or .ngular man," but nevertheless claims that they are "an lUI n • ,t ," for "th propagation of the whole species. or of manbndt,.· h put It. "th 'are principall parts in respect of mankinde, not h. pt 10 IbISor th••t p.'lrticular man:'" B the mid •. "\('nl£>enth I1tury. the "adversaries" seem to have been DUlg .neLu.C).In • icholas ulpeper no longer felt compelled to include- tlK-It I '" h lisl of principal pal~s: ulpeper writes that "The I'nrlC1/",/(pilrul ~ Ih' 1..1\ r. 11 art. land the] Brain:' He acknowledges .0000rs add Ih Tl' hdll' .- but claims that this is "without any need, be- j di 'd al"3OInterest 1JJe' ll~' n n thing to til n rvation 0 f tenh VI U . - 1I~. th ru nc f "prin .paJ parts" was completely abandoned by UI till' "lIhl 11th ntur)'. ThiS may have been done for SCientific tI... pro~ I n became increasingly emponcal, perhaps om cI«ld •..J tI,at thll' lego,)' it elf was not scientifically necessary or ful ·on..tI .,.. ,Ih' t"nlllg of this decision also seems significant. It may t..1 tI • nal. n" dropped instead of establishing a newpanth~:' ofpnllCl "" .. dUll duded th I sticles. But whatever tbe rationale .- r-' . h te these anatOlTIl- bind .on.lh cn,c;,tl thing is Ihat, '" t e aggrega , ,,/.11 • ·tu:~re a man inc:eet// "uod t1 Q aKlpi eaItexts sugges t tl1at there was a gmdllaJ ere ton of II" .h,,"" lroll 0( the testicles over the course of the arly mooc'm pt." I IrKIt 'd. II helped to instantiate it. The codpiece ultimately materialized both of Ih.· masculinity: some forms of this accessory w rkc·d I italia as distinctly phallic. others worked I lar; The tension between these two model be:'UUI" the writing about the codpiece of one of Ih '.11 I hn tt ..nl "... .111 from the period-Henry VII I. Appar -ntl " c1"nIlR II..· III fill, nr.." one of Henry's codpieces was 1'111 on pubil dl pl.. In IIse- " , of ~ndilll (see figllre 4). It remained there uutrl II", ",Jdclil' e Ilot" ·1'1 IItl, ,tun when it was finally removed, an ·ofTen 'I ell IrUrn f. French visitor, Cesar de Saussur . provtde- .. elt·t II II out of the display in the Tower. Ftrst, he· \II 11,,'llh taining statues and Rgures of score or 0 ()f ttutl"1 .. "1 .. "near the entrance of th hall i' II", fiRIII' of lIr"l) \ III sen ted standing in his royal robes." ccordll1g u> <1«. .m u, some sort of mechanical contrivance in plnee I r(~ "...1 d He states that "If you press a spot on Ihe Aoar \\,Ih \ " something surprising with regnrd 10 Ihis fiR""', hilt " \\,11, leave you to guess what it is. "11 This mechanized display cod Ih" king' pi II quite literally ob-scene-thnt is 10sny. s IIlt'lhilll( th"1 lie. A similar strategy is use 110 deal wilh tlw Ip In hIS account of the "curious figu((' of king II III) Iht. su the Tower (1741). At the end of his d "PIlOIl. II II nl now told my young readers all the fill thtn th II I 1.,,0\\ r III II, place, excepting one": And that's a secret Which king Harry has to show; And so it must remai» nil they to men .'nd women grow,32 Bor~man's decision to rei gnte Ih cod i the open secret" d P was un oubtedl)' n COn. 112 I aRN 'I "T LI \t ------ " W"h"Un primari), for children, but it nevertheless repl.icates, on a verbal Ie- I, I rat used for xhibiting the item itself. John Dunl n and ted Ward provide more explicit accounts of the Tower display Dum n, in hi VUYl/{!,eRuund the World (,691), declares that "the II10SI remarkabl Ihin I nw lin th Tower] was Old Huru's C l-ni " H ' .J O( ·pzece. e not th t u "I. .. u h n izeabl one that I shall never more wonder there beloog'd",molly 11'/0(' 1,,'/ ,," This quip clearly associates Henry's codpiece ""th h ,'\tIlll),Hili ,J want to suggest, imagines that virility to be sexual rather t11ll1l reprodu tve, First of all, th very size of the codpiece seems to be an hld f II '"1).' gMgalltunn exual appetite, Moreover, that appetite is R rrd. n 1'"1 -nn of the number of childr n Henry sired, but in terms of the num r of" '" n he married (and by extension, had sexual relations ""tb) In 11.1'end. Dunton' comm nt implies that Henry needed these mul- bp~ patme 10 II f)' hi " izable" s xual desi re. ,m,lar umpuor about I I"IllY and his codpiece underlie Ned Ward's accountofh, ,1 it 10 the Tow -rof ndon published in 1699 in London Spy. Ward m nti n th I he w "the Codpiece of that Great Prince who never codpiece that characterizes the object in 11I0rt' f' ·prod .. 1 that. according to his guide. in [Henry's codpiece], to this Duy, remuin .Iu \'(on" •• n. (.f In f Woman, tho' she has for mnny 're.u been O.tn II lMll I I-t.. Member-Case. the next time she u Henry's codpiece thus seems to ha\'(' 1'1\ I, "I Th "~ ••( eT~ are, however, a number of somewh ,e unorth p~actice. First, the codpiece serves as 3 "'prodn l\ UtI ~ : an men. Second. this scenario Iuv -rts tn,dlll n~t.I n("'r ~ ~e women who stick phallic "pin" into 1111' 'dltuw1". " n y. It IS strange the obiect ,. - r I • J U(,"CUIll • U 1("111 ,,,. boa I gIVen Henry's weLl-kn . _ . Il1 .,. t TI . Own reprodu tl\" IribuLlt. n 1e practice of Sticking pins inlo f le",y' rotlp".., .. seventeenth.century ballad from II", P . new All-a· mode Pincushin .. p> II tower / stick ~. g. On of tb., ,. t' t I II,' P._.L. orty m an hour / po Id piece does never c r be n an 0 Pan I hlnt.t f I d ry, 'Or or forbca r, lit . r. u e to the custom of sti k" r. r It hi .d." that 81is was a feltllity .~ u;g pins in II -nl).' Ir. .. tcnded allusion to ne .. nst od. thl' p II I .• I prostItUtion ond Ii kill'" - t'o pm ntla ttl second.1t), m • ln i igoaled most clearly in the lines e'1,lrunmg that 'Tor a pence piece th Rabble-Rout / May stick 'em [pins] in and tak ' "38 If, in this ball d, the codpiece is returned to a Ie em out . sexua ane.j more speoGcaU ".pen troth economy. the fact that it was sometimes used as a fertlhl) ~mbol III an that the cultural work it per~olmed was so mew hat un- t" nor contmdi O?' Ind ed, H would appear that both of the ideologies of rna..scuhntt) cirC'ulaLlIlg ot the lime wer in one way or another articulated throogh tIIi I)', hi itunlion might be explained in parl by the odd sOOpe of the TO'. r codpi its If (it seems to meld both phallic and scrotal men ), but .t lndi tes lhal th id ologies of rnasculiniry didn't nee- sanl)' ~ t m. t ri hzed in an ntirely systematic way. 'The rep nt tion of Henry II ls codpi ces from his own Jjfetime also .1111t I,' till polnr. 1\\ t of them, 00 matter what their form, seem to have ~o 11 ,d to n tru mor "testicular masculinity:' For example, the " lI·knO\m Ilotheln mural fit Whitehall portrays Henry with a somewhat pbalhccodp ( figur 5), but at the same time, the portrait emphasizes genl"llloglcnl nrem, Indeed, Louis Montrose argues that "The promi- and ample preporttons of the king's codpiece, .. are especially appro- priat to th d 1\lISllC theme of this particular painting, which commemo- Illt til<' birth of Prince Edward, thus guaranteeing (so it seemed) the _tlnuit oflh Tud rs m th male Hne:''19 This same theme and trope is re- pe led In a portmit of II nrys on (s e figure 6). This image of Edward VI m'lTOn tl pIIInhnlt of hi father in many of its compositional elements, from tllC bat <10\." to tht, codpi and dagger, The art historian Karen Hearn DOl tI t "th ,11 njog of IEdward's Ileft hand draws attention to his cod- pi .- he cLurn . moreo'" r. that this gesture is meant to assure «the viewer of til<' futult' contmuM of th d)11llSty:'" Thu , both of these paintings rind the codpi In them) corntmct masculinity in largely reproductive ~ m. In the nd. It .. uld Ihu appear that Henry's codpiece was alternatively 6~1'fd both fX'llct tl\ and reproducti\'e, evertheless, there does seem to Ill' paU". ",tI. rt ard 10 those figuration: in his lifetime, Henry's ,~od- ~" usu.d/' (tI.ou!(l. not ..1... 0 ) associated with reproduction and tes- ticular hrul .; but lal r It was usually (though again not always) a . Ii 'ty"41 In of alticubhng th, Il .Iy m rgent "performatlve mascu .IU . th. end both of lh log. of masculinity were competing WIth one ru1- other m carh mockm ngland. and both of them were materialized through th. .' hlCk l!la. tried to suggest tI,at these two ideologIes cnrre- , f tI d' While So far, I've been analyzing the culrurnl COil In' I II (ilia modem England and the role that the codp« 'pl.". 11111111 P BUll now want to return to sorn thing thai l mennom I tIlt(: 1 ..uun old. say: namely the fact that the codpiece ch nppr'.," 'tl (fOlII It",...,.111""'''' --- time around the turn of the sevent ('0111 rentul") IKlt or u tkdme to appear as early as 1594. Tit rna II 1lC' de nl -tu\. piece" in The Unfortunate TI"II'>('"''and non- """'ml,,' ..II, II"" ,.... then in fashion."42 The Impllcarton. of COn • f th.1l lilt ItQ lex, 1600, another writer insist d that the "cotlpto ° brh" " ,,,.. ... ° fashion."" And finally, in .628. Robert Iln)'flI on -I I I.... II... Ik-", fashion in a poem entitled "Two Fillhy F h. II llt-"Ml Of all fond fashions, that were won, bv 1\1 n These two (I hope) will ne'r be worne nR,unl' Great Codptsr Doublets, and gre,,' 'odp I hnl It, At seuerall times warne both by mean' nd rt I, These two had beene, hndlhey been w nw I 1·IIt,. Like two Fooles, pointing. mocking c'"clt lit 01111"" .. M..... '''odOf l. 116 lOR' N 'f ~T\LI ,. ------.- In th remalnd r of th e say, , I w,'11be ana I'yzmg f I teenth-century writing that h lped r di I some a t re seven- o vorce t re cod' f identi!)',I hould begin baying that so e f I piece rom masculine IJ I'll n -r rail at those 11 I" 'ar' codp«, th reby 10 disclose What e th 'yare, inee 'trumpets breeches vse, nd 11m 'n'. ave Uneeu elm abuse. If tht' :d lin te:>dJof hadow, lay the substance out, li tre Bnseu I hall tand in doubt \\11 I II u rt , in uch lIermaphrodites uchP an hadowes 0 d Iud our sights.'· II \Inn! n t' nhally reverses himself and advises men who wear cod- pi lemhi mauzed in the foppi h figure of "faire Briscus'T" to "lay the ubst eur." In doIng ,h implicitly acknowledges that the codpiece is noc any' cLlT,'rclll from the "breeche " he mentioned earlier-both of these dung. could be u 1:110 "abuse" or "delude our ights." Moreover, Marston, b~ II 'tll'n. ulumatel su SIS that the codpiece is ridiculous. He does tIus,lO patI. though tJl humorous pun on "steed." The two possible readings of tI...hn an- thus: - •••', '"s'l'(ul of shadow, lay the substance out" and "N ay, R .J of sIwdo-, lay· th ub t"nee out." In the second, Marston addresses 10m flO\\ ""coclp'l d,,·ectly. re~ rring to them as "steed[s] of shadow." 'l'bi> UlOn•. 'r unpl. tlwl til 'Y' are tl)1ng to tum themselves into "steeds," or 'stud hoN' '. by llle -'liMl U Q cvdpit*«. "tu:ere a nUlIi indeelr / 117 • I I "lay the sub Ian • 0111" h II ally feminine. Therefore. un ess they ",11 .. d d bt' f"what sex" they are. "stan in ou 0 es the important things to n tI "bout \1 I n' t I For my pwpos.' . h discourse a" the' eedp« 11M!I • ,~.,. th I t first ventriloquizes tel h at ie a.. f this essay in claiming that th 'll-1Il -cit I I " at the begmmng d th ) Iat~r turns and undcrrnln them \~h -u hto )- It of the wearer, an en c 1 I .. I -It"'· h it is onl the genital "substance" and not it - "lRC ow t Me m • "doubt: about "what sexe' these individual O~. Min dm qUl ton d doi , ole as a constituent element of m "hno' In poul. t" prlJlludlllt co pieces r I I I (" 'J a disjunction between the object ('"shado' ") ant Ill' 1:,'nlh. "I The discussion of the codpicce in TIIi' MIM" ,ytl',/"n,," ,. (IUOO"_T1~' ten by "C .,G Gent ."---- A codpeece breech. is used of all: oh spightfull forge rio. When God fayre [ashion'd part s, vnfa hi nlng. they both deforme those gratious parts. him ,OJ These fascinating lines portray thc codpiece. Ii I nd r, r'lIl t. erie" of the "partes" God created. This descnptlon IIlph t'~ claim put forward by writers like I Iolydoy thai tht, rodp. ent manifestation of those parts. Ind ed, we mlglll • ,I ..u ceptual wedge between the codpi ce and th • g nil." In ,.. ,,~h II as Marston had, though obviously to le hurn rou dT, Even though C.G. condemns the use of Ih,' codp. ,I", t l~ _-l, edges the power that this item had to conShlut· r £ ,Iu II" II ~ II says that "God ... fashion'd partes:' and Ihul b \\ 'mn~ tlN _.W ...... "unfasbion" or "deforme" them. The ulllption Iht· "uti. r , c1oth.ing's abiu!)' to "deforme" Ihe bod mlghl Ix· III ,II cal point made by Anne Holland r in ('<'1"/1.11,","/1." I",,, "I 1101- lander maintains that clothes can shupe til .' JQ\ tive spin, saying thai Ihey "d fonn " or 'un£ 11Ilm" It If recognizes the constitutive power of th codp. • .t I h rei" find that he also endeavors to distan Ihe ob ~," tlre " does th.is in both a literal way (by in inuntl" Ihut II 110111", in a more figurative one (by labelin ' il n -r, 'II I}"), II \\ Other seventeenth-century writ rs al 0 h II 'ng,d III ent connection between th coclpi c and th ~malto _part • II/OR M ST L.I t • ------onlv b)' ref t , codp. are d to h Id things such as ballads , bottles , napkin S, PIS-- tols,\wr. nd n looking glass. And in Thomas Middleton's Your Five Callnnl (I I, trnl of th characters joke about a "great codpiece with nothio !n·t.,,\1 TIl(' d npuon of people revealing the contents of their codpieces a! 1Il'11O"bl) humorous. lcvertheless, the fashion historian Max von Bcehn " 'Plain - th . representation by noting that the codpiece "served pock t m which gentl man kept his handkerchief, purse, and even or- an e .-1I lso point out, moreover. that gentlemen would often pull these Ilenu ·OUIbef re the ladi 'C) and hand to tI,em:·5• The "joke" involved in thu ture I qUIt· mular to til humor that arose from revealing the content ofth codp. In the texts 1 mentioned above. Both follow the typ- ical pall m de nbed 1»' Freud in jokes and Their Relauon to the Uncon- sri"" Sm, anxi I)' I created b)' th potential exposure of the genitals, and tb n It I dl pell I 1»- r 'e"ling the alternate object_53 But if the humor in- '"ClIve lIod il 0 t:Pt11"nx. "teerY!n mon indeed" / .119 Bar's lay Ram Alley, published the saule}'CM TIl( Rnarln~ n hll..t~, ry p 'rrative [,oem Leal/lie (IIul yt/orll (. ". de "'" II Francis Kynaston s na Princess Sydanis, who without scruple instantly p"t on The cloathes Prince Leoline on's w dding dl' - Had worne, and drest her selfe ,,'thollt dela - Nor were the Breech, or odpic to Iwr vi " - se U np Ieasmg - - The contrast between the description of )"1.1,",,111 u ",,, ~,'"Iol~''' believe, striking and is undoubtedly a fmwll II of Ih r tllol tl ~ II" peared in the sixteenth century and tll(· louer in the nud- -nt ..tit \ •. though both of these characters arc the I", II f II,.." they behave very differently with regard I 'pp"'!' Whereas Julia is une rtain t bout lll;ing the Itc'm lud ILl to lJtt Lueetta, Sydanis adopts the item "without n'plr'- • h "., reiterates this point later, saying thlll _he "dre I I,,", Ifr. III I ,k Moreover, whereas [ulia initially state 11111il" 1I1c11,,·-.II.f", trd ...... to wear the codpiece. the Princess has 110 \\1 ·h lin !l",nK tn r ~ posedly does not find the item "unple Ing- TIl ' "I. I be Q II""" "'. stories indicates that the item had. in tit • InU'r'\'t"dus=, ".". , cultural power, and it was therefore ItO I nRc'r (lu,U- t woman to appropriate the object, tor \ -r, m(),..· •.• tried to suggest here is that the \ nou ,...pt· I" "0 codpieces would have contributed t thi tit"' ol0I'HlU"UI 11\ lighted the transferability of this it m, nel)' -11"'<11 d It • from masculinity. A scene from M iddl ton and 0 kl",r' TIll' 11."", , 11"/... I n I Ino:liaIU5 that, by 1604, the codpiece had ••1. 'ad) I "'11 U I nlWh dnoOlticUbt.d from masculinity. In it, a servant r rU~O\ dllli Jon (0 If he :ears that he might be a woman h, I I , I • .kl tho he had haires at his mouth, ~ r ~ oil" (" ),olild women have beardes, mary th - nl(' h,t1~ "'t I. youth to wenre a eodp II ce. ane lUtW no Plltl1' ( sage demonstrates, on the on IUlleI tit I ~~~. beard d d " I> 1111> .... I an eo piece simpl)' by .irtu· r lit ~ II t 1ese Items to evaluate the mns ulanll) of tin. III 3 hand. th sen.. nt al. 0 cI arly qu stion the reliability~ lot f IlOse very items.' He does 50 pnmnnly by dmwing attention to their transferabilu F' I t ~ [I ~ I I y. "rrst, ae ob n II I nllhou~~ th m senger has "haires at his mouth," "some II wom n h. \ beard s. also questions whether the codpIece' guarantees m~hnt.· n mor . forcefully. lie says that the messenger is "a sweet >'OUthto w ar codpi , and have no pinnes to stick upon't." First of all il is important to n t that in calling the messenger a "sweet youth," the ser: "ant Imph tluu s/h i not n man. Even if s/he is not a woman, s/be is oni -\-."$~ ") uth" or uv}. \'1ldeuce 0 fl'this. tIre servant points to the fact thatY slhe"" Ipi - without any "pinnes to stick upon't." On the surface, thi eemm 01 unpl)' m n that the messenger is a somewhat naive or un- "'Ph. t ted II nt III Ihat slh docs not have pins to stick in his codpiece ( "Ih t m).' Bul it al 0 has other re onances that again undermine the m hm' f th flgur. Most ob iously, the servant seems to be ques- bonmgwh II. r th me engel' has a "pin" (in a phallic sense), but this quip "'" al h \ iii re cxeul si 'incancc as well. Apparently, bestowing a pin on lung for having intercourse with them.59A servant in .\1 • for m plnnes, il bestowe them of Jane when we sit by ) 6 r and ro t mbb. I )h and I have good sporte when we are all alone. \\11Co . -n from this p erspecuv , the servant would be mdicattng thai II", mt ng I' I ullm,lSCuline, nol only because slhe does not have a pmlpt'1ll. bill a! bccaus s11ledocs not have sexual e''Perience. Indeed, as I 1I!Ql led rher. bolh of thes w re increasingly emphasized as con- h.u n of m 11111 h I' " ...1' fro11lIh" period pu h d this idea a step further and sug- g. ed thai If tI....codPI was delachable/transferable, so then patriarchal pCl" 'r i ·If III I Ix- open 10 appropriation. For example, in the play AphIS .oJ I','J:"'/o ('57 ), Ihe elm Cl I' Baphasard describes several potential !ttl or tI... " rid !lImed upsid down. He warns not only that "wives" ouIIII."" till' pc: . and ma)'dens coy strange," but also that "maides wid br r I-rs b\ tb" ~U15t' of thi country." In this formulation, the Idea 0( ",,"II" IlR;h codpi. oe hand in hand with them being m~ters. Inck't'd.•1. '1» Ih 'l(U r!hi country" that women seem to become mas- . '1 as a warrung 1 n If th f""l Ill~tic d" ription was meant pnman y, . 11 "men' pprop ....lIi n of tI, codpiece, il was also potentially sub- \"" Ul tI I II I mnnge' ·On ti,e feminine Supremacie"(1613) anll \'i~fn;{I. Gamage writes . / r I 121 -lIacl II D nJd,'k-a·. 'IW("1'l! {I man w( eel I often heard, but never read till now, '" kinde the Codpeeces did W -arC'; T113t women- But in those Iles, the men to women bo\v, .. I should therefore the woman iudge to be The vessell strongst. but Paule denie it rn In this poem. as in Api'" lind Vi'1!.lnlll, III" tmn fl' I II, fillt" foregrounded and is again taken as a corr I II\(' of Ih lr.o" ft "till 0 triarchal power, Carnage says that Ill' hn I.(',.ro Ihul -w 111 ,,-1<1•..1' "the Codpeeces," and that in the "lsi "where Ihl h.11P"" , dlt' n n to women. It might thus se 111 as if .nm Kl" I \,.,nunK 4I1l E~,. women appropriating the codpteee and II>·,.·1", 1f1\ 'rtlll rela- tions, much as in AphIS and VI'1!.lnltl I believe. h(.l\\ 1'( 11M' tually questioning the use of the codpie . llhl>l:C'11t ••• 11•• dwn with its potential appropriation. Even though .,Im ,~,·I""I.,II. I••1 transferability of both the c dpicce and piltri,' h.,l (»', -r.] ... effort to (re)secure the latter. but 11l' d . <0 '''III III d ... ~ crucial point of departure from th s nario de nlxod Ifl.I/,11I and one that might be related to the fa t thM .,111I.' ,.' I I. codpiece had gone out of fashion, \\~lal(,\l't Ih,· ,n while he might be tempted to genl',nllu' bi~ d olllh,· this fantasmatic "Isle" and judge WOIll 'n 10 1"·lh· " II t denies" him this possibility, With Ihl nll-lrnport ..nlcl".hf, tempts to guarantee the legitimaC)' and tabth "Ih the British "Isles" by grounding it in bibll .11 IUtll nl'l ..I 'l'rallaoll)' Paul's pronouncements in orinthlan bout 'ncl(., <0 " .. 1..110:-. note. however. that Gamage con plcuou I, l\ ,I I"" III piece" In the end. his comments (,.,) (·rt lit It ,,, By now, it should be clear thaI 0111' of Ih prim..,.,',,"c~,. ulate the codpiec f I . . e rom museu in(' lei -nht\ 111 dll' emphaslzmg the item's prosth tic nntun- it I ever. that despite the 1" val ne<' of th. t 1 does not follow that d tachable/lnln 12.2 I ...._---- R~A It b ------ able or uperfluous, I would propose seeing it as' I ' . a C lance to WItness the process of con trucuon at work, That is to say the vario s 'I' .. • u mal1lpU ations of h rod it tel" are particularly evident because< the ite In I seIf'' IS prostlretic and \\ re th refor abl to see it being attached detached t £ d. o • • • ' , ,or rans erre . IS 111 11\1 true at both an lividual and a culturalc level . B Ut 1if we remem ber ~hatth manipulnti ns are also acts ofinte,vention with regard to the dorn- III t id Iogle of the t1me--since these ideologies are con 5tantIy reiterat-.' ing them 1\ (~r fallin to do so) through the item-then the item's pros- thetIC nature nu ht be en as an indication of its participation in the ongoln pl"OCC f ld I ieal con truction, and an indication of the "insta- bih ,- of th Id I If, ItllOl.g11thl I speclally true with a prosthetic item like the codpiece, it is \\ Ith lng that It I true of all item that materialize gendered identity If>eludlng-hiol i • r. ature Iik the private parts. Indeed, in this essay, I 1",\ . til' sc:rotaJ C'OU IfIE'rparts? t1)()u~h 1O)·aJlS\\·erto tlds qu stion must remain somewhat speculative, I bdK" • Ilwt .1 I.. ml.'llllng to do with the emergent ideology of mas- cuI"ut ' • II. Ind!ttl. throughout this essay, I have tried to suggest that the \ clWll\ ..J1d t that the messeng r I nO! m.ln IflJ(1 or,~ coel· Honest Whore sugges s I J . « ... to put in it. We on; hi rher for<' 11 II, cultural m- iece WIthout a pill h I ~.. , P . rises out of und in conjunC1lou " •. I J(1~I\/' 01 vestment in tlre pentS a· : .u, . It moreover also have be n at le. I " ...'" lUl I -II 10 the codpiece. may.' I I . r b·[·ty and delochnblli of'M.! ullnlt In "'.. I n- disavow transtera I I areha! power. Notes An earlier version of this essay appeared In In) book '('"f },:1 Modern English Literature and Culture ( omb d)(.t mtJfl(I '006), sg-8,· 1. E11glal1ds Vallit.y: or the Vok(' of ...,,1 f!."ll'ut flu-' \t I ,..,.., Dress and Apparel (London, .683). 123- Tltl I ..".ut \r IUh scription from a much arlier source. See TI,l' Till. liN ,;." Times (London, 1613), 371. 2. Grace Q. Vicary analyzes reprf·st·nt,ltl(')f' of eol, different Renaissance artists: "The rueful (3(1 I(".•nl I fr that between 1400 and 1600 there wt morc: Ih.m On" ukl ol(Odpl«'~,C:.dP;Oet number one was, as we have seen, n son, u1an~ul.un..p tI laces made of the same matertnl as tilt hose \1 UM" truding codpieces worn as addition IUntchhlR ·nlH"' tiM" doe first were worn generally in the 15th C('ntul). Iltt' OdIN'''t II ary. "Visual Art as Social Onto.: The Rcn.us,.mct~ ..ocl (lg8g): 8. For other fascinating work 011 Iht' I ( "Bragueta Humanfstica, or HUIU"nl Ill' Ipt rtt (1997)' 79-99, and IV. L. MeAto ,0" ",1,,1... 0 .. , 1954)· 3· AiJeen Ribeiro, Dress {Ind Mm"r,lIty (. t"\~ YOt 1h"" 4· John BuJwer, Anthropcmu:t{lmu'1,htJd, (wmlon. I 5· In the introduction to In)' book ,\foluwli:J" t \.rt kr: I QIP"'m '''''~. sense to say that in early modern Enlth II c;uhul'1.". t' ~ make the man or woman. 6. Anne Hollander, Seeing thmul!.h Clp,ht 7· Judith Butler, Bodies Thai Mo//(' 0.. 111 York Routledge, 1993), 66. 8. Hen')' Medwall, The Ploy, of ,\I ...I.. ..JI od 1/",,".1 Ii Nr Bowman and LittleR Id, '980),4 9· A~on., \Viley Be{!,uiled (London. I 10. Richard Niceols, The Furtef 1I,..1I1a \"'~I~C gram V1I. J24 I It, \It . At. 9 . de d" / 125 "II.J II Q OK/pi -ce, ',u:;.cre a man In e 34. Ned Ward, The London Spy COITI/,/eol In £1j!}II ... n fon. Looldon Co... ,...~ Society. 1924), 321- 35. From Freud's On Dreams, in The Fmld RJ adcr: ed P 11-, Norton, 1995), 171. 3 . 'Ward, London Spy. 321. 6 Irn 37. A Collection oj 80/lods orl~ln(lIl!l /rmTlul lit) I,J", 1575-1703),3" 78. 38. On the material history of pillS III ("ntH-lith -( -ohsn Thirsk's Economic Policy and Project Tlu: Dt t 4-I'11"'W-'"If • Early Modem Englllnd (Oxford: xford nh'('l"'lIll Pf('.;1o. 39. Louis Montrose, "The ·Iizabethun ubJf'<'t nd ,I.,., an) TheonjlRenaissance Texis, ed. Putrido PUA:t"f nd f) 1c:1 Hopkins University Press. 1986),313-1" 40. Karen Hearn, ed., DyllflStle . P(llntlnJ!. ill Oul••r tlllll I«ul I 153C>-1630 (New York, Rizzol!. '996),49 41. A detailed analysis of the various repre 0' nton' 0 IIrnlY \ III lifetime and afterward) and their rr-lntfonshtp '0 ,I. Iflt,:o!oa:ln side the purview of this essay. whtle there I an lJ\1QU I, the changing perceptions of Ilenry nnd hi codp ... \\ tiel the biography from a discussion of the hi t r1 .tI h'r. 'n clM'I ...... ,sr tty Indeed, the two were mutually conlitltutl\ 42. Thomas Nash, The Uufi,,-tunall' Trm 4'11,.,. I P)llhp lit'. Haydn Mackey (London: verona oeiety, 1 0), '20 43· C.G., Tile Minta oj DcJannlt". ( ndDO, I Samuel Rowlands's The Knot e of lion (I u.l Cod-piece fashion," 44· Robert Hayman. QUOlIf!X:t'. LnIt·I!! Imu' ' .. 't ,./,..",. 1628),3. ,45' ,Mary Poovey, Uneven t» LdlJlmu:nt TIlt· 1ft • Vletonan England (Chicago, Unlv •rs11) or h P 46. Marston, The Metamorphosls (if PlJ!."IlIUmuIfltll don, '5gB), 46-47. 47· According to the OED, n -brlsk- w • H.IL.n'" 48. OED...... 49· C.G., Tile MiTlle aJ Deji,mllt". . B" 16~;),Fran~is Rabelais. G0'1!.antua OIul Pal'tnq.,"'rl • I -, Th M'd ~. omas I dleton. Your Fil(' QII/out ( I Inn ;,2. Max Von Boehn \1 l I (1.0 d . l 0( ct am Manu ...n ,It non: Harap, J932), 128. 53· Sigmund Freud 10k I 1 Strachey (New Yo k.· l'S ant T. w,,. Itclol"'''' 1_. ,Itt- (".."",.,,,, _ r. orton, '963). ." ~4· Thomas Middletoll d 11 I IJ an 10111. 0. kL n 10 and (Manchester: t\'lanci • 'r. l4" lit .. 1 ster IH\' It\ • I 126 I ------, S \{. -----_.~ 55- Fnmci K}'1lMIOn. Lealine and udants (Londo: 6 ) ;J 1,142,23. ;,6, 111Oln8SMiddleton and Thomas Dekker The H t \\'1 "",) • ones, lOre, Part I (London l~ • 1••0, 3". ' 5 . I addre th lripartlt gender clhrisions that underlie this co t ! tl "".nO be _.1. • mmen III te "'"-ref on 31"U) 10 .\Iaterlaliz.lng Cender: - Asl Doted earlier, this pmctice is mentioned in '/lOD C tl "" ! • en emaIl OJverona. It is abo described In \Ieb lor The \\Ihlte Devil (London, 1622). This ~.l}be related the fact thai the money/gifts given to prostitutes was called ·pin n\O~' (wfllch I itself a pared of the fact that the money given by husbands to t.btlr \\;.. \\ also known by the snm name). 60 d oU')- ror"pln-In cordon Willlams'sA Dtaionarq a/Sexual Language and IrnDJ.:t1lJIII IOkef1Jrof'f(J1I and Iflari Literature (London: Athlone Press, 1994), 1032. 61 !lB."lp I a",/I'I,,/:lnlo (Lonclon, '575), srv« 111I1iam .101 ~e, Unsi-lVooisl (London, ,6'3), D4v. 63 magt-'1; \ rse malt It lear that masculinity was not simply secured by "nat- ural- <0'1'0' re,'IU~, bUI abo by biblical authority, \\'ork& iled Bach. R ~ Annt "Tenu Ball: lIenn) V and Testicular Masculinity; or, Accord- lIIg to d OED. hake peare doesn't have any balls:' Renaissance Dranw 30 It .):3-23 Bau ,bt~ 'tk:h~l.nnd -tnne Ruskin Batterberry MirrOl; Mirror: A Social His- IdryufFaJr/(JQ N("\,, York: Holt. Rln hart & wtnston. 1979· Binder,Pratt TI... Pro"",,/:' Tall Lonclon: Harap, 1954- Sort'flW'l.11iOm Curlosltfl'.J III the Tuu;er of London. London: Thomas Boreman, 17~1 8uhl. r John uhn'lJUmctommvllOsLJ. London. 1654· BUller. Judah. Botll Tlaal M(llIer On the Discursive Limits of "Sex." New York: Roudt'd~ , • C C T10c IInl "I Drfi.mtltl,' Lonclon, ,600, A Colkt:tloq (JJ BolJDlUorif!.lnally funnCLI by John Selden. London, ca. 1575-1]03. ~. II llwal• .II ctVCtIoSmuf!,ra"iII" Lonclon, ,615. Cu.lprpt-r."ad But1J.t,Jltw Anatomy: made from the Precepts oj his Fa.ther. London. J 00. John \('YO Aot,rIiJ lite \\'m'itl. London, 169J· . . £II rt(J.. \iJnity l1r I/~ \ i,tet." (if Cot! AJ!.tlilisi the Monstrous Sin oj Pnd.e. 1/1 Dress .ad AI'p,mJ London.. 3 . . F"abt-r. \\ ill \Iulrrfola=iul! Cf:ut./er I" Early Modem EnglISh Literature and Culture. ,brid •. nbrid~ "",ersil)' Press. zoo6. I . s trans by James Stra- frtud. ""'lund Jt olld Iltnr ITlotion to t ,e ut1conSCWU • .' din ....\'orlc ·onon •• 9&.1 Y rk Norton frrud, " ,und. Dot I>n:am. Tllc Frnld Rcader. Ed. Peter Gay. New 0 . , . I/"/ 1Z7 -UtuJ II 0 cnd,JifXe. 'twere a man me ee( Illiam LillSi-VVoolsi. London. 1813. Gamage, W ,1 . . 1 [ terest : Cross-Dross/n/!. and Culluml nzlt"y I"tw Vorl Garber, Marjone. VeslCl n e . 2 Routledge, 199 . 1 £ I /- 1 don A atalnu 0' Humane Bodies ..]1 tom ZN n • 1 Gibson Thomas. TIie 11 :J 'J •__ , £".J 1:"..1 , -r 110110gamiabu Barten JlnlydllY" rllron ""tum c.u \1 J Holyday Barten. ,ec, r Carme' I Cavaoa ugh . Washington, 0: arholle nl\ It)·0 !ll<'l1 princes. London, j 642. Laver, James. The Concise History af ostlUJI(' aflll Fmlt m ("\\ Y betft. 1969· Marston, John. The Met.(J1J1017J!Josisof Pip,ulIl/Imn Imllj!," nUll nal 1.00- don, 1598. McAtee, W. L. On Codpieces. Chapel 11111:l,n\·n,.,1 pnm<' more: Johns Hopkins University Press. I Middleton, Thomas. Your Five Collom Loudon. I Middleton, Thomas, and Thomas Dekk r The RtltlrlU r .frl· ul A \hdholl-d Manchester: Manchester University Pr .• 7 Musculus, Andreas. Hosen TeujJel, Frnnkfun rU M n. 'ss.., Nash, Thomas. The Unfortuu"'e T,mdlu 'd Philip II ,ado'MO" l.aDdocI \ Society. 1930. Niecols. Richard. The Furies with Vcrlul'j' E"nuuium ndon. 1&1 Persel, Jeffrey C. "Braguetn IluUlnnf.sll .or IluIlUlh,\m' t tlie.. tury Jou"lol 28 (1997)' 79-99. Poovey, Mary. Uneven Devel01'11ICIIU: TJl(' Ith-olt t,ruJ \\i nan Etlgland. Chicago: ni\' rslt)· or hl.l PIT • RB. Aphis and Virginia. London, 1575. Rab I' F . ~ alS, ran\:ois. Gargantua (lUff Pantrrrl-.~,t"1.&..."J; I f" :Ibelfo, Aileen. Dress and MorClfity N("\\, York: I100u. opel', Lyndal. Oe(!ipus mul the Delli \\"ltrlauvft Modern Europe. London: Routledgl) , • Rowlands. Samuel. The Kllave of I Jfln • ndo Saussure C~ I F, n. I l;l . sar ( e. A 'orcigu Vit·w of EUf!.Iartt/'I) tl .. 'b / II T~ Letter» of .\follsleur Cesar de Soussure to his Family. Trans. and ed. Madame Van Mu)'d n. London: John Murray, 1902. hakespeare. \\11Iiam. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. New York ~'orton. 199 . teinberg. Leo, Tilt' Sexuality of Christ ill Renaissance Art and Modem Oblivion. 1'1... , York.Pantheon/October. '983. Ta)'lor. 31)'. Co tmtlon Arl A.bbrcvilltCll History of \Vestem Manhood. New York: Ro"lk 1M Tm'lft,,* (if alUw;knt 011(1modcrne TImes. London, 1613. \itaJ)', race 'isual rt as odnl Onto: The Renaissance Codpiece." Cultural Ihropt'k'l:!l ( • ): 3 5. Va.". '""'on TIt EUJ:.1 !at'llUIII$ Treasure, or Treasor for Englishmen. London, I Von Bothn. '1a" .\t(NIe ond Monners Sixteenth Century. Trans. J. Joshua. London: Ii p. I 20 Wiltd. 'tel 11t LitntlOlI I'y Compleat in Eighteen Parte. London: Casanova Society, I IIObster.Jobn TI~ WhIt< 0....11 London •• 622. lI'IJ.y 8tl:ulkd ndon •• 606. \\illi.anu. Conlon. Dittlollory of Sexual ulngulIg.e and Imagery in Shakespearean and ub" Utt"tYJlurt· London: Athlone Press, 1994. ·'were a man indeed" / 129