DOCSLIB.ORG

Righteous Anger, Patriarchal Anxiety and the Swetnam Controversy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Righteous Anger, Patriarchal Anxiety and the Swetnam Controversy View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/8088-178-5.04 Natalia Brzozowska Kujawy and Pomorze University, Bydgoszcz REVISITING THE JACOBEAN WAR OF THE SEXES: RIGHTEOUS ANGER, PATRIARCHAL ANXIETY AND THE SWETNAM CONTROVERSY he essay seeks to explore the Early Modern English querelle des T femmes and how the role of women in Early Modern society was discussed through a new wave of pamphlets and plays during the reign of James I. It may be noticed that Jacobean patriarchy was a much less stable construct than is commonly thought, and that the overt misogyny of James I and his supporters was an anxious reaction to the possibility of women gaining more independence in the period of economic and political transition after Elizabeth I’s death, which could pose a potential threat to the patriarchal family, a unit on which the reign of James was modelled. The Jacobean period is also the first time women responded personally to misogynistic pamphlets— most notably, Swetnam’s Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Froward and Inconstant Women—and responded with righteous anger, as evidenced by the pamphlets of Rachel Speght, Ester Sowernam and Constantia Munda. What is more, the debate entered the world of drama: Beaumont and Fletcher’s The Woman Hater (published in 1607, before the Swetnam controversy yet mirroring the gender issues of the time) and the anonymous Swetnam the Woman Hater Arraigned by Women (1620) seem to redraw the boundaries for “just” female anger, what is more, they make the misogynistic characters appear angry in a petty and hyster- ical way, a behaviour hitherto attributed to the “weaker” sex. 39 ~ Natalia Brzozowska ~ Sociologists working under the power-status theory of emotions (Kemper 1987, 2011) consider anger to be a passion of domination, an expression of power, disparaged if expressed by inferiors. By putting women in more powerful positions, and defending their righteous anger, it is likely that the playwrights supported the women and not the misogynistic men. It may be argued that economic and political changes, as well as the legacy of Elizabeth I, influenced the sharper tone of the debates regarding a woman’s place in society—and her emotions. The querelle des femmes or “the woman question”—the debate on whether women are more prone to sin than men—was hardly a new topic when the Englishwomen Rachel Speght (1617), Ester Sowernam (1617) and Constantia Munda (1617) wrote their answers to one of the most famous misogynistic tracts of the English Renaissance, Swetnam’s Arraingment of Lewd, Idle, Fro- ward, and Unconstant Women (1615). Indeed, Christine de Pizan, Marguerite de Navarre and Boccaccio published earlier defences of female virtue. Rebellious women and the war of the sexes were popular Elizabethan and Jacobean topics, to which titles like The Cruell Shrew, Hic Mulier, The Womens Sharpe Revenge or the popularity of Swetnam’s Arraingment (which went through ten editions) can attest. However, Early Modern English women pamphleteers are often embraced by modern feminist critics as the first who attempted to demonstrate that female anger could be of a virtuous nature, rather than proof of female weakness and proneness to sin, even if some state that aside from Speght, who gave her personal name and therefore could be identified, the “fe- male defenders” may have been men “ventriloquising” women’s voices.1 Though the topic itself was not new, the Early Modern querelle can be seen as unique due to the increase of the number of discussions regarding female authority and independence in the Jacobean period. James’s reign can be characterised by mi- sogyny but also by frequent renegotiations of a woman’s place in society, as well as by a certain masculine anxiety regarding female independence. The Swetnam controversy took place during a period “when the patriarchal system was trans- forming and reasserting its control within society […] there was indeed the blurred line between theory and practice” (McClymont 1994, 35), and periods 1 Scholars who maintain the pamphlet writers were women include Henderson and Mc Manus (1985), Beilin (1987), Travitsky (1989) and Purkiss (1992), while those who negate that claim include Woodbridge (1984), Clarke (2001), Romack (2002) and Bellows (2004). However, even those who claim the writers were men do not negate the validity and the proto-feminism of those responses. 40 ~ Revisiting the Jacobean War of the Sexes: Righteous Anger, Patriarchal Anxiety... ~ of transition often offered women a chance to gain more independence. Certain historians (Underdown, Thomas, MacFarlane) identify various economic and political factors as strongly influencing the matter of the misogynistic backlash but also the will to fight back on behalf of the women and men who supported them. The way those Early Modern pamphlet writers, both the male accusers and the retaliating women, express and handle the emotion of anger is of special in- terest. Early Modern women were generally discouraged from openly showing they were angry, as anger was an emotion of the dominant side. However, the Swetnam retaliatory pamphlets and two ‘woman question’ plays see a departure from this approach, as the women often ridicule their opponents’ “choler” but justify their own strong emotions. As dominant emotions—like anger—are, according to the status and power theory, linked strongly to the idea of social hierarchy, the renegotiations of “the right to anger” can be seen as an attempt to imagine a different sort of status distribution in times of transition. The quest for finding the true social origins of emotions may have yet not been completed, and sociologists have different approaches to the passions.2 The power and status theory of emotions suggests that social structural relations— which determine the social hierarchy in a given society—are the basis of all emotion-evoking interactions. The concepts of power and status must, however, be clarified. Status is, in most general terms, the approval of reference groups (Kemper 2001: xi), freely given respect. Status may be ascribed or achieved. The definition of power used in this analysis will be the classical (and general) idea of Weber ([1922] 1965, 152), who claimed that power is “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability exists”. Though this theory is often contrasted with social constructionism, which considers the origins of emotions to lie in culturally embedded social norms and standards, ingrained through socialisation, it can be merged with it to some extent, as sociologists are also concerned not only with how particular emotions arise but how they are managed and conveyed (Barbalet 2007, 1375). Anger may be subdued in order for the individual to conform to not only social stand- ards but also if the individual’s position in the social structure does not allow for an open expression of rage. 2 Other theories pertaining to the study of emotions include ritual theory, affect control theory, the dramaturgical approach and exchange theories. 41 ~ Natalia Brzozowska ~ Clearly, the cultural norms that develop in a cultural system mirror the standard role relation-ships within that social group. If students are supposed to display deference (or even anxiety) in interacting with teachers in one culture, while showing lively, even combative, engagement in another, these patterns say volumes about the relative status and power of the two roles in those cultures. (Wisecup et al. 2007, 115) Kemper (2011) considered the status/power theory to be universal, as pow- er and status are concepts identified in every society, regardless of the stage of development. Every community, no matter how primitive, establishes certain margins of permissible behaviours and has some method of castigating trans- gressors. It must be established, then, what influences power and status (what determines an individual’s position in the social structure of a particular society) as well as which norms apply to the expression of anger in the Early Modern period in England, and whether the two plays and the Swetnam controversy offer a new glimpse into those matters. According to the power-status theory, anger is an emotion “directed toward the other” (Kemper 1978, 121), born out of the “felt undeservingness of status deprivation” (Kemper 2011, 245). The foundation of the power-status concept is that anger is an emotion of dominance, as it is an emotion related to aggres- sion and the direct voicing of one’s displeasure or opposition. If expressed open- ly, it may be threatening. A dominant emotion may be most safely conveyed by actors in power, or those with high status.3 In general, in Early Modern Eng- land, powerful and influential people were encouraged to show anger albeit in a civilised way if it served a regulating purpose (e. g. scolding servants or break- ing an unruly child’s will), though rage was generally discouraged, especially in relation to princes, gentlemen and “magistrates”, who were to give an example of temperance. However, a low status and/or low-power actor, even potentially displeased, was culturally trained to suppress anger. The ideal of the “humble man” is also presented by religious pamphleteers: He loves rather to give than take honour; not in a fashion of complimental courtesy, but in simplicity of his judgment (…) his words are few and soft; never either peremp- tory or censorious (Hall [1608] 1837, 93) The humble man, therefore, is an ideal when he is silent and submissive. Anger management is given ample attention in conduct literature for the lower 3 The term “actors” is used here in its sociological sense, denoting individuals engaged in social interaction.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intertextuality and Voice in the Early Modern English Controversy About Women
    ABSTRACT Title of Document: CONTEXT MATTERS: INTERTEXTUALITY AND VOICE IN THE EARLY MODERN ENGLISH CONTROVERSY ABOUT WOMEN Maggie Ellen Ray, Doctor of Philosophy, 2014 Directed By: Professor Theresa Coletti, Department of English Professor Jane Donawerth, Department of English This dissertation examines three clusters of works from the early modern English controversy about women—the debate about the merits and flaws of womankind—in order to argue that authors in the controversy took advantage of the malleability of women’s voices to address issues beyond the worth of women. I depart from standard treatments of the controversy by giving priority to the intertextual contexts among works that engage with one another. Attending to the intertextual elements of this genre reveals the metapoetic concerns of the authors and the way such authors fashion their feminine apologists as discursive agents in order to express those concerns. Chapter 1 examines Edward Gosynhyll’s sixteenth-century works in tandem with Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Legend of Good Women and “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale,” arguing that Gosynhyll’s revisions of Chaucer—revisions embodied by the feminine apologists in the texts—are integral to his project of establishing the controversy genre as multivalent and dialectical. The resulting metacommentary examines in a new light the age-old rhetorical tradition of exemplarity, a persuasive tool used in diverse literary genres. Chapter 2 considers the way the anonymous play Swetnam the Woman-Hater uses cross-voicing and cross-dressing to establish the performative nature of controversy conventions. In doing so, the play argues for the social benefits of abandoning essentialist logic in favor of gender performance, as such performance makes the role of apologist available to men and women alike.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future Francis Beaumont
    3340 Early Theatre 20.2 (2017), 201–222 http://dx.doi.org/10.12745/et.20.2.3340 Eoin Price The Future Francis Beaumont This essay attends to Beaumont’s recent performance and reception history, docu- menting a range of academic and popular responses to demonstrate the challenges and affordances of engaging with Beaumont’s plays. The first section examines sev- eral twenty-first century performances of Beaumont plays, focusing especially on the Globe’s stimulating production of The Knight of the Burning Pestle. The second sec- tion considers how Beaumont was both acknowledged and ignored in 2016, the year of his 400th anniversary. The final section suggests some avenues for further research into the performance of Beaumont’s plays. In 1613, illness caused one of the greatest writers of the age to retire from play- wrighting, paving the way for his principal collaborator, John Fletcher, to become the main dramatist for the King’s Men, the company for whom he had writ- ten some of his most popular plays. Three years later, the London literary scene mourned his death. Tributes continued for decades and he was ultimately hon- oured with the posthumous publication of a handsome folio of his works. This is the familiar story of William Shakespeare. It is also the unfamiliar story of Francis Beaumont. The comparison of the two authors’ deaths I have just offered entails a degree of contrivance. Beaumont seemingly retired because he was incapacitated by a stroke, but Shakespeare’s reasons for retiring, and indeed, the nature of his retire- ment, are much less clear.
    [Show full text]
  • Larson 1919 3424498.Pdf
    The Treatment of Royalty_ In The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher • .l!lphild Larson A Thesis submitted ·to the Department of English and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the .University of ·Kansas in partial fulfillment of the Requirements !or a Master's Degree. Approved~ t.,-/J ~ . _Dept~ June 1919. TABLE OF.CONTENTS. Preface. I. Introduction. II. An Analysis of the Plays in Which Royalty Appears. III. Types of Royalty Treated by Beaumont and Fletcher. IV. Divine Right in Beaumont and .Fletcher's Plays. V:. Beaumont and Fletcher's Purpose in Treating Royalty. Conclusion. Chronology of Beaumont ·and Fletcher's Plays in which ,Royalty Appear.a. Bibliography. Index of Characters· and Plays. PBEFACE . The Treatment of Royalty in Beaumont and Fletcher, was suggested by Professor W.S':•Johnson as a subject for this . ) ~ thesis. I~ has not been my task to distinguish the part of each dramatist in regard to authorship. S.inoe the Duke i~ these plays is treated as a Sovereign ruler, he has been included in the study of royalty ·~as ;well as the King, Queen, Prince,. and Princess. I wish to extend my gratitude to Professor W.S.Johnson for his kind and helpful .criti_oi·sm in the preparation of this thesis, and also to Professor S.L.Whitoomb for his beneficial and.needful suggestions• A.• L. ' 1. INTRODUCTION Iri order to appreciate the sy.mpathies and interests of Beaumont and Fletcher, we need to have , a general knowledge· of the national life of England during their time. We also need to know something about the English drama of .this per- iod to understand why our dramatists favored the treatment of·.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maid's Tragedy ; And, Philaster
    Tufts College Library FROM THE FUND ESTABLISHED BY ALUMNI IPR2422 .T5 Beaumont, Francis, 1584-1616. The maid’s tragedy, and Philaster 39090000737565 die 2MIe0?tlettre0 ^eneg SECTION III THE ENGLISH DRAMA FROM ITS BEGINNING TO THE PRESENT DAY GENERAL EDITOR GEORGE PIERCE BAKER PROFESSOR OF DRAMATIC LITERATURE IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/maidstragedyandp01beau The Blackfriars’ Theatre Reproduced, by permission from the collection of E, Gardner, Esq., London. THE MAID’S TRAGEDY AND PHILASTER By FRANCIS BEAUMONT AND JOHN FLETCHER EDITED BY ASHLEY H. THORNDIKE, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE IN NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY BOSTON, U.S.A., AND LONDON D. C. HEATH & CO., PUBLISHERS COPYRIGHT, 1906, BY D. C. HEATH & CO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED /X3f?3 YR 242. 3- i 'Bfograp^ Francis Beaumont, third son of Sir Francis Beaumont of Grace Dieu in Leicestershire, one of the Justices of Common Pleas, was born about 1585 and died March 6, 1616. He was admitted gentleman commoner at Broadgates Hall, Oxford, in 1597, and was entered at the Inner Temple, London, November 3, 1600. He was married to Ursula, daughter of Henry Isley of Sundridge, Kent, probably in 1613, and left two daughters (one a posthumous child). He was buried in Westminster Abbey. John Fletcher, son of Richard Fletcher, Bishop of London, was baptized at Rye in Sussex, where his father was then minister, December 20, 1579, and died of the plague in August, 1625. He was entered as a pensioner at Bene’t College, Cambridge, 1 591. His father as Dean of Peterborough attended Mary Queen of Scots at Fotheringay, and was later rapidly promoted to the sees of Bristol, Worcester, and London.
    [Show full text]
  • Much Virtue in O-Oh: a Case Study
    3201 Early Theatre 20.2 (2017), 121–140 http://dx.doi.org/10.12745/et.20.2.3201 Alan C. Dessen Much Virtue in O-Oh: A Case Study The ‘O, o, o, o’ that follows Hamlet’s ‘The rest is silence’ in Shakespeare’s first folio has often been derided, but this signal is found in five other Shakespeare plays and in the works of dramatists as varied as Jonson, Middleton, Fletcher, Massinger, and Brome to indicate that a figure is dying, mortally wounded, or sick, or to generate a comic effect. Shakespeare was adept at using the tools at hand, but to understand his dis- tinctive implementation of those tools requires a working knowledge of the theatrical vocabulary shared at that time by playwrights, players, and playgoers. For a reader of the first folio, Hamlet’s last utterance is not the much discussed and much admired word ‘silence’ but a sound, printed as ‘O, o, o, o’ (TLN 3847),1 and followed by ‘Dyes’. Those four Os, to put it mildly, have not fared well on the page or on the stage. A notable exception is G.R. Hibbard’s 1987 single volume Oxford edition that replaces them with ‘He gives a long sigh’ and adds a note: ‘In thus “translating” Fs “O,o,o,o,” which has been the object of unjustified derision, I follow the suggestion of E.A.J. Honigmann’.2 Other editors rarely agree with Hibbard, and, as a result, relatively few theatrical professionals have experimented with the folio signal.3 The citation to Honigmann is to a single page of his overview on stage direc- tions of the period where he invokes the term crypto-directions, ‘some of which appear to have served as short-hand directions for a great variety of noises’.
    [Show full text]
  • This Essay Is Not for Wider Distribution. Thank You. The
    This essay is not for wider distribution. Thank you. The Dearth of the Author Eoin Price ([email protected]) (@eoin_price) 1613 was an annus horribilis for the King’s Men. On June 29, the Globe burned down during a production of Shakespeare and Fletcher’s Henry VIII. By the end of the year, one half of that play’s collaborative team had retired. While the King’s Men rebuilt the Globe, replacing Shakespeare – a writer, a sharer, an actor – was a tougher task. It was a task made harder by the untimely retirement of the stroke-stricken Francis Beaumont, Fletcher’s younger but more senior collaborative partner.1 Beaumont was by this point a big draw for the King’s Men. Having moved from the boy companies, he and Fletcher co-wrote Philaster (1609), A King and No King (1611) and The Maid’s Tragedy (1611) for the King’s Men. Each was apparently a significant success and remained in the company’s repertory for decades.2 These losses surely represented bad news for the King’s Men, but Fletcher may have felt more ambivalent: the dual retirements of Shakespeare and Beaumont afforded him the opportunity to hold a more prominent position within the King’s Men. If there was such a thing as an immediate successor to Shakespeare, then it was Fletcher who best fit the bill. Unlike most writers of his generation, who moved from company to company in a bid to earn a living as a playwright, Fletcher wrote almost exclusively for the King’s Men from 1613.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginning Beaumont [Presented at Beaumont400, King's College
    Beginning Beaumont [Presented at Beaumont400, King’s College London, 12 March 2016] I want to begin by thanking Lucy for setting up this event. I doubt Beaumont400 will serve as a counterweight to the juggernaut of Shakespeare celebration heading our way like a badly mixed metaphor, but if it acts only as a tiny riposte it will have done the state some service. I also want to thank two other people, one who is here, one who is not: José Pérez Díez (who is) and Steve Orman (who isn't): last year they organised a conference in Canterbury on Beaumont’s best buddy John Fletcher at which I presented what was, I suppose, an earlier version of this paper. For the purpose of a Fletcher conference I found myself, if not exactly effacing Beaumont, then finding ways of relegating him to the margins. My point then was that we might rethink Fletcherian politics: that while Fletcher is routinely presented as staid, conservative, royalist, his plays might offer the possibility of something much more radical (or at least contentious and ambiguous); if we extend the privilege of ambiguity to Shakespeare, why not Fletcher? My intent wasn’t to say anything particular about the politics of Fletcher the man but I did implicitly assume I might say something about his plays – the problem is, he didn’t write them all alone and some of the examples I used, or could’ve used, to advance the case for a rebellious Fletcher involved plays he wrote with Beaumont. Nine months later and here I am again, approaching a similar issue from the other side.
    [Show full text]
  • King's Research Portal
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.12745/et.20.2.3337 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Munro, L. C. (2017). Beaumont's Lives. Early Theatre, 20(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.12745/et.20.2.3337 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Plays (ESC: Comp) Lancaster University
    Manual to accompany The Enhanced Shakespearean Corpus: Comparative Plays (ESC: Comp) Lancaster University 1. Design of the corpus The Enhanced Shakespearean Corpus: Comparative Plays (ESC: Comp) was compiled as a reference corpus for Shakespeare's plays for the Encyclopedia of Shakespeare's Language Project (AHRC grant reference AH/N002415/1) by Jane Demmen and Andrew Hardie (Lancaster University) with input from other project colleagues between 2016 and 2019. The corpus is similar in size to the canon of Shakespeare's plays overall (around 1 million words), and in its proportions of comedy, history and tragedy. It contains 46 plays by 24 playwrights (22 of whom are named, two of whom are anonymous), with first production dates ranging from 1584-1626 (compared to Shakespeare's plays, written circa 1590-1613). More detail on the compilation of the corpus, including annotation, can be found in Demmen (submitted, 2019). 2. Source texts used for the corpus The source texts of the ESC: Comp were all obtained from the Early English Books Online - Text Creation Partnership (EEBO-TCP); see further http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/tcp-eebo/. Each play-text is headed with bibliographic reference details from EEBO-TCP including the Short Title Catalogue (STC) number. 3. List of play-texts in the ESC: Comparative Plays corpus Play-text Author Title Date of first Date of first Date of ID production* publication* edition in corpus Comedy CCCALEX John Lyly Alexander and Campaspe c.1583 1584 1584 CCCGALLA John Lyly Gallathea 1585 1592 1592 CCCFRIARA
    [Show full text]
  • OLDER WOMEN in ELIZABETHAN and JACOBEAN DRAMA by YVONNE ORAM
    OLDER WOMEN IN ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN DRAMA by YVONNE ORAM A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY The Shakespeare Institute School of Humanities The University of Birmingham May, 2002 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. OLDER WOMEN IN ELIZABETHAN AND JACOBEAN DRAMA by YVONNE ORAM ABSTRACT This thesis explores the presentation of older women on stage from 1558-1625, establishing that the character is predominantly pictured within the domestic sphere, as wife, mother, stepmother or widow. Specific dramatic stereotypes for these roles are identified, and compared and contrasted with historical material relating to older women. The few plays in which these stereotypes are subverted are fully examined. Stage nurse and bawd characters are also older women and this study reveals them to be imaged exclusively as matching stereotypes. Only four plays, Peele’s The Old Wives Tale, Fletcher’s Bonduca, and Antony and Cleopatra and The Winter’s Tale, by Shakespeare, reject stereotyping of the central older women. The Introduction sets out the methodology of this research, and Chapter 1 compares stage stereotyping of the older woman with evidence from contemporary sources.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Keeping Boys and Men: Marvelous Pageboys in Romantic Tragicomedy Mary Trull St Olaf College [email protected] Modern Critics Ha
    Keeping Boys and Men: Marvelous Pageboys in Romantic Tragicomedy Mary Trull St Olaf College [email protected] Modern critics have found the feminine pageboys of early Jacobean drama, those pretty, clever, ambiguously sexual darlings of fashionable gentlemen, compelling and puzzling figures. Catherine Belsey writes that ‘the drama helped… to construct an image we still recognize of “petty pretty pratlyng parling” little boys, capable of mischief, disarming precocity or deep sadness, and also of inviting adult indulgence’.1 The appeal of these feminine boys is difficult to categorize according to either early- or late-modern accounts of identity and desire. Moreover, in many plays of the early 1600s, pageboys embody a degraded service that contrasts with a nostalgically evoked feudal ideal. The genre of romantic tragicomedy emerging in the years 1608-13 gave pageboys a new dramatic function: they became miraculous figures exemplifying virtuous service. Romance, as critics have noted, gives the tragicomedies of this period their emphasis on wonder and on miraculous plot twists; but satire also invests these plays with elements of cultural critique and self-reflexivity. Why do pageboys, in particular, embody this mix of genres, affects, and social tensions in this period? Recent scholarship on twentieth-century ‘cuteness’ as a ‘minor aesthetic category’, in the words of Sianne Ngai, opens a door to seeing how the diminutive, abject, and appealing aspects of pageboys operates in a context of early modern concerns over wealth and commodification.2 While the aesthetic mode of cuteness registers discomfiting aspects of twentieth-century consumerism, the compelling, sexually ambiguous boys of tragicomedy offer a marvelous and reassuring resolution to concerns about wealth and 1 Catherine Belsey, ‘Shakespeare’s Little Boys: Theatrical Apprenticeship and the Construction of Childhood’, in Rematerializing Shakespeare: Authority and Representation on the Early Modern Stage, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaumont's Lives
    3337 Early Theatre 20.2 (2017), 141–158 http://dx.doi.org/10.12745/et.20.2.3337 Lucy Munro Beaumont’s Lives This essay explores the ‘lives’ of Francis Beaumont at the point of the four hundredth anniversary of his death, through elegies by John Earle and Thomas Pestell and hitherto unknown and newly interpreted biographical information that sheds fresh light on the relationship between his life and works. Focusing in particular on his plays The Scornful Lady and The Woman Hater, it argues that Beaumont and his regular collaborator, John Fletcher, mix (auto)biographical allusions with satire and fantasy. This analysis offers new perspectives on the ways in which their imaginations were sparked by their lived experience. The four hundredth anniversary of the death of Francis Beaumont in 2016 pro- vides an opportunity to think again about his life, and the narratives that have become attached to it. Beaumont is among the more elegized of early modern dramatists. Tributes include those of his older brother John, Thomas Pestell, and John Earle, and some of these poems circulated widely: Earle’s appears not only in the 1647 edition of Comedies and Tragedies Written by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher Gentlemen and the 1653 edition of Poems: By Francis Beaumont, Gent., but also in at least nine manuscript copies.1 These elegies present their own versions of Beaumont’s life, Pestell’s in particular seeking to shape the writer’s posthu- mous reputation in ways that position him as an orthodox member of the Church of England, accepting death with Christian piety.
    [Show full text]