Simultaneous Existence

This weekend, the beginning of Rosemary Kegl's The Rhetoric of Concealment: Figuring Gender and Class in Renaissance Literature gave me a lot to think about. Perhaps most interesting was Kegl's analysis of female simultaneous identity in the sixteenth century. Kegl argues that women generally were not supposed to identify with any two of their identities at the same time:

Married women were defined as children who had no rights to property and as adults who were required to answer alone for their crimes; they were mothers who shared equally with their husbands the rule of their children and also wives who, like the children, were ruled by those husbands. In short, women were expected to inhabit simultaneously positions whose logics were mutually exclusive. (24)

Because these positions were mutually exclusive, Kegl continues to argue, women had to exist discontinuously and were "left with no single recognized voice with which to speak" (24). It's a really interesting idea, and one that relates very well to Queen Elizabeth's self-construction. Kegl focuses on the female roles of virgo (virgin), mulier (literally "woman," but a sexual woman who has carnal desires, etc.), and mater (mother). Kegl notes that Elizabeth "spoke simultaneously as virgo and mater yet never as mulier" (18). Of course, that is completely illogical, as one cannot really be a mother in these times without having sex. The point is that Elizabeth purposefully claimed her own simultaneous identity, challenging the discontinuity of female construction. Perhaps that makes her more powerful, giving her a strong, consolidated voice; at any rate, it is likely one of the consequences of court society that it worked out well just for her, as she was queen and above many of the other social constraints.

Having the language to talk about this kind of simultaneous identity opens up other contradictions in Elizabeth's speech: for instance, in her dealing with Mary, Queen of Scots. This idea of using rhetoric to convey two separate positions: the first, that she loves Mary so that she would never wish death upon her even if it would secure her own safety; the second, that she will eventually call for Mary's death. As Elizabeth tells her council, if "God [had] made us both milkmaids with pails on our arms [...and] I knew she did and would seek my destruction still, yet could I not consent to her death" (188). Elizabeth claims to have no personal desire to save her own life at the cost of someone else's, and yet Mary, Queen of Scots will eventually be executed, because it will be good for the future of England. Here, too, Elizabeth takes advantage of simultaneous positions to create a voice that will let her show herself off to best effect.

So far, Kegl's book has been really interesting for commentary on how literature relates to economics, feminism, and social culture. I'll put the bibliographical information below, as well as that of a source she cited that seemed like it could be really useful for the "women and allies" group.

Kegl, Rosemary. The Rhetoric of Concealment: Figuring Gender and Class in Renaissance Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. Print.

And for the "women and allies" group: she cites this work that apparently analyzes how "Europe's gradual transition from feudalism to capitalism disempowered women, particularly aristocratic women" (7). Could be interesting. The citation (in her footnote) is:

Joan Kelly, "Did Women Have a Renaissance?" in Women, History, and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984; paperback ed., 1986), 19-50.

Okay, okay.  I'll get the ball rolling.  Here are some books to get you started--by the way, all of these are in our library.
For the Explorers/Pirates group:
Jonathan Hart's Columbus, Shakespeare, and the Interpretation of the New World.
Claire Jewitt's Culture of Piracy.
Rebecca Weaver-Hightower's Empire Islands.

For the Clothing and Social Stratification group:
Stephen Greenblatt's Renaissance Self-Fashioning.
Several articles in Cox and Kastan's A New History of Early English Drama.
Barbara Harris's English Aristocratic Women.
Margot Hill's Evolution of Fashion.

For the Courticulture Group:
Hillay Zmora's Monarchy, Aristocracy, and the State in Europe.
Rosemary Kegl's Rhetoric of Concealment.
Harris's book above.

For the Women & Allies Group:
SP Carasano's Renaissance Drama by Women
Harris's book above.
Janet Smarr's Joining the Conversation.
Margaret King's Women of the Renaissance.

All of you might look at The Encyclopedia of the Renaissance and The Dictionary of National Biography as reference books.

"Face and Fashion" in Women According to Men

I’m currently researching my topic about English Renaissance Costume. I found an interesting book that another group (Women in the English Renaissance?) might be interested in reading. The book is called Women According to Men, by Suzanne W. Hull. In the preface, Hull writes that over “99 percent of all publications were by male authors” and there was a strong male bias against women (9). As the book’s title indicates, it presents women’s roles from the male bias, but such works are still valuable, as Hull explains: “men’s views molded society; their books help show what that society wanted from its women. Whether they present an accurate picture of the women is a difficult question” (9). Although the book is a secondary source, it has very useful and detailed bibliography which can serve as a good starting point for researching primary texts.

For this blog, I will be focusing on the chapter titled “Face and Fashion.” In this chapter, Hull examines the controversy between the moral and religious concerns of appearance and the need to maintain a fashionable and youthful appearance. Critics of the extravagance of the English court asserted that lavish costumes and excessive makeup altered the natural purpose of clothing in relation to the human body. For instance, John Bulwer wrote a book titled Anthropometamorphosis: Man Transformed, which asserted that the purpose of clothing was to cover nakedness, not to alter or glorify the body which God made according to His ideal. Other writers, such as Thomas Tuke in his book titled Discourse Against Painting and Tincturing of Women, believed that cosmetics were wrong because they altered natural appearances, especially the blush which indicates modesty:

It is not enough to be good, but she that is good must seem good; she that is chaste must seem chaste; she that is humble must seem humble; she that is modest must seem to be so and not plaster her face [so] that she cannot blush. (quoted in Hull 182)

I think Tuke’s observation about the connection to appearance and inner morality is key in understanding Renaissance fashion. Excessive amounts of time, energy, and money spent on maintaining appearances can, perhaps, indicate an inner moral depravity, a sense of self worship, or a need to disguise some inner flaw. But, from my post-modern perspective, I think Tuke’s quote is somewhat hypocritical since people can and did manipulate their outward appearance to try to maintain this appearance of goodness. For instance, women with black hair were considered to be lustful and there were recipes available which used sulphuric acid to change hair from black to brown (Hull 185). Also, Queen Elizabeth I was known for using a heavy layers of makeup to disguise facial scarring after she suffered from smallpox when she was 29 (Hull 181). Elizabeth I disguised many of her physical imperfections, but she also emphasized her other desirable traits. For instance, the queen was known to have a slight figure, and many people imitated Queen Elizabeth's fashion style by using corsets to reduce the size of their waists. 

Regardless of Tuke's assertion that outer appearance should reflect an internal morality, society assigned moral values to appearances – even natural appearances. For future reading, I think it would be interesting to focus on Queen Elizabeth's influence over the fashion of the aristocracy, and how English society reconciled these criticisms of extravagant fashion with their trend-setting queen. 

Here is the citation for this book in case you are interested. There are several other chapters concerning women’s role as wives, responsibility in raising children, and household duties.

Hull, Suzanne W. “Face and Fashion.” Women According to Men. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 1996. Print.

Court Interaction in Tudor England

As I am a part of the court culture group (or, as we like to call ourselves, the "courticulture" group), I spent this weekend reading about political structures and interactions within the Tudor court. One particularly useful article was Natalie Mears' "Courts, Courtiers, and Culture in Tudor England," which provided a brief overview of the ways that the Tudor court has traditionally been studied. Mears emphasized particularly the importance of the interaction between monarchs and courtiers/nobles during this time period. In the past, scholars have focused on the power of advisors such as the privy council or the power and centrality of the monarch, but haven't so much considered the connections and relationships that they have between each other (719). However, these relationships were very important. While Elizabeth was able to pull from the idea of providential rule, she still relied on the reputations of her advisors: Mears writes that they legitimized her, as the "physical inabilities of a queen to exercise power wisely would be compensated for by the fact that she would govern by listening to and accepting the advise of her (male) counsellors" (718). Despite this, the counsellors needed their power consolidated in one body: the queen. In many ways, a ruler and his/her counsellors had a symbiotic relationship during the Tudor time period.

Seeing these relationships as mutually beneficial changes the ways that one looks at the court's atmosphere. While we sometimes think of the Tudor rule as being dangerous and repressive, Mears reminds that important political statements were made by outsiders to the court, such as playwrights and other artists. Sermons were sometimes outrightly directed against Elizabeth. This outspokenness puts more emphasis on certain aspects of Elizabeth's letters, such as her insistence to declare an alliance between her and Edward Seymour after he helps her with her sickness and before she is examined for treasonous charges (22). As discussed in class, she needs Seymour's good word, demonstrating the reciprocal power in the Tudor court. This phenomenon is shown again in her request that Edward Seymour dispel the rumors against her. Elizabeth is interested in preserving her own reputation, as she realizes the importance of the good opinion of the people. This is a recognition of the power of public opinion, a sign that the non-courtier is starting to have an importance in governance. Furthermore, when Elizabeth introduces the subject to Seymour, she frames it as a matter of dual reputation. "[Dispelling the rumors] should make both the people think that you and the Council have great regard that no such rumors should be spread of any of the king's majesty's sisters" (33), she argues. Saving her reputation will also save the council's reputation, Elizabeth reasons, again showing the symbiotic relationship that exists between the monarch and his/her council.

Natalie Mears' "Courts, Courtiers, and Culture in Tudor England" was helpful in illuminating the courticoulture of Tudor England, but I would also recommend it to the groups researching fashion/self-fashioning and female roles, as Mears also examines these topics. I have attached the bibliographical information below.

I hope that you're all having a fruitful time with your research!

Mears, Natalie. "Courts, Courtiers, and Culture in Tudor England." The Historical Journal 46.3 (2003): 703-722. JStor. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.