Sydney Marhefsky
Winner
Department of English Undergraduate Awards (2nd Year)
Abstract
An analysis of gender in Ben Jonson's Epicoene finds that the text reinforces a strict dichotomy of gender, despite the gender transgressions it depicts, as it dismisses womanhood as a flimsy construction while asserting manhood as innate and thus more legitimate. As a consequence of its depiction of gender, sexual desire is characterized as material desire, with men's desire elevated to artistic appreciation, as one would have for statues or gardens, while women's desire is debased as shallow and consumerist. Although Epicoene is now several centuries old, its presentations of gender and sexual desire remain influential in dominant narratives of both concepts and thus are more than worthy of examination. The play engages in a sort of asymmetrical gender performativity, as its treatment of womanhood aligns with Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity, for womanhood is presented as constructed and flexible, easily achieved through cosmetics and acting, as illustrated by the character of Epicoene, whilst manhood is presented as exempt from Butler’s theory. Instead, manhood is portrayed as natural and inherent, with the Gallants’ masculine qualities, such as their cleverness, being taken for granted, and the masculine behavior of the Collegiates being degraded as lesser than “real” manhood. By asserting manhood as exempt from gender performativity, the play situates womanhood as less valid while positioning men as subjects and women as “the Other” (de Beauvoir). The framing of gender consequently results in the depiction of men’s desire as more valid than women’s, for if womanhood itself is an artificial construction it is completely acceptable to view it as one would inert stone, whereas the parallel desire for men by sexually active women is considered the grotesque dissembling and consumption of a person.
Ben Jonson’s play Epicoene is marked by gender transgression, featuring intelligent, independent women and a boy in disguise as a woman, all of whom are played by boy actors. However, its portrayal of non-conforming men and women results in hardly any deconstruction of gender roles. Instead, through its depiction of femininity and masculinity, Jonson’s Epicoene presents womanhood as constructed and artificial, its boundaries permeable, while propping up manhood as natural and thus more ‘real’, its position unachievable for all but those who already possess it. Further, the dichotomy of superficial womanhood and legitimate manhood constitutes sexual desire as consumption, as female sexuality is equated to frivolous materialism whilst male sexuality is likened to artistic curation.
The artificiality of womanhood in Epicoene is evident in the play’s disassembling of its female characters. Femininity is treated as a consumerist endeavor, as no more than the sum of its parts, as illustrated by Master Otter’s condemnation of his wife: “her teeth were made i’ the Black-friars: both her eyebrows i’ the Strand, and her hair in Silver Street. Every part o’ the town owns a piece of her.” (4.2.80-83) and she “takes herself asunder still when she goes to bed, into some twenty boxes; and about next day noon is put together again, like a great German clock” (4.2.85-87). Mistress Otter is reduced to a collection of cosmetics, as her entire person is equated to something that can be easily dismantled and put away, while her ‘construction’ is framed not as an autonomous act of self-fashioning, but as the decadence of London and its merchants claiming pieces of her for their own.
Indeed, while the city comedy typically acts as a site for the remaking of one’s identity on one’s own terms, the refashioning of the women of Epicoene is portrayed as an act done to them, not by them. Truewit’s admonition of men seeing a woman before she is “complete and finished” (1.1.111), with the rhetorical question “Were the people suffered to see the city's Love and Charity while they were rude stone, before they were painted and burnished?” (1.1.108-110), equates women to artistic creations that are chiseled into their proper shape from a “rude” formless mass, thus characterizing ‘woman’ as something that is created, not as a ‘natural’ category. In this sense, the attitude of Epicoene aligns somewhat with Judith Butler’s performativity theory of gender, wherein gender is not a fixed trait, but rather a process, a “modality of taking on or realizing possibilities, a process of interpreting the body, giving it cultural form” (Butler 36). Further, one is an active participant in “appropriating, interpreting, and reinterpreting received cultural possibilities” (Butler 36), not an unwitting subject. Butler’s theory differs from Epicoene’s portrayal of womanhood in that one engages in the process of gendering rather than being an inert canvas, but they share the core concept of gender as a construction. However, the gender construction of Epicoene only applies to womanhood, whereas manhood is situated as distinctly not performative and thus more ‘real’.
Womanhood is posited as a construct through its disassembling, and a flexible construct at that, as illustrated by Epicoene’s deception on behalf of Dauphine. The metatext of both Epicoene and the female characters being portrayed by boy actors further casts the limits of womanhood as foggy, for to the audience, the visual differences between the female imposter and the canonical women are completely arbitrary. In contrast to boys’ ability to slip into womanhood as totally indistinguishable from ‘real’ women, women’s masculine behavior acts only as a pale mimicry of ‘real’ men, affording them none of the supposed masculine virtues.
The most ‘masculine’ of women are easily restrained by even the most emasculated of men, encapsulated best by Morose’s discouragement of Mistress Otter from further beating her husband by appearing with a “huge long naked weapon in both his hands” (4.3.2-4). The sword functions as an obvious phallic innuendo, with Morose, a neurotic recluse, using it to successfully beat back a woman who has assumed the masculine position within her marriage as head of household, “[reigning] in [her] own house” (3.1.29) with her husband as her “subject” (3.1.30), revealing her ostensible masculinity as flaccid in comparison to authentic manhood.
Furthermore, the cleverness of the Collegiates, the women who speak “with most masculine, or rather hermaphroditical authority” (1.1.70-71), is reduced to illusion and mere mimicry. After becoming infatuated with Dauphine the Collegiates resort to petty tactics to earn his favor, all jealously “[railing] at each other” (5.2.47), with Mavis’ Italian ‘riddle’ revealed to be nothing more than a “plain dealing” (5.2.55), lending textual support to Truewit’s statement that the Collegiates “know not why they do anything: but as they are informed, believe, judge, praise, condemn, love, hate, and in emulation one of another, do all these things alike. Only, they have a natural inclination sways ’em generally to the worst, when they are left to themselves” (4.6.58-62). The Collegiates, and women as a whole, are degraded as nothing but a flimsy construction, as empty vessels that need to be “informed” lest they slip into their “natural inclinations”. Rather than men and women being opposite, complementary ‘halves’ to each other, man “represents both the positive and the neutral...whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limiting criteria, without reciprocity” (de Beauvoir 15).
Women are represented only as lesser men, for “he is the Absolute – she is the Other” (de Beauvoir 16) and are so thoroughly dehumanized that their rejection of men is presented as a veiled plea to be dominated: “Though they strive, they would be overcome” (4.1.73). Womanhood is thus presented as a mere cage to restrain the “natural inclinations” of otherwise animalistic, subhuman creatures, with Truewit directly comparing women to “birds” and “fishes” (4.1.81). Further, men who would fail to see the construct of womanhood as simply a facade ornamenting the supposed beastly nature of women are subject to mockery, embodied by Epicoene’s questioning of Morose’s surprise at her speech, asking derisively “Why, did you think you had married a statue? Or a motion only? One of the French puppets, with the eyes turned with a wire?” (3.4.32-35). It is because of the constructedness of womanhood that Epicoene can cross the boundaries of gender while the masculine women cannot.
However, even while disguised, Epicoene’s ‘true’ masculine nature slips out, such as when she wisely advises the Collegiates against pursuing Dauphine only to be met with their shallow appreciation of his body parts (4.6.28-36). Her declaration that she’ll have “none of this coacted, unnatural dumbness in [her] house, in a family where [she] [governs]” (3.4.48-50) further implies the ‘naturalness’ of manhood, for her assumption of masculine authority and stripping away of that which is “coacted” and “unnatural” is ironic in that she is still in disguise as a woman, but poignant in that her ‘natural’ loudness and eloquence as a male, though not yet a man, is now on full display. The assertion of manhood as innate is further illuminated by Epicoene’s treatment of male characters who attempt to fabricate their masculinity.
Jack Daw is ridiculed on the basis of his fraudulent masculinity, as he is reliant on shallow appearances and mimicry in the same way as Epicoene’s women. Daw relies on plagiarism for his verses and displays little comprehension of the multitude of thinkers he names in short succession, resulting in Dauphine’s assessment of him as a “simple learned servant...in titles” (2.3.80). Daw’s “relationship to culture is one of blind accumulation. Authors' names become commodities in a sack, goods to be poured out and displayed as the occasion arises” (Zucker 39), a relationship remarkably similar to that between the female characters and their cosmetics. Indeed, in the same way that the Collegiates have no thoughts “but as they are informed,” Daw is described as a “fellow so utterly nothing, as he knows not what he would be” (2.4.133-134). Daw is deserving of derision specifically because he engages in the supposedly feminine practice of mimicry and mindless consumption to bolster his lack of ‘innate’ masculinity.
In sharp contrast to Daw, the Gallants, though by no means the pinnacles of manhood, are able to assert their masculinity through the use of their ostensibly innate qualities to police the masculinity of others. While the beauty and intelligence of the Collegiates and the ‘wit’ of Jack Daw and La Foole, their primary sources of social leverage, are revealed to have external, fallible sources, the cleverness of the Gallants is presented as inherent. Truewit, for instance, gets no explanation for his intelligence; it is presented as simply a part of his person, to the point where his name is a synonym for cleverness. Furthermore, their ability to “make” (3.3.83) the men around them flows directly from this ‘natural’ wittiness, as Truewit is able to emasculate Daw and La Foole through his trickery, while Dauphine’s scheme unravels the manhood of both Morose and Epicoene, though temporarily for the latter. The manhood of the Gallants manifests as natural mastery over women and the lesser men who lack intrinsic masculine virtues.
The presentation of manhood as innate and exclusive, contrary to the portrayal of womanhood as a flimsy construct, carries pronounced consequences for Epicoene’s depiction of desire, as women’s desire for men is derided as shallow, consumerist, and even beastly. The Collegiates’ indiscriminate appetites for men and cosmetics are intertwined by Epicoene’s warning that immediately precedes their fawning over Dauphine, which cautions that the Gallants, and men generally, only “think to take [them] with that perfume, or with that lace, and laugh at [them] unconscionably when they have done” (4.6.29-31). The Collegiates’ disregard for Epicoene’s warning implies their tacit agreement to being seduced by mere frivolous items, while their active itemization of Dauphine situates them primarily as unsophisticated consumers. Indeed, their ostensible lack of discernment forecloses them from the social power that resides in ‘good taste’, or “cultural competence” (Zucker 51), reasserting men’s rightful role as “producers” of culture, as “tasteful agents” (Zucker 54) and women’s as mere spectators, even in the realm of female sexuality. Just as the Collegiates’ “crude opinion” (4.6.58) serves to reinforce the notion of womanhood as superficial and women as empty vessels that must be “informed” (4.6.59), denying the legitimacy of their personhood, the depiction of their desire for Dauphine as uncritical and materialistic invalidates the legitimacy of their sexuality.
The degradation of women’s desire is further evident in the Collegiates pursuit of Dauphine, which casts female sexuality as base and animalistic. The Collegiates’ sexual desire for Dauphine immediately dissolves their sororal bonds as they “rail at each other” (5.2.47) in order to gain his favor, with their sexuality seemingly overriding all reason and loyalty. Notably, their deconstruction of Dauphine into a collection of body parts mimics women’s usage of cosmetics in the play. The Collegiates’ cataloging of Dauphine’s “nose,” “leg,” “exceeding good eye,” and “very good lock” (4.6.33-36) as objects of desire, for which one could “love a man” (4.6.33), runs parallel to Master Otter’s enumeration of his wife’s beauty products, with the presentation of the selected features as unaugmented, innate parts of Dauphine’s body contrasting with the external history given to each of Mistress Otter’s attractive components and aligning with the broader assertion of manhood as natural and womanhood as artificial. Indeed, it is on account of Epicoene’s natural manhood that the Collegiates’ sexual desire comes across as grotesque, as their itemization of Dauphine rhetorically rips a complete human being into digestible pieces. While female sexual desire is dismissed as no more than a base, consumerist instinct for its treatment of men’s bodies as no more than a compilation of features, male sexual desire is granted the status of sophistication for the very same itemisation of women. Both male and female sexuality manifest as forms of consumption, but where women’s sexuality is discredited as consumerism, men’s sexuality is elevated as a form of artistic appreciation precisely because of the play’s presentation of womanhood as constructed and thus an appropriate object for men’s curation. It is from the disparate portrayals of manhood and womanhood that the double standards regarding sexuality arise, for where the Collegiates’ deconstruction of Dauphine is bestial, Truewit’s advice that men “should love wisely” (4.1.123) by collecting “one for the face, and let her please the eye; another for the skin, and let her please the touch; a third for the voice, and let her please the ear” (4.1.124-126) is presented as sage counsel, despite similarly reducing its objects of desire to an accumulation of parts, due to the view of womanhood as no more than an artificial construction. Truewit’s declaration that a woman “is like a delicate garden” (1.1.93) and proclamation of his love for a “good dressing” (1.1.92), consequently equates women to a landscape that is deliberately cultivated for others’ aesthetic enjoyment, reasserting womanhood as constructed according to men’s desires.
Further, Truewit’s statement illuminates the interconnectedness of male sexuality and powers of authorship, as he takes sexual pleasure specifically in the process of creating a woman through a “good dressing,” much in the same way that the Gallants assert their masculinity through the making and unmaking of other men. Indeed, the Gallants’ ability to “[rework] knowledge for [their] own ends” (Zucker 39) that enables their scheming is deployed for their sexual pursuits, as Truewit advises the other Gallants to manipulate the objects of their desire: “Then if she be covetous and craving, do you promise anything, and perform sparingly: so shall you keep her in appetite still… Let cunning be above cost” (4.1.96-101). One’s attempt to shape a woman’s behaviour through “cunning” is placed at the heart of seduction, portraying male sexuality as inseparable from authorship and thus domination, which is acceptable because of womanhood’s status as a creative product. As a result of the framework of male desire as authorship over artificial constructions, the typical, though already problematic, narrative of sexual assault as an unfortunate byproduct of uncontrolled male sexuality is discarded in favor of positioning sexual assault as necessary to seduction, as not only an “acceptable violence” but often a “greatest courtesy” (4.1.75-76), as described by Truewit in his advice on attracting women. Women are thus denied basic agency in their sexuality, whilst male sexuality is inextricable not only from self-fashioning, but the ability to mould others into a more desirable form.
Arguably, Truewit advises the other Gallants to engage in the exact performativity that they mock women and lesser men for, as he instructs them to misrepresent their qualities to fit the taste of the woman they’re pursuing: “If she love wit, give verses, though you borrow ‘em of a friend, or buy ‘em, to have good. If valour, talk of your sword, and be frequent in the mention of quarrels, though you be staunch in fighting” (4.1.86-89). However, the text presents such performativity as irrelevant to their core character; rather, it is presented as stooping to women’s level, as “[approaching] them i’ their own height, their own line” (4.1.84), whereas women’s use of cosmetics, which could be cast as approaching men in “their own height” is not afforded the same assumption of interiority. Epicoene’s greater valuation of manhood due to its supposed innateness in contrast to the artificiality of womanhood allows for the construction of male sexuality, and even sexual violence, as more legitimate than women’s sexual desire.
Epicoene reasserts the ‘natural’ hierarchy and imagines manhood and male sexuality not only as dominance, but as the sculptor of one’s social surroundings. The Gallants are set apart from the other characters in that they have agency: they direct the actions of the empty vessels around them through their skills in authorship and reinterpretation. Furthermore, this hierarchy is presented as both fixed and natural, with the Gallants ruling through their natural wit, unobtainable to lesser men, who may only mimic it, and to women, who are more akin to domesticated animals. By denying authorship and agency, Epicoene engages in the profound dehumanization of those outside of the rigid boundaries of acceptable masculinity.
Works Cited
Butler, Judith. “Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex.” Yale French Studies, no. 72, 1986, pp. 35–49. https://doi.org/10.2307/2930225.
de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. Translated by H. M. Parshley, Jonathan Cape, 1956.
Jonson, Ben. “Epicoene.” The Complete Plays of Ben Jonson, Vol. 3, edited by G. A. Wilkes, Oxford University Press, 1982, pp.123-222.
Zucker, Adam. “The Social Logic of Ben Jonson’s Epicoene.” Renaissance Drama, vol. 33, 2004, pp. 37–62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41917386.
Bình luận