The Roaring Girl and Merging Gender into Identity

      

      Cross-dressing became a phenomenon in the Renaissance for many reasons. Women who cross-dressed seemed to threaten the delicate social and gendered order of the Renaissance. By taking on a male persona, women elevated their social status and threatened the subordinate nature of their gender. Men who cross-dressed were more prevalent due to the theatre and the influence it had during the Renaissance. These men who cross-dressed like women lowered their gender dominance to a subordinate station as opposed to the patriarchal hierarchy created by the male gender. In doing so, these men also challenged the strict constraints of individual sexuality by creating homoerotic fantasies and creating false images of men dressed as women enticing the audience into moral corruption. Each gender hoped to attain something they were denied: freedom within their identity. Through cross-dressing, men and women established dominance in their own lives and upset the rigid black and white of individual sexuality by creating a shade of grey.  Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker’s The Roaring Girl counteracts the strict gender hierarchy by merging the feminine with the patriarchy. Through cross-dressing, Moll Cutpurse or Mary Firth becomes both masculine and feminine creating an individual away from the constraints of gender and social implications. 

      The patriarchy’s overwhelming presence isn’t confined to the oppression of the female gender as compared to males. In the play, Sebastian Wengrave feels the unmitigated pressures of patriarchy as constructed by his father Sir Alexander Wengrave. Sebastian’s pressure to hide his true feelings for Mary Fitzallard addresses patriarchal confinements on social structure as well as gender difference. By looking at the social implications, Sebastian’s position beneath his father places him in the subordinate role. The patriarchy between Sebastian and his father, as well as throughout society during the Renaissance relied on a dominant and subordinate position. By Sebastian assuming the subordinate role, he counteracts the notion that only females were subordinate and submissive to males during the Renaissance. In terms of his marriage to Mary Fitzallard, Sebastian must create an arranged marriage for himself to challenge his father’s dominant presence in his life. While Sebastian ultimately does marry the woman he loves, he must do so through manipulation of the patriarchy through his prescribed role as the subordinate to his father.  However, through his marriage Sebastian reinforces patriarchy by establishing dominance in his own household and reestablishes himself as the dominant figure. 

      Sir Alexander Wengrave acts as the social reasoning throughout the play. His commentary and seemingly innocent by-standing hints at society’s nervous condition during this period. While equally concerned with class and his own son’s inter-social marriage, Sir Alexander remains openly repulsed by the notion of men and women together as equals. In his first appearance in the play, Sir Alexander relates the ill treatment his son has inflicted on him by desiring women both of low class and of low character. Sir Alexander’s misogynistic view of women begins to reveal itself in his lines, “Stories of men and women mixed together/ fair ones with foul, like sunshine in wet weather” (1.2.17-18). The poetic nature of his verse doesn’t disguise his disgust with the notion of men and women in mixed social standing in an egalitarian society. Sir Alexander acknowledges that men and women are comprised of a similar makeup, but personifies them as opposites. His personification of women as foul and wet weather contrasts with men as fair and sunshine. In his address, he is surrounded by a crowd of male confidants which may suggest a homosocial relationship more intimate than the bonds of marriage. Sir Alexander addresses his fears with other men who similarly share his disdain and support the patriarchal structure that resides within society.  

      Scholars suggest that Moll Cutpurse’s intent throughout the play was to disrupt the patriarchy; however her intent may be more intricate than a simple generalization. Moll Cutpurse, or Mary Firth, doesn’t upset the patriarchy by taking on a male identity as well as sporting male attire. She challenges the idea of masculine and feminine as two separate entities and through her cross-dressing merges the contrastive notions into the idea of an individual away from gender constructs and social implications. While Moll is the namesake for the play, she acts as a scapegoat both for Sebastian and Mary, but also as a scapegoat for addressing the fluidity of gender and what that meant for a rigid moralist and socialist of the time. In looking at Moll with relation to Mary Fitzallard, Moll and Mary act as character foils to one another. While the two women share similarities such as their names, their true identities lack any coincidence whatsoever.  Moll’s embodiment of the female identity as well as the challenge of embodying male characteristics supports the idea of a dual identity forged from the strengths of both genders. Mary remains complacent in her gender roles, and constantly reinforces these roles through her actions. While Moll denounces marriage in her own life as an institution and continuation of male dominance, Mary embraces the idea of domestication and goes along with an elaborate hoax to trick Sir Alexander to agree to an arrangement between her and Sebastian. Both women argue important implications during the Renaissance. Mary Fitzallard argues the chastity and subordinate position of a domestic wife and the continuation of patriarchy through marriage. Moll Cutpurse exploits the fears often associated with gender and the possibility that the distinction among genders has begun to blur strict limitations into mere interpretations. 

      Moll’s cross-dressing allows the audience to see an outward example of the merge between male and female gender roles. While Moll doesn’t denounce her identity as a woman, she appears in male garb and often confuses the people who come into contact with her. However, society doesn’t reject her. Instead they are intrigued by her and somewhat seduced. In her relationship with Laxton, his attractions to Moll are presented to the audience in an aside, which may suggest confusion between his attractions to Moll as Mary the woman or Moll as the roaring girl dressed as a male. As the play continues, Moll and Laxton get into an altercation where Moll wounds him both verbally and physically. In her verbal assault, Moll denounces her place as a prostitute to a man and thus refuses to yield as the subordinate to a male. In her physical assault, Moll openly wounds the patriarchy outright as an act of revenge for what has been inflicted on women, herself included, throughout society. Laxton’s response to her attack suggests once again subordination not typical of the time, in which man becomes the willing subordinate to a woman. Laxton pleads to Moll by saying, “I yield both purse and body” (3.1.123). Here, purse may refer to his wealth, but a gendered reading may suggest his yield of his manly parts, particularly his testicles. In conjuncture with this idea, Moll’s full name of Moll Cutpurse suggests that she not only is a vagabond in societal context but in a sexual context she also castrates men and removes their masculinity. By Laxton separating his masculinity from his body, it supports the idea of the individual as separate from masculine or feminine gender identity. 

      Throughout the play societal norms become subverted and portrayed equally in Moll’s characterization. Moll’s rejection of a set gender construct denounces society’s subordination of the female gender as well as challenges other structures of patriarchy, such as marriage. Moll’s incorporation into the plot is because she acts as a scapegoat for Mary Fitzallard as Sebastian’s potential bride. However, Moll’s open rejection of the institution of marriage suggests a desire for more than subjugation in matrimony. Moll claims that she can occupy both sides of the bed, suggesting that she can be sustained sexually without the constraints of matrimony. In her research, Jean E. Howard presents the idea of the masterless woman and the fears that arose from a single woman during the Renaissance. In her article, she says, “They [single women] became masterless women, and this threatened to overthrow the hierarchy was discursively read as the eruption of uncontrolled sexuality” (424). By subverting what Moll describes as the prostitution of herself to a man, Moll creates a space for sexuality without matrimony and thus challenging the pillar of social and sexual order. In her removal from domesticity, Moll separates love as well as sexuality from marriage. During her discourse with Sebastian, Moll cautions Sebastian not to take her as his wife saying, “I am not of that disdainful temper, but I/ could love you faithfully” (2.2.52-53). By removing the potential for love inside a marriage, Moll presents the idea of love and sexuality outside of matrimony which creates free will denied within a patriarchal society. Ryan Singh Paul suggests, “She moves freely from one side of the bed to the other, an action that figures spatially and erotically her free transgression of the normative boundaries of the sex/gender system” (515).  Her fluidity in occupying both the masculine and feminine spectrums of pleasure removes need for rigid structure and allows her to equate herself as an individual separate from patriarchal and marital confinement.

      Cross-dressing acted as an illustration of Moll’s convergence of gender differences into the idea of one individual. Through her attire and shifting pieces of fabric with gender, she created an identity that could not be classified by the rigid structure of the time. As compared to Hic Mulier the Man-Woman, Moll still assumes her feminine role and gender while revealing a masculinity that coincides with its female counterpart. It suggests that this identity doesn’t hide either male or female gender roles, but it allows these two different gender roles to dually exist in one encasement of individualism. The short dialogue between Moll and the tailor may often be overlooked, but here it has validity. In the tailor’s closing remarks to Moll, he says, “I know my fault now; t’other was somewhat stiff/ between the legs; I’ll make these open enough, I warrant you” (2.2.93-94). This simple sentence can be analyzed multiple ways. By looking at the garment as subject, it would appear that the tailor acknowledges he made the trousers too much like a man’s before and now begins to shift towards a more open design to suit Moll and her changing fashion. In terms of Moll’s sexuality, the tailor could be referring to the stiffness between her legs as a man and the openness refers to her denouncement of marriage as a means to satisfy sexual desire. However, in a broader scope, the tailor could be suggesting a transition from the masculine patriarchy represented by Sir Alexander into a more open and accepting period allowing freedom of expression and will. The last three words are crucial in that the tailor justifies Moll’s actions to express identity individually rather than collectively to suit patriarchal social order. 

      Cross-dressing in the Renaissance as portrayed by women often represented women attempting to receive equal rights. While I do believe Moll attempts to challenge the patriarchy by attempting to create an egalitarian society, her cross-dressing speaks out against the rigid nature of dominance and subordination in a patriarchal society. By removing gender constructs and the social implications that follow suit, Moll remained in her female sphere while converging masculinity without effeminizing it in the traditional sense, thus creating an individual separate from social and gendered characterizations. 

Works Cited

Howard, Jean E. "Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early
        Modern England." Shakespeare Quarterly 39.4 (1988): 418-440. JSTOR.
        Web. 1 May 2015.

Paul, Ryan Singh. "The Power of Ignorance and The Roaring Girl." English 
      Literary Renaissance 43.3 (2013): 514-540. Academic Search Complete.
      Web. 9 Apr. 2015.