Hi All!
Welcome to the first blog post for Beyond the Binary! This post will discuss my favourite Early Modern English play, The Roaring Girl.
I will base this post on the research I’ve done for my MA. At the end of the post, I will also link my MA thesis if you are interested in a deeper reading of the play. Without further ado, let us discuss gender nonconformity in The Roaring Girl.
Summary
I would like to start with a summary for some background to the play.
The Roaring Girl or Moll Cutpurse follows the character Moll, a fictionalised version of Mary Frith known as Moll Cutpurse in the play. Sebastian’s father does not allow him to marry his love, Mary Fitzallard, because her dowry is too small. Sebastian then, with the help of Moll, sets out to convince his father that Sebastian is, in fact, in love with Moll and intends to marry her instead of Mary Fitzallard. The marriage with Moll would be frowned upon because of her reputation and how Moll presented herself and behaved. This results in Sebastian’s father trying to cause Moll’s downfall to prevent the marriage by hiring the character Trapdoor to spy on Moll. At the end of the play, Sir Wengrave is relieved to find out Sebastian is marrying his originally intended fiancée, Mary, and gives the pair his blessing, as the plan intended. However, Sir Wengrave does let up his bias towards Moll and ends up admitting he was wrong to judge her.
Moll is quite the character, and when examining the nonconformity surrounding Moll, you will see various ways in which Moll’s behaviour and looks can be interpreted as gender nonconforming.
Appearance
The first thing we will examine to discuss the details of how she is portrayed in a gender nonconforming way is her outward appearance.
Within the play, you can find various depictions of how Moll dresses. Most of these depictions can be found in the stage directions, but other characters within the play also give several descriptions of Moll’s appearance. While an audience at the time would not have directly read the stage directions, the specificity of these directions show that there was a great deal of thought on how to represent. But why were these descriptions so specific? When you take a closer look, specifically at the stage directions, it can be seen that Moll mixes both typically male and, more traditionally, female garments. An example can be seen in the following stage direction, “Enter Moll in a frieze Jerkin and a black safeguard” (654).
As mentioned before, The other characters in the play also comment on Moll and how she dresses. Various examples are present in the text. All seem to have their own opinions attached to Moll and how she presents herself. So, it can be read from 964 to 995 when the tailor comes to take her measurements. The way he talks about this is very nonchalant, as if it is the most normal thing in the world, even if that might be to his benefit. Opposed to the way the tailor treats Moll, there are characters who criticise Moll for how she dresses.
Goshawk ’Tis the maddest fantastical’st girl: — I never knew so much flesh and so much nimbleness put together.
Laxton She slips from one company to another, like a fat
Eel between a Dutchman’s fingers: — I’ll watch my time for her.
Mistress Gallipot Some will not stick to say she’s a man
And some both man and woman. (682-687; formatting as in Folger edition)
In this quote, Mistress Gallipot states that Moll seems to be both a man and a woman. This can be interpreted as her criticising Moll for wearing male clothing, but it can also be interpreted as her criticising how Moll weaves through the layers of society and does not adhere to a traditional female role in it.
Another example can be found in line 2909, where Sir Wengrave is asking Moll if that is her wedding dress. However, this can be construed in two different ways, one where he is mocking Moll and the other where he is surprised to actually see her wear feminine clothing.
Behaviour
But, as mentioned before, Moll’s appearance is not the only striking thing about her. Her behaviour and how she navigates the world are different from what you would expect of a woman of that time, thus enhancing the reading of Moll as a Gender nonconforming character.
Moll, within the play, is a very solitary character. At the same time, she is seen to have interactions with many other characters, but she is not automatically tied to a single character for the entirety of the play. The way Moll moves through the play differs quite a lot from the other female characters in the play. For example, Mistress Galipot, while she is shown to have some agency in the play, we only know her as the wife of Mister Galipot, and beyond the interactions in the shop, we do not learn more about her. Moll also states that she does not wish to get married at all in lines 928 to 937, which would be considered out of the norm.
Moll Sir I am so poor to requite you, you must look for
nothing but thanks of me, I have no humor to marry, I love
to lie a’ both sides a’ th’ bed myself; and again a’ th’ other side,
a wife you know ought to be obedient, but I fear me I am too
headstrong to obey, therefore I’ll ne’er go about it, I love you
so well sir for your good will I’d be loath you should repent
your bargain after, and therefore we’ll ne’er come together
at first, I have the head now of myself, and am man enough
for a woman, marriage is but a chopping and changing, where
a maiden loses one head, and has a worse i’ th’ place (928-937)
Additionally, Moll is somewhat considered ‘one of the guys’. She is accepted in the circle of men when she enters the shop and is treated with a modicum of respect even if they do think she is weird; this can be seen in lines 645 to 664. Besides the descriptions of Moll in social settings, her speech patterns are sometimes considered out of place, especially in the societal class she finds herself in at most times. This discrepancy is most prevalent when we as readers get introduced to thieves cant and Moll’s ability to speak it in lines 2605 to 2619
Moll He says his wench stays for him in an alehouse:
you are no pure rogues.
Tear-Cat Pure rogues? no, we scorn to be pure rogues, but
if you come to our lib ken, or our stalling ken, you shall find
neither him nor me, a queer cuffin.
Moll So sir, no churl of you.
Tear-Cat No, but a ben cave, a brave cave, a gentry cuffin.
Lord Noland Call you this canting?
Jack Dapper Zounds, I’ll give a schoolmaster half a crown
a week, and teach me this pedlar’s French.
Trapdoor Do but stroll sir, half a harvest with us sir, and you
shall gabble your bellyful.
Moll Come you rogue cant with me.
Thomas Long Well said Moll, cant with her sirrah, and you shall
have money, else not a penny. (2605-2619)
Moll clearly demonstrates knowledge of this particular form of slang language. Later in the play, Moll recounts her encounters with a cutpurse and how she learned thieves’ cant. She recounts the story, which gave her the reputation of being ‘Moll Cutpurse’. Thieves cant, is a form of speech often used by the lower class, vagrants, prostitutes, and other illicit people (Michalaki, 119-120). The use of thieves’ cant lets Moll migrate between the upper and lower classes of London (Michalaki, 119). The fact that she can easily migrate these classes also adds to her nonconformity in a sense, as it was unusual for one to migrate these classes so casually. Usually, the only way these would be bridged would be through marriage.
The physical and behavioural differences referred to in the play allow a modern reader familiar with the concept of Gender nonconformity to read Moll as such a character. However, these aspects do not stand on their own. The reactions of the other characters regarding Moll’s behaviour and dress can be tied to the theory of gender labour, strengthening the reading of Moll as a gender nonconforming individual in the play.
Gender labour
When it comes to gender labour, within the play, the labour of alliance is the most prevalent labour. The men around Moll mainly engage in the labour of alliance. The men around Moll accept her presentation and help uphold the masculine gender presentation that Moll participates in. The men engage in this in several ways. For example, they approach Moll with male pronouns and formalities. At the same time, the tailor makes clothes for Moll, allowing her to present masculinely. Male characters also allow Moll in their inner circle; an example of this can be found in lines 645 to 664.
Enter Moll in a frieze Jerkin and
a black safeguard.
Goshawk Life yonder’s Moll.
Laxton Moll which Moll. Goshawk honest Moll.
Laxton Prithee let’s call her — Moll.
All. Moll, Moll, pist Moll.
Moll How now, what’s the matter.
Goshawk A pipe of good tobacco Moll.
Moll I cannot stay.
Goshawk Nay Moll puh, prithee hark, but one word i’ faith.
Moll Well what is ’t.
Greenwit Prithee come hither sirrah. (645-664)
While the men seemingly engage in the labour of alliance, this labour works against Moll. The men actively try to put Moll into a gendered box, for example, by talking about Moll in a male-gendered way. On the other hand, when they cannot successfully put Moll in a male-gendered space, they try to put Moll in a female space through the labour of alliance. This is done by calling her, for example, a whore. Calling Moll a whore does not have the same connotation as it would have in modern English. By calling Moll a whore, they situate Moll in a female space, which common women occupy. To be called a whore in medieval England meant that the woman was publicly and sexually available (Karras, 138). As Karras states:
‘Public woman,’ a term used for prostitutes in France at this time, evokes the way women’s independence and their movement outside the control of the head of the household became sexualised; ‘common woman’ in England expressed the same idea of a woman who moved into the communal realm, becoming sexually available. A whore was one who brought her sexuality out of the private and into the public arena. (Karras, 138)
While Karras writes about late medieval England, her work is applicable to Early Modern England, as this idea of a woman being called a whore, because she was viewed as sexually available and publicly available also permeated the understanding of the term in Early Modern England (Digangi, 148-150). The men in the play put Moll in this space since Moll actively defies social standards. By calling her a whore they acknowledge her as a social disturbance while at the same time putting her in a female box. The gender labour this causes in this play does not correlate to any of the gender labour terms used previously in this post; if a label needs to be attached, I would propose it to be called the labour of making sense. The men put Moll in these boxes to make sense of Moll’s gender and gender presentation. When the men in the play practice the labour of alliance by bolstering Moll’s gender performance, it is largely transactional or depends on how the characters around them see Moll. This transactional alliance is seen practised by the tailor, as well as Trapdoor. The latter only bolsters Moll’s gender performance because he is ordered to investigate her, and by doing so, he can get close to her.
Moll herself is actively nonconforming to her gender assigned at birth and societal standards presented to her gender. However, Moll is not actively trying to pass as the opposite gender. Moll exists in her own space and identity: she considers herself a woman, and her gender nonconformity simply expresses her identity. When connecting this to the theory of gender labour, Moll’s nonconformity, again, does not fit in one of the predetermined boxes. Moll’s gender labour exists in the context of her presenting as masculine while retaining her female identity. Moll’s nonconformity falls between the labour of forgetting and the labour of remembrance; her dressing in men’s clothing and, at times, acting more masculine than expected could result in forgetting Moll’s female identity, even if this is not its intended purpose. The gender labour that the characters around Moll participate in is best classified as something I would like to call “the labour of making sense”, one that is not described in the theory presented by Jane Ward. The characters around Moll try to put her in a gendered box to make sense of Moll’s identity. Because Moll’s identity is so layered and includes a lot of ambiguity, the gender labour of Moll and the other characters cannot fit into the predetermined boxes. The gender labour in The Roaring Girl revolves around ambiguity and trying to make sense of one’s gender identity, even when the gender identity presented might not be the complete picture.
Conclusion
As I’ve tried to highlight in this first post, Moll can, in fact, be considered a gender nonconforming character. The way the nonconformity is presented does not suggest that Moll behaves and dresses outside the societal norms for any specific reasons. In fact, she is portrayed as fully aware of her outsider status and embraces it, making it an inherent aspect of her as a character.
Did this post interest you, and do you want to read the more in-depth version? Please check out my MA thesis, Diverging from the binary: Gender nonconformity in Early Modern English plays. The next two posts will also use this research, so be on the lookout for those!
Sources:
Middleton, Thomas and Thomas Dekker, The Roaring Girl. A Digital Anthology of Early Modern English Drama, Folger Shakespeare Library. https://emed.folger.edu/roaring
Chess, Simone. Male-to-Female Crossdressing in Early Modern Literature: Gender, Performance, and Queer Relations. Routledge, 2016.
Choate, Victoria. “Queering The Roaring Girl: Gender Ideals and Expectations of Moll.” Merge, vol. 4, no. 2, 2020, pp. 17-24.
Colman, Andrew M. “gender roles” A Dictionary of Psychology, 2014, Oxford reference,
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199534067.001.0001/acref-
9780199534067-e-3416, accessed 1 Dec. 2022
DIGANGI, MARIO. “Sexual Slander and Working Women in ‘The Roaring Girl.’” Renaissance Drama, vol. 32, 2003, pp. 147–76. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41917379. Accessed 1 Dec. 2022.
Shapiro, Susan C. “Sex, Gender, and Fashion in Medieval and Early Modern Britain.” Journal of popular culture 20.4 (1987): 113–128.