Mini: Shakespeare and Cross-dressing

In today’s episode, we’ll be covering cross-dressing in early modern England. Shakespeare depicts cross-dressing in multiple plays, but what was the contemporary cultural context? We'll dive into early modern reactions to cross-dressing both onstage and off and how Shakespeare uses cross-dressing as a plot device across his plays.

Kourtney Smith (KS): Welcome to another Shakespeare Anyone mini-episode! In these mini-episodes, we’ll be exploring topics that are related to Shakespeare but aren’t necessarily connected to whatever play we’ve been discussing. 

Elyse Sharp (ES): And they’re mini, because, well, they’re shorter than our other episodes. They’re like quartos if the regular episodes are folio editions.  

KS: In today’s episode, we’ll be covering cross-dressing in early modern England. Shakespeare depicts cross-dressing in many plays, but what was the contemporary cultural context?

ES: But before we get started, we think it would be wise to create a glossary for listeners who maybe aren’t so familiar with the language of the LGBTQIA community, as well as antiquated terms from early modern England that we’ll be bringing up. Let’s dive in!

KS: The first term we want to define is cross-dressing. Cross-dressing is the act of wearing the clothes of the gender one does not identify with. While simple, this definition is incredibly limiting when looking at the human experience, as well as gender identity and gender expression. Especially given the fact that gender and sex binaries are social constructs, gender lives on a spectrum and there are more than two sexes. But, for the sake of discussing Shakesepare and early modern England, we are going to do our best to balance the mentality of that time with what we know now.

ES: The next term we want to define is drag, or dressing in drag. Is cross-dressing drag? Yes and no. Drag is defined as the performance of masculinity and femininity. A drag queen is a person (typically identifying as male) who performs femininity; a drag king is a person (who typically identifies as female) who performs masculinity. And, of course, there are performers who perform somewhere within this binary. Drag is performance. So, just because someone cross-dresses, doesn’t mean they perform in drag. Hence, cross-dressing is and is not drag. And, unlike Korey’s factoid in the Intro Series, the term “dressed resembling a girl” in Shakespeare’s scripts could not be confirmed from our research. While we never claimed the term “drag” was used during Shakespeare’s time, it’s suggested the term originated from theatre slang of the 19th century for long skirts trailing along the floor.

KS: The next term we want to define is transgender. Are cross-dressing peoples or peoples who perform drag the same as transgender peoples? No. According to Glaad’s Media Reference Guide, transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. People under this umbrella may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms. The key difference is that cross-dressing peoples present as a sex or gender that they do not identify with. Regardless of how visibly or not visibly transgender a person may be, their presentation rings true to their identity.

ES: The last term we want to define is transvestite, or transvestism. Transvestite and transvestism are antiquated terms that we do not encourage using, unless a person asks to be referred to this way. This is due to its transformation from a blanket term for cross-dressers and cross-dressing associated with non-heterosexual behavior to a derogatory term that was a linguistic tool to oppress gay peoples. You’ll be hearing a little bit of this word in the episode due to its presence in the text of early modern England. Please keep in mind its historical context.

KS: And, lastly, it’s important to note, as scholar Jean E. Howard writes, there is no way to measure how many people cross-dressed in Renaissance or early modern England, or why. This is due to limited sources. We couldn’t find any sources detailing firsthand accounts through primary sources, like letters or diary entries. And, even though we know queer and transgender people have always existed, we can only assume queer people might have cross-dressed as a form of gender expression. Unfortunately, we cannot cover the queer landscape in this episode. So, instead, let’s talk about those transgressors written down in history. And, yes, cross-dressing during Shakespeare’s time was a transgression against one’s providentially determined rank in life.

ES: And this predetermined identity was enforced through strict sumptuary regulations put in place in England starting as early as the twelfth century that went on into the eighteenth century. Sumptuary laws regulated consumption of luxury goods ranging from food to furniture to clothing. They restricted what clothing subjects were legally allowed to wear, according to their rank in life. Men were supposed to dress like traditional English “men”; women were supposed to dress like traditional English “women”. In addition to gender restrictions, there were class restrictions. Laws laid out the types of clothes, the colors worn, fabrics used and embellishments dawned one could wear according to their social class. If you broke one of these laws, the justice of the peace could confiscate the article of clothing and you’d be fined.

KS: But hold on. Didn’t Shakespeare use boy actors to play his female characters...? Boys dressed as women… a.k.a. cross-dressers? How did cross-dressing, in spite of sumptuary laws, work its way into Shakespeare’s theatre? Well, the practice of cross-dressing in theatre started well before Shakespeare’s time. Many societies banned women from performing in professional theatre, including the ancient Greek theatre and the Japanese kabuki theatre. Since the Elizabethean theatre also excluded women actors from their professional stages, they turned to boy actors to play the roles of female characters. These cross-dressing actors were a widely accepted, though still controversial, theatrical convention at a time when no one else was legally allowed to dress and act outside of their station in life -- according to the sumptuary laws.

ES: So, basically, the theatres of the day openly went against the law to satisfy a need for female characters. And all for good reason. I mean, professional acting is just sooo dangerous for women folk. (Obviously we’re being sarcastic). Even though the patriarchy’s strict gender roles were worse for women actors, life was no walk in the park for boy actors. Public discourse, especially of the Puritan nature, believed, at the simplest form, effeminate clothing made a man weak and tender, a jab at their “manliness”. At a more serious level, men wearing women’s clothes were seen as so out of place that they became monstrous and a sexual perversion. A man, and especially a boy, who theatricalizes as female, is said to invite playing the woman’s part in sexual congress. In spite of this abusive rhetoric, boy actors continued to cross-dress in performance until the Puritans shut down English theatres in 1642.

KS: But boy actors were not the only recorded cross-dressers of the time. Women and men cross-dressed outside of the walls of a theatre as well. Thomas Salmon was caught by authorities after borrowing and wearing woman’s clothes in order to participate in a women’s only celebration. And, for women who cross-dressed, the significance for them is usually generalized as a desire to pass as men to participate in life outside of the home. The first recorded instances of early modern women cross-dressing dates back to 1570 and it reaches a climax by 1620. Puritan pamphleteers and moralists of this era were not happy to see women dressing outside of their rank. Letter writer John Chamberlain wrote to his friend and Secretary of State Dudley Carleton, 1st Viscount of Dorchester that “the world is very far out of order”. The danger reached such heights and was so distressing that King James I had to intervene personally, ordering an Anglican priest to preach against these women. But, alas, we don’t know all that much about these women. 

ES: But one thing we did learn is that historian R. Mark Benbow examined the records from Bridewell and the Alderman’s Court during the years 1565 and 1605 and found that many of the women apprehended in men’s clothing were accused of prostitution. This seems out of touch with more modern homophobic or transphobic fears of a cross-dressing woman. Dorothy Clayton, a spinster, was reported to “contrary to all honesty and womanhood commonly [go] about the City apparelled in man’s attire. She has abused her body with sundry persons and lived an incontinent [or uncontrolled] life.” But not all women were labeled sex workers by the court. Another woman, Johanna Goodman, was whipped and sent to Bridewell in 1569 for dressing as a male servant so she could accompany her soldier-husband to war.

KS: Other records document that some women were in service or employed to London tavernkeepers or tradesmen; some wore male clothing for protection traveling the city; and, yes, some might have been sex workers. But, to be honest, these records don’t tell us all that much about the women in question, aside from their crime. Regardless of their motivation, to early modern English society, their crossdressing was a demonized sign that they were sexually available. This is because women of the time were viewed as creatures of strong sexual appetites needing strict regulation. According to the time, sexual desire indicates both women's inferiority, as well as the justification for her control by men. Women who took men’s clothes had symbolically left their proper, subordinate positions and became masterless women, a threat to society.

ES: This fear was so great that pamphleteers got creative, as well as offensive, when writing against cross-dressing. For example, Hic Mulier, an anonymous pamphlet published in 1620, condemned transvestism in response to women wearing men’s apparel. The socially conservative pamphleteer and other social-conservative objectors argued that transvestism is an affront to nature, the Bible, the Great Chain of Being and society. The author writes: “If this [cross-dressing] bee not barbarous, make the rude Scitian, the untamed Moore, the naked Indian, or the wild Irish, Lords and Rulers of well governed Cities.” This author is sexist and also…  racist and prejudiced.

KS: But not everyone in early modern England opposed cross-dressing. Shortly after, another pamphlet, Haec-Vir, countered Hic Mulier’s arguments. Haec-Vir defended those women who did not fit into their expected gender role. Unlike the straight-forward, single-viewpoint delivery of Hic Mulier, Haec-Vir is a dialogue between two people, Hic-Mulier (translated to The Man-Woman, or the female transvestite) and Haec-Vir (translated to The Woman-ish Man, or the male transvestite). Some scholars identify this pamphlet as an early form of feminism in Renaissance England. It criticizes the gender hierarchy by declaring it is not nature but custom that dictates women’s dress and place in society. It also states, “Custome is an idiot.” The naturalness of the whole gender system seems to be in question. But, this pamphlet also argues that women are overstepping their bounds in their gender identity because men have ceased to be real men. This toxic view was a real fear during Jacobean England. Apparently, men were softer during James’ reign than when Elizabeth was queen. 

ES: Now, let’s bring it back to Shakespeare. He wrote a handful of plays that were heavily concerned with cross-dressing as a primary component to the plot. Those plays are Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice and As You Like It.

KS: First, let’s talk about Viola from Twelfth Night, who cross-dresses as Cesario after being shipwrecked onto the shores of Illyria. While modern scholars like to look for a political act or a transgender identity in Viola’s cross-dressing, it should be noted that Viola seems to use cross-dressing as more of a haven, allowing her the freedom to survive in an alien environment, and as a magical means of keeping alive her brother, whom she assumes has drowned in the wreck. It’s also important to note, she is the only one of Shakespeare’s cross-dressing females who questions the morality of her transgression. Any undertones from our modern eye should probably be disregarded because she navigates the entire play wanting to be rid of her male appearance and return to her “acceptable femininity”.

ES: But not all of Shakespeare’s cross-dressing plays are quite so safe, for lack of a better word. Portia, from The Merchant of Venice, engages in much more disruptive cross-dressing than Viola. Battling with the power of her dead father’s control over her, she adopts male dress in order to enter the masculine arena of the courtroom and advocate for herself. Her cross-dressing, like Viola’s, is not an indication of identity; it’s a vehicle for power. And Portia’s role, as a woman who can successfully hold her own in a man’s role, seems to dismantle the sex-gender system and argue, like Haec-Vir, that man’s part is based on custom, not nature.

KS: Where these two representations of accepting versus challenging the gender binary seem to converge is in the character of Rosalind from As You Like It. While Rosalind does spend the entire play longing to return to her female-presenting identity, she does expose the construct of the gender system through her masquerading as Rosalind dressed as boy Ganymede playing a female called Rosalind for Orlando; thus, acting out the parts scripted for men and women by her culture.

ES: It’s interesting to note that Shakespeare’s cross-dressing plays focus on heterosexual romance, as well as the strict masculine and feminine differences of the two-gender and two-sex system, all while boy actors play female characters opposite other male actors. For whatever reason, Shakespeare’s audiences' must have been able to suspend their disbelief. Or the plays themselves must not have bothered a majority of theatregoers. When Henry Jackson saw the King's Men perform Othello at Oxford in 1610, he wrote of Desdemona in his diary, "She...always acted the matter very well, in her death moved us still more greatly; when lying in bed she implored the pity of those watching with her countenance alone." That Jackson referred to the boy actor as "she," when he certainly knew better rationally, may in itself testify to the strength of the illusion.

KS: Some of Shakespeare’s female characters even outright mention their deception in the text. Rosalind reminds the audience in the Epilogue that she is a boy. The Page in the Induction to The Taming of the Shrew deliberately calls attention to the fact that boy actors are playing the “grace,/ Voice, gait, and action of [all of the] gentlewomen”. And, all the while, at the end of these plays, all the female characters return to their female identity with their appropriate heterosexual partner, reinforcing the status quo.

ES: Now, society at large likes to praise Shakespeare and his works for many reasons; but, unfortunately, from what we’ve learned, his cross-dressing plays seem to lean towards accepting the gender systems at large and, like we said, reinforcing the status quo. And he’s not the only playwright to do that. Many plays of the time, like contemporary Ben Jonson’s Epicoene, also lean towards this conclusion. However, there is one notable play of early modern England that straight-up challenges the gender system. And that play is Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker’s The Roaring Girl.

KS: The Roaring Girl follows Moll, a cross-dressing woman who disguises herself in male clothes in order to assert her own freedom from the traditional positions of a woman in her culture. She tells the play’s young hero “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.” In addition to not-needing-no-man, she also calls out the social realities that create conditions for sex work. And she challenges the assumptions made by men about women. These assumptions were the ones that landed so many cross-dressing women before the Aldernman’s Court for “lewd” behavior. The play also ends with Moll delivering a prophetic speech of utopian social reform for women. All of this wrapped into a play that is thought to have premiered sometime between 1607 and 1610, near the end of Shakespeare’s career.

ES: And, to wrap this all up, it’s fascinating that Shakespeare’s all-male theatre company performed these cross-dressing plays for the very women whose enhanced freedom, one could argue, was perceived as a threat to the patriarchal order. Shakespeare’s theatre may be a crossroads between cultural change and contradiction, where the women viewing his plays were much more radical than his fictional women on stage.

KS: And that’s cross-dressing in early modern England!

ES: Thank you for listening to this episode.

Quote of the Episode:

ES: From Troilus and Cressida, act one, scene two, said by Pandarus, “You are such another.”

Shakespeare Anyone? is created and produced by Kourtney Smith and Elyse Sharp.

Note: When this episode was recorded, Kourtney Smith was "Korey Leigh Smith".

Episode written and researched by Kourtney Smith.

Music is "Neverending Minute" by Sounds Like Sander.

Follow us on Instagram at @shakespeareanyonepod for updates or visit our website at shakespeareanyone.com

Works referenced:

Cressy, David. “Gender Trouble and Cross-Dressing in Early Modern England.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 35, no. 4, 1996, pp. 438–452. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/176000. Accessed 28 May 2021.

Howard, Jean E. “Crossdressing, The Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, 1988, pp. 418–440. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2870706. Accessed 19 May 2021.

Saccardi, Nadia. “Women Cross-Dressing and the Early Modern.” The Costume Society, The Costume Society, 2014, accessed 18 May 2021 from costumesociety.org.uk/blog/post/women-cross-dressing-and-the-early-modern.