In early modern London, women dressed as men and men dressed as women; early modern England was rife with individuals and institutions that attempted to normalize the subversion of certain gender roles despite prohibitions or discrimination against them. These acts of resistance were not limited to the common folk; queens resisted these conventions as did literary characters and the very theatre itself. But these attempts at resistance were not without controversy.

Elizabeth I

Perhaps the first and most notable example of resistance to gender conventions centers around Queen Elizabeth I. During her rule, frequent dissent occurred due to the assumed disorder a woman in power presented. Although praised for her man-like qualities, acceptance of a woman in power was reserved only for Elizabeth I herself and was not easily won, even by her. It was viewed as unnatural for a woman to rule over men and so rule by a woman wascontrary to God’s law. Godly men could tolerate such rule ifsuch a woman was suitably constrained (McLaren 98).

By this logic, a woman on the throne was permissible when a man was present to reign her in, often through marriage. Soon after becoming queen in 1558, Elizabeth I proclaimed that she was already bound unto a husband which is the Kingdom of England. Had Elizabeth I married a suitable prince or other nobleman, it would have not only resulted in the relinquishment of some of her power but also removal of the veil of purity that came with her being unmarried. Being celebrated as the Virgin Queen afforded her political power and privilege marriage would have negated. It is perhaps for this reason that she spurned the numerous eligible suitors for her hand, including her two most serious ones, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester and Francis, Duke of Anjou. In spite of gender conventions of the time, Elizabeth I ruled as an unmarried woman for a generally well-received 45 years, and only upon her death was the throne passed on to a male heir, James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England.

Resisting Conventions Onstage

Despite women not being permitted to act on the public stage in early modern England, several instances of female actors as well as crossdressing women and gender non-conforming persons do appear in the historical record. The most well documented is likely Mary Frith, the inspiration behind Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton’s character of Moll Cutpurse in the 1611 play. Although doubt exists whether Frith was a real person, she allegedly performed on the English stage to a raucous audience in that same year. While today it is common in many nations for equality in dress among the genders, in the early modern period, as seen below in this except from , it caused shock: Alexander: A creature (saith he) nature hath brought forth To mock the sex of woman. — It is a thing One knows not how to name, her birth began Ere she was all made. ’Tis woman more than man, Man more than woman, and (which to none can hap) The Sun gives her two shadows to one shape, Nay more, let this strange thing, walk, stand or sit, No blazing star draws more eyes after it. Sir Dapper: A Monster, ’tis some Monster.(1.2.127–34)

By resisting the expectations placed upon her by the patriarchal society of early modern England and actively subverting gender conventions, Moll Cutpurse is degraded to subhuman; less than both man and woman to become a monstrous amalgam of masculine and feminine. This demoralizing insult against a gender non-conforming woman emphasizes the risks of resisting the gender conventions of the period.

The notable Protestant pamphlet (The Mannish Woman) and its counter- pamphlet (The Womanish Man) offer excellent examples of some views around gender non-conformity and resistance during the period. A scathing review of so-called mannish women, this passage from exemplifies the growing anxiety surrounding these women: For since the daies of Adam women were never so Masculine; Masculine in their genders and whole generations from the Mother, to the younger daughter; Masculine in Number, from one to multitudes; Masculine in Case, from the head to the foot; Masculine in Moode, from bold speech, to impudent action and Masculine in Tense : for (without redresse) they were, are, and will be still most Masculine, most mankind, and most monstrous.(13) The author makes it clear that they view women who acted against gender conventions as impudent and even monstrous.

Soon after went public, the parody was published. A rebuke against the former pamphlet starring the mannish woman described in and the effeminate man , the pamphlet has the two characters debate the efficacy of the claims against gender non-conformity. Notably, states that custome is an idiot when refuting ’s claim customs need to be respected ( 28). The existence of this retaliatory pamphlet is a clear example of a period where gender conventions were not clear cut or straightforward.

Key Print Sources Brown, Pamela Allen. . . Cornell University Press, 2003, pp. 1–32. Charlton, Kenneth. , and . . Routledge, 1999.

Key Online Sources Cook, Carol. . , vol. 101, no. 2, 1986, pp. 186–202. , https://doi.org/10.2307/462403. Accessed 31 Jan. 2024. . , 1620, https://archive.org/details/hicmulierormanwo00exetuoft/page/n7/mode/2up. Accessed 31 Jan. 2021. McLaren, Anne. . . Ed. Penny Richard and Jessica Munns. Routledge, 2014. pp. 98–99. , https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315837987. Accessed 31 Jan. 2024. Morrill, John S., and Stephen J. Greenblatt. . , 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elizabeth-I. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.