Printer Friendly

Flaunting: Style and the Subversive Male Body in Renaissance England.

Flaunting: Style and the Subversive Male Body in Renaissance England, by Amanda Bailey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007. Pp. 190. Cloth $65.00

For Amanda Bailey, the devil is in the definitions. In Flaunting, Bailey offers some intriguing insights into English Renaissance society by tweaking definitions for terms frequently encountered in Renaissance studies. Her central thesis rests on such a tweaking. After echoing the long-established New Historicist tenet that "power ... resides in the ability to transform the materials of dominant culture into the symbols of subversion ...," Bailey attempts a new twist by asserting that "certain young men of the English Renaissance ... did not assume the elite signs of privilege, but rather appropriated them for their own ends" (4) (italics mine)--a rather fine distinction. Bailey then returns to a comfortable New Historicist insistence that the theater not only produced an awareness that clothes make the man, but also that the theater "encouraged sartorial irreverence among those with little discretionary income and no social authority, and in doing so created the conditions for a subculture of style" (5). The remainder of her introductory chapter addresses other relevant definitions ("fashion," "art," "publish," and "flaunt," among others) as she differentiates her study from earlier scholarly works, and argues for a defiant aesthetics, practiced by the above-mentioned youthful subculture.

In her second chapter. Bailey demonstrates the "monstrous manners" (another useful definition for her discussion) of her subversive young men by linking the clothing laws to early modern theatrical practices. In keeping with a plethora of scholars of the English Renaissance, Bailey extends her definition of "clothing laws" to include a variety of texts that sought to influence sartorial behavior. Including sermons, anti-theatrical tracts, and satires, these texts echo the concerns of the official clothing laws (proclamations and statutes) with the behavior of the "meaner sort" which she defines as "an amorphous group of male apprentices, servants and students" (25). When Bailey cites her primary sources, she is on solid ground: it is gratifying (and not surprising) to learn that Philip Stubbes ranted against young men who rioted and flaunted daily. While Bailey then admits that the "specific behaviors associated with flaunting remain unclear," she assumes that the definition in early modern culture includes the notion that "practitioners openly wrested luxurious items of apparel from their proper place." Further, she suggests that these flaunters may have "modified the associations of items traditionally used in certain ways by a particular social group, producing unorthodox combinations" and "exaggerated a particular aspect of a given item"--assumptions not necessarily borne out by the evidence in the primary texts (46). In this chapter, Bailey also identifies the theater as a particularly vital site for the young men's subversive behavior.

Bailey concludes her theoretical chapters by proposing that the young men that she has identified were seen as an "especially subversive minority," a claim that she substantiates by close readings of three plays in the next three chapters. According to Bailey, past interpretations of these plays have been negatively affected because they ignore the presence and particularized behavior of this subversive minority in the plays. To prove this point, Bailey returns to her incisive use of definitions by reminding us that shrewishness was, in this period, a non-gendered form of class conflict: a shrew was a social outcast or newcomer of either gender, and, more importantly for Bailey, someone who challenged authority (76). This broadened definition, along with her careful uses of "brave" and "face," offers Bailey's readers a more nuanced reading of (what we might have considered) a very familiar play.

In her interpretation of Marlowe's Edward II, Bailey faults earlier readings of the play which "ignore the play's awareness of the potency of aesthetic defiance and thus fail to illuminate how sexual and stylistic excess are linked in this play and what is at stake in their overlay" (78). Bailey reminds us that while Marlowe is generally loyal to his source for this play (Holinshed), the emphasis on Gaveston's apparel is Marlowe's addition. What is essential about Gaveston's presentation of himself is the Italianate nature of his clothing and comportment (79), a concern that existed more potently in Elizabeth Tudor's court than in Edward Plantagenet's. Because of their low birth, Gaveston and Edward's other favorites infect the English court with another version of flaunting, the Italian vice of artifiziozo (a distortion of the venerated sprezzatura). While her reading of Marlowe's Edward certainly opens up this text to fascinating analysis, the effect is somewhat blunted by Bailey's discussion of Oscar Wilde's style at the conclusion of this chapter. Both Marlowe's play and Bailey's reading stand on their own.

Her chapter on Jonson's Every Man Out of His Humour may be Bailey's most convincing. She opens with a headnote from Guilpin's Skialethia which reminds us of the importance of St. Paul's Walk as a site of presentation and representation in London, circa 1600. For Bailey, Jonson's play introduces the notion of London as the capital of England--soon to be capital of Western Europe (103). Bailey contends that with the staging of characters who "flouted prescriptions of proper urban comportment" and "used the objects and spaces made newly available to them in an urban context as the material of histrionic self-expression," Jonson moves the London stage experience from the traditional theatrum mundi to theatrum civitatus (105). In this chapter. Bailey examines the concepts of "behavioral urbanization," "loitering," "shifting," "flamboyance" and "gesticulation" as she argues that Jonson's play is "in conversation with" Thomas Dekker (126) whose Guls Horne-booke (1609) is the undoubted handbook for her pompous young men.

The conclusion to this penultimate chapter--that Jonson proves that the theater inevitably "could not contain the very modes of impertinent display that it inspired" (128)--moves the reader comfortably into her final chapter in which she describes how the sumptuousness of her flaunting young gentlemen evolves into the sartorial exhibitionism of style.

While I have quibbled throughout this review with some of Bailey's assumptions and I have found her ultimate comparison of early modern Haunters to zooties, hippies, and punks to be rather facile, I believe scholars of early modern English studies have much to learn from this carefully researched and executed book.

Reviewer: MARGARET ROSE JASTER
COPYRIGHT 2010 Associated University Presses
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Jaster, Margaret Rose
Publication:Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England
Article Type:Book review
Date:Jan 1, 2010
Words:1034
Previous Article:Male Friendship in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries.
Next Article:Shakespeare and the Practice of Physic: Medical Narratives on the Early Modern English Stage.
Topics:

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters