6/2/07 - English Literature - Jonson: Epicoene

Epicoene is a comedy of manners. It is complex and convoluted. There is a contradiction between the play's two titles: Epicoene and The Silent Woman. "Epicoene" has overtones referring to a man rather than to a woman, so put together, the title suggests the play is about both sexes. The grammatical errors in the speeches of some of the supposedly 'noble' characters shows Jonson's interest in elitist writing. In the play, the silent woman is considered to be the ideal woman for a man. Jonson questions whether contemporary women actually heeded this and became silent, obedient and chaste. The stereotypical images of women were either the innocent and chaste woman or the talkative, bossy wife. However, Epicoene does not easily conform to stereotypes or give any morals. There is more homosocial bonding in the play than there is discussion of the ideal woman. Note that Epicoene's first speech is 14 words long, yet she was said to waste only 6 words a day. This could be an early warning sign that she is not as perfect as she seems. When silence becomes a form of disobedience it stops being an ideal, e.g. Morose orders Epicoene to speak yet she only curtsies, perhaps another warning sign. After marriage, Epicoene begins to speak in vociferous critique of her husband's actions. She becomes a "manifest", rather than an "ideal" woman, with overtones of sexuality. Talkative women were often accused of prostitution. Jonson compares Epicoene to Amazon and warrior women. Mistress Otter is the typical "mannish woman", often called "Captain" instead of "wife". In the play there is misogyny and the undermining of marriage. See Truewit's controversy debate: "If she be fair, young, and vegetous, no sweetmeats ever drew more flies; all the yellow doublets and great roses of the town will be there. If foul and crooked, she’ll be with them and buy those doublets and roses, sir. If rich and that you marry her dowry, not her, she’ll reign in your house imperious as a widow. If noble, all her kindred will be your tyrants." [II. ii. 62-8] Is Truewit to be taken seriously? Should men give women what they want? Compare this speech to a piece of writing by Swetnam: "There are sixe kinds of women which thou shouldest take heede that thou match not thy selfe to any one of them: that is to say, good nor bad, faire nor foule, rich nor poore … if she be faire then thou must doe nothing else but watch her: and if she be foule and loathsome, who can abide her? If shee be rich then thou must forbeare her because of her wealth: and if she be poore, then thou must maintaine her." [Swetnam, 84] Truewit's relation to grammar is interesting. He seems to be the opposite of what his name suggests: he is not witty and the truth of his words is highly debatable. He is the most talkative character in the play. The word "wit" in his name is ambiguous: it could mean quick thinker, or understanding and reason. There are no positive models of marriage in the play. It ends with an annulment rather than a marriage. There are many indeterminacies, especially concerning gender. The collegiates are rendered masculine due to their pursuit of learning. They increase in numbers, so are perceived as threatening. Daw and Amorous are punished for their effeminacy, and for not being good learners. Clerimont implies that they are feminine. They are opened up to further mockery when they admit that they have "known" Epicoene, who turns out to be a man. Ideal masculinity is also explored. Clerimont states as a precursor: "What should a man do?" Clerimont's boy is said to be an "ingle": "According to the OED, the following words made their first appearance in known texts within a two year period after 1591: 'Ganymede' (1591), 'ingle' (1592) and 'catamite' (1593). Although all these words have their own special nuances, they share a single meaning: the OED calls it 'a boy kept for unnatural purposes,' but it seems possible now to say 'boy prostitute' or 'boy whore.'" [Brown 251] If desire for an ingle is acceptable in the play, then other homosexual manifestations are not. Take the relationship between Lady Haughty and Epicoene. Here there are homoerotic overtones. Haughty hits Epicoene. She calls her "Morose", thereby usurping heterosexual roles. Remember that Epicoene is actually a man. As all the women were played by boys, when Epicoene reveals her true identity, there is also the suggestion that the collegiates are also men. Jonson thus destroys the theatrical convention of boys dressed as women; instead boys play boys. So the title's oxymoron is explained. Many of the characters desire young boys instead of men. Jonson is close to endorsing Puritan criticism.