Managing Co-Editor Paige Donaghy introduces a new blog series on gender in the medieval and early modern world.

In 1620, an unknown English writer published a pamphlet in London with the following title: Hic Mulier, or The Man-Woman. The provocatively-titled work addressed what the author believed was a growing, and serious societal problem, that “emulates the plague”. This was the issue of women’s dress and behaviour. Women, the author argued, were becoming “masculine in moode, from bold speech, to impudent action”, and through wearing such things as “broad-brim’d Hatte[s]” or “French doublet[s], being all unbutton’d to entice”.

As modern scholars of gender, such as Judith Butler would suggest, this polemical pamphlet’s author was concerned with women’s performance of gender norms and roles, as expressed through fashion, language and conduct.  For this anonymous writer, new fashion trends and women’s ‘bold’ speech, was evidence of great social discord in England.

Not only did anxious lay men hold such concerns, but also the monarch. King James I expressed similar discontent about “the insolence of our women” as evident in their new fashions. This discordant behaviour needed to be rectified, through moral and religious instruction, lest society descend into unordered chaos.

Mannish-women in their broad hats and French doublets. From the Hic Mulier (1620) title page. Sourced from Wikimedia.

Anxieties about gender, how it is performed, and how it is regulated, are clearly not only the result of our contemporary moment, where commentary about identities and bodies circulate ceaselessly in print and social media, as well as the decisions of lawmakers. In premodern Europe, as Hic Mulier suggests, people’s expression of gender were also the subject of public speculation, debate and often condemnation.

Premodern gender was understood as innately connected to biological sex, in that they were one and the same. To be born with female reproductive organs meant that one was a ‘woman’, or ‘feminine’. This, in turn, attracted particular expectations, such as wifedom and motherhood. Gender was heavily regulated by law, culture and religion, and transgressions of premodern gender norms could be punishable by law, social exile, or worse, by death.

Despite the risks associated with ‘unnatural’ displays of gender, there is much evidence of people who might today be thought of today as nonbinary, genderfluid, or trans. In the premodern era, gender indeterminate people worked both within and outside of contemporary laws and norms.

For instance, consider the case of Amy Poulter or ‘James Howard’. Amy/James often wore men and women’s clothes, and even married Arabella Hunt in 1680 in London. This example reveals how gender could be negotiated locally. In this case, Arabella sued for annulment of their marriage in 1681, on the grounds that James/Amy was “of double gender”, neither clearly a man or a woman. Yet, this was not the only reason Arabella sued; James/Amy was apparently already married to a man and thus guilty of bigamy. Ambiguous gender was thus not the only cause for divorce.

In reply, James/Amy told the court that the whole marriage had been a “prank”, and that they were in fact a “perfect woman”. After an invasive physical examination by a ‘jury of matrons’, the court agreed that James/Amy was a “perfect woman”. The court ruled accordingly that both women were permitted to marry again, but only if their new spouses were men.

As in many other similar cases that appear in the premodern world, gender transgressions –or in James/Amy’s case, so-called “pranks”– might be resolved through “correcting” unnatural behaviour, by returning to heteronormativity via marriage, or gender conformity.

Exploring gender in the premodern world thus tells us much about the longevity of norms surrounding femininity and masculinity, but also androgyny. Cases like James/Amy’s reveals how people navigated and resisted the pressures of gender regulation.

Premodern Gender

This new series for VIDA explores these different facets and experiences of gender in the premodern past, from the early medieval period (ca.400-1000) up to the early modern period (ca.1500-1800).

In recent years, several ground-breaking studies have drastically shaped historians’ understandings of the premodern past. Leah DeVun’s The Shape of Sex: Nonbinary Gender from Genesis to Renaissance (2021) has problematized earlier approaches to ideas about binary gender in the ancient and medieval worlds. Tess Wingard’s recent article in The English Historical Review, moreover, has shown that medieval sexuality scholarship is taking a “transgender turn”, following Roland Betancourt’s pathbreaking book on Byzantine gender. Such work is challenging long-held assumptions about premodern gender and sex.

The “Premodern Gender” series is inspired by this recent research, and aims to showcase recent and upcoming scholarship on the history of premodern gender and sexuality.

The editorial team strongly encourages pitches from scholars at any career level, from honours, postgraduate study, to senior researchers. We welcome correspondence about publishing a blog in this series; please email Dr Paige Donaghy if you would like to discuss your pitch.  

Copyright remains with individual authors who grant VIDA holding a perpetual, world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce and promote content. For permission to re-publish any VIDA blog post, in whole or in part, please contact the managing editors at auswhn@gmail.com.au