In which I once again disagree with the article I'm summarizing...
This time I can't blame it on "well, this was in early days of queer history so they didn't have access to all the other analysis." No, this time I blame it on the author having a fixed notion in their head and not noticing how they cherry-picked the evidence to support it. Let me put it this way: you're standing on a road in an unspecified European country around the year 1700. A coach travels past you. The horses are trotting along at a reasonable clip, though not going all out. Quick: what gender were the people in the coach and what were they wearing? How would you know? I don't fault Frangos's knowledge of queer theory, or of the socio-political background of Manley's satire. But I do fault her failing to be aware that 18th century coaches are closed vehicles and if someone says "I could tell the people inside were women because of their voices," the emphasis on voices is because YOU CAN'T SEE THEM, not because the most likely explanation is that they're cross-dressing.
The thing is, Manley's New Atalantis does include one reference to a Cabal member going out and about in male dress to pick up sex workers and one reference to an actress who specialized in trouser roles. But it's a far leap from that to conclude that it was a defining feature of the women of the New Cabal that they cross-dressed and found their primary erotic enjoyment in that practice. Particularly given that there are plenty of points in the narrative where that practice would have been pertinent, if it had been the case. The unfortunate thing is that I think Frangos has some interesting insight into the erotic joys of viewing a known-to-be-female body wearing male-coded garments in the context of the 18th century. I know some of those joys myself. But when the analysis hinges on a boneheaded historical error, those insights are in danger of being undermined.
Comments