“A Wittall cannot be a cookold”: Reading the Contented Cuckold in Early Modern English Drama and Culture

Abstract

44 A Wittallcannot be a cookold": Reading the Contented Cuckold in Early Modern English Drama and Culture JEMCS 1.2 (Fall/Winter 2001) Jennifer Panek theOxford EnglishDictionary informs us, is "Aman yhois awareofand complaisantabout theinfidelity ofhis wife;a contented cuckold";theword,nowobsolete,was in recordeduse from thefifteenth to theearlynineteenth century. Forthescholaroflatesixteenthand earlyseventeenth-century Englishculture,thismatter-of-fact definition presentsa truly bizarreconcept:in a culturethatholdsa woman'schastity as herhighest value,and a husband'sfailure toguardthatchastity as hislowesthumiliation - a culture where, as MarkBreitenberg pointsout,thefearofbeingcuckoldedis the"singularly most dreadfulexhibition" ofthe anxious masculinity endemicto it (175)- whatwoulditmeanfor a mantobe awareofandcomplaisantaboutanotherman 's sexual access tohiswife?Howwould such a figure havebeen understood by,say,theoriginal auditorsofa balladaboutwittolry like"TheMerry Cuckold"(c.1630), orbytheLondontheater-goers whosaw thefirst productions of Thomas Middleton's A ChasteMaid inCheapside(1613)?1The modernreader,whois liabletoencounter ChasteMaids wittol, Allwit, after severalShakespeareanpreliminaries - themurderous jealousyofOthelloand Leontes,themaniccuckoldry paranoia ofFordin TheMerry WivesofWindsor (1597)- maywell findAllwit'scheerfuldomesticarrangement withSir Walter Whorehound startling and refreshing, an amusingbut liberatingbreakfrom theobsessionwithfemalechastity thattoofrequentlyplaguesbothhusbands and playwrights. It has generallybeen assumed,though, thatthestagewittol in his original milieuwouldhavemetwitha fardifferent reaction - thatinearly modern Englishsociety, whichheapedcontempt uponthecuckold , a complacent cuckoldwouldsimplyhave been considered Panek 67 evenbaser, less manly,and morecontemptible thana regular cuckold.As Laura Gowing putsit,"Popularculturemadecuckoldsthebuttofcountless jokes,rituals,and songs:mosthumiliatedofallwas the'wittold,' thecuckoldwhocondonedhiswife's adultery" (192). Likewise, CoppeliaKahnnotesthattheepithet "wittol" "singlesoutoneaspectofthecuckold'ssituation for special ridicule;he who knowshis wifeuntrueand doesn'ttake actionagainstheris indeedless thana man"(Man'sEstate129); Kahnaccordingly describesAllwit as a "disturbing figure" who livesby"surrendering his ownclaimstovirility" ("Whores and Wives"254). 2 A similarassumptionevidently underliesIngrid Hotz-Davies'saccountoftheAllwit householdas well:"Thebottomlineofhiselaborateparasitismis thatAllwit, the'wittol,' is nota 'real'man,and thisis whywe can despisehimevenwhile onemight wanttoadmirethesheerbrilliance ofhisscheme:the textactuallymakesus regret thatAllwit is notmoreofa patriarchalmale "(31). The claimthatthewittol was regardedmerely as themost degraded speciesofcuckold,however, is onethathas beenmade withsurprisingly littleattention to thevariety ofearlyseventeenth -century textswhichactuallydeal withthisfigure. While malejealousy and cuckoldry anxiety havebeen carefully examined in numeroushistorically or psychoanalytically informed studiesofearlymoderngenderrelationsand masculinity, the husbandwhowittingly accepts his cuckoldry has been largely ignored, or dismissedas a uniquelyMiddletonian oddity.3 My aim,then,is to begina culturalreadingofthewittoland his implications for theconstruction ofearlymodern masculinity, a readingthatwillplace Allwit - "ofall wittols. . . thehead,"as another character proclaims him(5.1.150-51) - intheilluminatingcompany ofhislesser-known brethren. Inparticular, I want to open thequestionofwhetheran earlyseventeenth-century audiencewouldhavenecessarily regarded thewittol withautomatic ,unmitigated contempt, for whenoneexaminesa rangeof periodtextsfeaturing wittols, itbecomesclearthattheculture ofearlymodernLondonfurnished Middleton and his audience notwitha staticfigure, butwitha dynamic continuum ofwittols. Atone end is thedegradedarch-cuckold describedby Gowing and Kahn - themanwhotolerates hiswife'sadultery because of his powerlessnessin precisely the kindofdisorderly, womanon -topmarriagethatwas conventionally assumed to produce cuckolds.4Attheother,though-whereAllwit resides-wittolry appearsnotas a lack orloss ofdomesticcontrol, but as a particularly securekindofpoweroverone's wife.The less control 68 TheJournal forEarly Modern Cultural Studies thewittol evincesoverhiswife - a situation which wouldseemon thesurfacetoundermine thegendered domestic hierarchy - the morethathierarchy is reconsolidated as thewittol is exposedto ridicule; thepowerful wittol, ontheother hand,paradoxically taps intoa current ofmale,anti-patriarchal discontent. InAllwit, Iwill argue,Middleton createsan outrageous wish-fulfillment fantasy figure thatpromises all theprivileges ofpatriarchal domestic orderwith noneoftheir attendant anxieties, andthat,precisely due tothislackofsymmetry between maleprivilege and responsibility , holdsconsiderable subversive potential. IfAllwitin facthad real-life counterparts in earlymodern England,theywiselykepttheirdoingstothemselves and failed toleavemuchinthewayofwritten traces.Unhappy cuckolds husbandssuingfor separation from adulterous wives,husbands prosecuting theirneighbors forscurriloushorn-jokes and other relatedinsults - wentto courtand in due processproduceda sizeablebodyofsurviving depositions abouttheir misfortunes but contented cuckolds,by definition, tendto be absentfrom such records.5 Thislackofevidenceofwittolry as a socialpractice (nottomention theunlikeliness thatitwas practiced toany significant extent)maypartlyexplainwhynewhistoricist and culturalmaterialist criticshave embracedthecuckoldwithout accounting forthe wittol; I would hazard that historicist criticism's traditional predilection for Shakespeare-whosecuckoldsareinvariably exceedingly discontented - has also conspired tokeepthewittol off theculturalmap.6Butwhilethewittol may be largelyinvisibleto social history, he is nonethelessprominentinwhatCatherineBelseyhas termed "culturalhistory" or "history at thelevelofthesignifier": "History at thelevelofthe signifier," writesBelsey,"is decisively textual.Cultureis lived, butwehavenodirect access toearlymodern 'life.' Thematerials ofculturalhistory resideinthesignifying practicesofa society, and theseincludeits fictions, wheremeaningsand values are defined and contested for thedelight and instruction ofan audiencewhichis expectedtounderstanda proportion, at least,of what is at stake" (8). A society'sfictions, moreover, are intricatelyboundup withitspractices: Nosane personwouldnowlooktoHollywood moviesforthe truth ofcontemporary social practice;anyfuture social historianwhosaw ouradvertisements as depicting our actual wayoflifewouldbe seriously misled.Atthesame time,the popularappealoffilm andadvertising, andtheir correspondingcommercial success, dependto a highdegreeon their Panek 69 inscription ofwidelysharedideals,fantasies,orvalues. We liveourlivesinrelation tothesedreams,in self...

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.