‘(…) It is a thing/ One knows not how to name’
1The Aesthetic of Disgust in Early 17
thCentury English Drama
Fig. 1, Page 11 from ‘Tis Pity She's a Whore, acted by the Queenes Maiesties Seruants, at The Phoenix in Drury-lane, by John Ford. Printed by Nicholas Okes for Richard Collins (1633), source:STC 11165, Houghton Library, Harvard University.
A thesis for the MA Arts & Culture: International Dramaturgy, University of Amsterdam, 2020 Ellen McGrath
Student Number: 12551988 Supervisor: Dr. Peter Eversmann Second Reader: Dr. Laurens von Vos Word Count:
1 The Roaring Girl: 1611, ed. Meaghan Brown, Michael Poston, and Elizabeth Williamson (London: Thomas Archer, 1611), 1.2.336. References are to act, scene, and line.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Peter Eversmann for his patience in guiding me through the process of writing this thesis, and for sharing his expertise with me along the way. I would also like to thank Johnny, Kristýna, Ariane, and Alex for their encouragement during my initial brainstorming and the development of the thesis, and my parents Gillian and Laurence for encouraging and supporting me during my studies.
Table of Contents:
1. Abstract 4
2. Introduction 5
3. Early Modern Relevancy 7
I. Etymological Significance 7
II. Early Modern Conduct Books 8
III. Shame 9
IV. Contagion 10
V. Humoral System 11
VI. Summary of Early Modern Relevancy 12
4. Kant and Disgust 13
I. Defining the Aesthetic 14
II. The Sensory Experience of Disgust 16
III. The Temporal Aspect of Drama 18
IV. The Difference Between Appreciation and Enjoyment 19
5. Conceptualising Disgust 20
I. Disgust Setting Boundaries 20
II. Disgust and the Self 22
III. Disgust and Desire 23
IV. Summary of Conceptions of Disgust 24
6. The Roaring Girl
I. Summary of the Plot 25
II. Analysis of Prologue 26
III. The Language of Disgust 28
IV. The Comedic Impact 34
V. Relation to Other Early Modern Comedies 37
VI. Comedy and the Aesthetic 38
7. ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore
I. Summary of Play 40
II. Incest as Plot Device 40
III. Anatomy on Stage 44
IV. Sensationalism 47
V. Tragedy and the Aesthetic 50
8. Conclusion 53
9. Afterthought 55
10. Bibliography 59
1. Abstract:
This thesis explores the ways in which disgust operates in early modern English drama. Disgust is evoked in a number of plays from the period by both disgusting language, and the presence of disgusting acts on stage. I examine what the evocation of this emotion does to dramatic pieces from the period.
The concept of disgust has a rich theoretical history, but perhaps the most famous comment on its relation to aesthetics is that by Immanuel Kant. Kant claims that in most cases, disgust is contrary to the aesthetic. I aim to investigate the validity of this claim against the ways in which disgust operates in the theatre of 17th century England. To what extent can the disgusting plays of the 17th century be considered aesthetic in the Kantian understanding of the term?
To answer this question, I first situate the dramas of the period within their early 17th century context. In doing so I consult the etymological history of the disgust, early modern attitudes to the “self”, the impact of the Great Plague, and the widespread adherence to the Hippocratic and Galenic humoral system. Having established a clear understanding of the causes and effects of disgust during the period, I go on to address Kant. From here I scrutinise the meaning and validity of Kant’s
statement, and question what it might mean for theatre in general. The extent to which my question can be answered is limited without an in-depth theoretical understanding of disgust itself. I therefore use the work of contemporary disgust theoreticians, most notably Aurel Kolnai, William Miller, and Paul Rokin, to establish what precisely is meant by disgust and how the emotion is believed to function.
In order to test out the theoretical knowledge acquired I analyse two case studies: The Roaring Girl by Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker, and ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore. These contrasting texts demonstrate the different ways in which disgust was evoked in the period, dependent on genre and authorial style. In the case of The Roaring Girl, linguistically induced disgust adds a liveliness to the drama and enhances the comedy of the piece. The portrayal of disgusting acts in ‘Tis Pity She’s a
Whore forms the basis for the tragedy of the play and encourages a philosophical reflection of the
position of man within society. These two plays therefore provide strong cases against the Kantian claim that disgust is contrary to the aesthetic, however a wider study is needed to gain a
comprehensive overview of the role of disgust in early modern drama.
2. Introduction:
Disgust is a complex and sometimes contradictory emotion. It is difficult to pinpoint a precise definition of the phenomenon, but as a basic starting point we can turn to the dictionary definition of disgust which describes it as a ‘strong repugnance, aversion, or repulsion excited by that which is loathsome or offensive, as a foul smell, disagreeable person or action, disappointed ambition, etc.; profound instinctive dislike or dissatisfaction.’2 Although limited in its scope, this definition indicates the broad applicability of disgust to varying objects whether that be a sensory reaction to something that smells, looks, or tastes unpleasant, or the actions of someone who goes against social
expectations. The limited dictionary definition also displays the characteristic negativity associated with the emotion. Keeping this in mind, Immanuel Kant’s opinion on the presence of disgusting objects in art may seem logical.
Speaking of disgust’s position in art Kant notes that:
There is only one kind of ugliness that cannot be presented in conformity with nature
without obliterating all aesthetic liking and hence artistic beauty; that ugliness which arouses disgust.3
The 18th Century aversion to disgust in the realm of art, as is also apparent in the work of
Mendelssohn and Lessing, indicates a kind of hierarchy of feeling which art must induce. However, in
2 Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Disgust (n.1)”, accessed April 17, 2020,
https://www-oed-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/view/Entry/54422?rskey=dvwnXU&result=1#eid.
more contemporary research the idea that the disgusting can be aesthetic has been explored by the likes of William Ian Miller, Cynthia Freeland, Noel Carrol, and Julia Kristeva. The aesthetic potential of disgust has thus been much contested. I will consider the aforementioned contemporary theorists in due course; however, it is necessary to note that much of their focus is on the genre of horror when analysing disgust’s aesthetic potential.
Departing from this, I argue that disgust is particularly prevalent in early modern drama and will focus particularly on early 17th century English drama to demonstrate this. The presence of
disgusting acts and objects in both comedies and tragedies from the period indicates its popularity in drama of the time. This can be traced via the use of disgusting language, most famously by Ben Jonson, and in the portrayal of disgusting acts on stage, as witnessed, for example, in the cannibalism of Titus Andronicus. These examples hint at the duplicity of the emotion. Therefore, any suggestion that there is a singular early modern disgust is misguided. Rather, the sensation is induced in different theatrical contexts even within the period, and this alters its aesthetic potential.
In order to explore how disgust operates on the early modern stage I will close read two case studies.
The Roaring Girl (1611), by Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker provides a text against which to
measure the aesthetic value of linguistically induced disgust within the comedic genre. In contrast, the incest plot in John Ford’s Tis Pity She’s a Whore (1626) demands an evaluation of the impact of disgusting acts on stage and how this impacts the tragic aesthetic.
How do contemporary theories on aesthetic disgust fit with the drama of the period, and what does the prominence of disgust say about early modern dramaturgy, as well as early modern society? Theatre is as a space which often comments on the outside world. Examining the way in which disgust operates on stage further provides an insight into the place disgust had in early 17th Century society. How does disgust operate in early modern English drama and to what extent can the
disgusting plays of this time be considered aesthetic in the Kantian understanding of the term?
The feeling of disgust is displayed in and evoked by many 17th Century plays. In order to detect why this might be the case, and what its specific result may be, it is necessary to understand the
conditions under which plays from the period were written. Disgust is a productive lens through which to evaluate early modern English society in general, and the drama of the period in particular. Indeed, studying the traces of disgust in this period further provides an insight to the concept of disgust itself. Its prominence in the drama of the time makes it a suitable context through which to gauge the accuracy of Kant’s claim, and further to gain an understanding of its nuanced forms and results in a theatrical setting.
3.i. Etymological Significance:
Significantly, the first usage of the word in the English language came into being in 1598 with John Florio’s translation of the Italian “Sgusto”.4 Florio gave the Italian word four English equivalents: ‘disgust, distast, vnkindnes, dislike.’5 The grouping of these four words hints at their interrelation. Benedict Robinson notes that the first two specify the Italian word’s ‘relationship to violated taste’,6 whereas the second two ‘link sensory aversion to social antagonism’.7 As I shall demonstrate with contemporary theory, the societal function of disgust and its sensory cause are two of its key characteristics. Therefore, even in the 17th century, the translation of the word highlights its complexity.
Paying attention to disgust’s entrance into the English language is not to say that the concept did not exist until this time, but nevertheless the coining of a term for this very significant emotion suggests that there was something about the turn of the 17th Century that necessitated a language for this feeling. Robinson notes that a number of key words that are still in circulation today were coined
4 Benedict Robinson, "Disgust c. 1600", ELH 81, no. 2 (2014): 553,
https://search-proquest-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/docview/1540741054?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=14615. 5 John Florio,”Sgusto”, A Worlde of Wordes (London, 1598), ed. Hermann Haller (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2013), 640.
6 Robinson, "Disgust c. 1600", 557. 7 Ibid.
between 1580 and 1700 including ‘disgust, self-esteem, resentment, anxiety, panic,
embarrassment.’8 The entrance of this vocabulary into the English language implies a nuanced understanding of emotions that were induced at the time, as is evident in the distinction between anxiety and panic. Notable also is the relation each of these emotions have to the self, and indeed the negative connotations which most prompt. This implies an increased self-awareness and an anxiety at how the self was viewed by others at this time. The entrance of disgust into the English language hints at its increasing relevance. Disgust is recorded as appearing 50 times in print in the first decade of the 17th Century, this increased to 1,010 appearances in the last decade.9This suggests a nation and a time that was becoming more aware of its emotional make up. This
awareness can be traced in the drama of the time. Although the theoretical attention paid to disgust did not enhance significantly until the 20th century, its importance to early 17th century society cannot be refuted.
3.ii. Early Modern Conduct Books:
Disgust is used to define what is appropriate and what is not, and this is important in the early modern period. The notion that there was a “proper” way to behave is evident in the advent of conduct books which first appeared in Europe in the 16th Century. These advised citizens on how to behave in order to achieve a noble standing within the community.10 Norbert Elias’ sociological study
The Civilising Process traces how such books taught one how to act in a socially acceptable manner.
Elias notes that a number of acts were denounced in these tracts that later came to be considered disgusting, for example blowing one’s nose on one’s sleeve. These habits ‘became associated with embarrassment, fear, shame or guilt, even when one is alone.’11 Thus, a framework of socially acceptable behaviour was reinforced through non-fictional literature of the time by encouraging an
8 Ibid. 555. 9 Ibid. 553.
10 Norbert Elias, The Civilising Process, ed. Eric Dunning, John Goudsblom, and Stephen Mennell, trans. Edmund Jephcoott (MA: Blackwell, 2000).
internal judgement on the self. This set up an environment for an aversive reaction, akin to disgust, at those who carry on in unacceptable manners.
3.iii. Shame:
Elias’ claim that conduct books encouraged ‘embarrassment, fear, shame or guilt’ indicates the pressure placed on individuals to conform with socially accepted ideals. Shame in particular was an emotion that attracted much attention in the 17th century. Much like disgust an increasing
consideration started to be paid to this emotion during this time, the connection between the two feelings is evident in their relation to expected social behaviour.
The first book on shame, Annibale Pocaterra’s Two Dialogues on Shame, was written in 1592,12 thus indicating the particular attention the sensation began to demand in Renaissance society. The word ‘shame’ appeared in the English language long before disgust. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as ‘painful emotion arising from the consciousness of something dishonouring, ridiculous, or indecorous in one's own conduct or circumstances (or in those of others whose honour or disgrace one regards as one's own), or of being in a situation which offends one's sense of modesty or decency.’13 Shame is evidently concerned with reputation and social standing, as is disgust. What does the period’s emphasis on emotions such as shame and disgust say about the social zeitgeist? In his study on shame in Shakespeare Ewan Fernie suggests that interest in shame was a consequence of the enhanced self-awareness which has been long associated with the period. He notes that the ‘early modern subject, like its classical forebear, is very much constructed in the eyes of others. This is a crucial reason for shame’s new power.’14 The idea that one’s identity is formed in the eyes of another gives shame a significant power over the individual. Shame’s power is further indicative of
12 Ewan Fernie, Shame in Shakespeare (London: Routledge, 2002), 32.
13 Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v “Shame (n.1a)”, accessed April 13, 2020,
https://www-oed-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/view/Entry/177406?rskey=xEzpDQ&result=1#eid. 14 Fernie, Shame in Shakespeare, 32.
disgust’s power: the fear of shame drives one to retrieve from acts that may be considered disgusting.
Reputation was therefore gravely important in the 17th century. Michael Bristol notes that the ‘early modern community was in many ways nurturing and supportive of its members, but it was also coercive.’15 The stifling impact of social custom can be gauged from the extent to which surveillance was carried out within communities. Martin Ingram details how in every parish, churchwardens and their assistants had a duty to report their neighbours to church courts, ‘a step that condemned those neighbours to a summons to court and hence admonition, public penance, or (for the recalcitrant) excommunication’.16 There is a clear indication that the home and family were part of a wider collective, consequently “shame” takes on the coercive power of keeping individuals in line with what is deemed acceptable behaviour. The notion that there were clearly defined parameters between what was okay to do and what was not suggests that those who were deemed disgusting were marginalised to a heightened degree.
3.iv. Contagion:
In addition to the societal reasons for the emotions being prevalent, disgust is also important in the period in terms of its relation to disease. As Daryl Chalk and Mary Floyd-Wilson note, ‘early modern writers devoted constant attention to the possibility of contagious transmission’.17Although “fear of contagion” is not synonymous with “disgust”, the lexical and theoretical connection between the two is overt: it is often fear of contagion which instigates disgust. Important to note here, is that the idea of contagion prompting disgust does not conflate fear with disgust. Instead, as William Miller puts it, coming into contact with, for example human or animal wastes incites disgust via contagion,
15 Michel Bristol, “Everyday Custom and Popular Custom”, A Companion to Renaissance Drama, ed. Arthur Kinney (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004) 125.
16 Martin Ingram, “Family and Household”, A Companion to Renaissance Drama, ed. Arthur Kinney (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004) 95.
17 Darryl Chalk and Mary Floyd-Wilson, Contagion and the Shakespearean Stage (UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), 1.
not because of ‘any noxiousness’18 but rather because of their association with lowliness and inferiority. The contagiousness of that which is impure or corrupting prompts disgust, regardless of its risk to life. The idea that a substantial amount of writing was composed on the subject during the time, paired with the destructive nature of the Great Plague of London (1665-1666), indicates that fear of contamination was widespread at the turn of the century. This goes some way in explaining why disgusting acts were displayed on stage, but also how disgust may have easily been evoked in the early modern audience.
3.v. Humoral System:
Fig. 2, The Humours, based on a drawing from a 17th century manuscript by Bishop Isidore of Seville, source: Rebecca Earle, 2012.19
The preoccupation with the body at the time is further evident in the adherence to the Hippocratic and Galenic humoral system. This system held that the human body consisted of consist of four bodily fluids called “humors”: blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile, as demonstrated in fig.3. Gail Kern Paster explains the basis of this model: ‘forces of cold, hot, moist, dry constituted the
18 William Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997),6. 19 Rebecca Earle, The Body of the Conquistador: Food, Race and the Colonial Experience in Spanish America,
material basis of any living creature’s characteristic appraisals of and responses to its immediate environment; they altered the character of a body’s substance’,20 thus the surroundings one is exposed to influences ones internal health. Good health is determined by an appropriate balance of blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. The balance of these impact a person’s ‘disposition, well-being, morality, and temperament’.21 The Galenic humoral system supposed that the ‘human body was thought to be full of putrefied, disgusting matter, that needed to be expelled.’22 And this led to the practice of bloodletting with leeches, and the use of laxatives. These methods were wildly accepted, for example when Charles II (1630–1685) suffered a seizure he was treated with sixteen ounces of bloodletting from the left arm followed by another 8 ounces from cupping.23 Thus the idea that the body needed to expunge supposedly disgusting matter was a wildly held view at the time.
In addition to fuelling fear of contamination, this model also aided the construction of racial differences and fear of people from lands of different temperatures and environments: thus, establishing a disgust at those who are “foreign”. This suspicion at the unknown can be traced heavily in the drama of the period, as is evident in the setting of numerous tragedies in Italy, for example the gluttony in The Merchant of Venice, the cannibalism in Titus Andronicus or the incest plot of both The Duchess of Malfi, and ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore, to name but a few.
3.vi. Summary of Early Modern Relevancy:
At the beginning of the 17th century the self was created in the eyes of others. Emotions such as shame were investigated in depth for the first time in England, and the prevalence of conduct books ensured that there was a clear divide between what was acceptable and what was not. This
20 Gail Kern Paster, Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage (London: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 13.
21 Lesel Dawson, Love Sickness and Gender in Early Modern English Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 2008), 20.
22 Marlisa den Hartog, “Worms, Corruption, and Medieval Detoxing”, Leiden Medievalist Blog, accessed May 7, 2020, https://leidenmedievalistsblog.nl/articles/worms-corruption-and-medieval-detoxing.
23 Gerry Greenstone, “The History of Bloodletting”, BC Medical Journal 52, no.1 (January 2010): 13,
therefore produced a breeding ground for feelings of disgust towards those who did not live up to societal expectations. But disgust expanded beyond interpersonal relations. The destructive nature of the Great Plague of London propounded a fear of contagion which further encouraged a drawing up of boundaries. The bodily boundaries established also have their source in the Galenic humoral bodily beliefs surrounding the impact of environment in the body. Disgust was undoubtedly a prevalent emotion at the time, and this is substantiated by its presence in dramas for the period which I will discuss further in my analysis of The Roaring Girl and ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore.
4. Kant and Disgust:
In his Critique of Judgement (1790), Immanuel Kant proposes that:
There is only one kind of ugliness that cannot be presented in conformity with nature
without obliterating all aesthetic liking and hence artistic beauty; that ugliness which arouses disgust.24
The definitive nature of this statement, apparent in Kant’s precision (‘only one’, ‘cannot’, ‘obliterating all’) is provocative in its absoluteness. It consequently invites a counter reading of how disgust might operate in art, and what it might mean for the ‘aesthetic’ value of such art. However Kant’s claim is
conditional. He makes clear that disgusting phenomena can be presented in art without ‘obliterating
all aesthetic liking’ so long as they are presented in a way which diffuses the feelings of disgust with feelings of appreciation for the beauty of that which is represented. The conditional aspect is important to keep in mind when gauging the extent to which early modern drama complies with Kant’s perspective on the aesthetic. Kant specifies the instances when disgust cannot be considered aesthetic as those in which ‘the artistic presentation of the object is no longer distinguished in our sensation from the nature of the object itself’.25This is difficult to measure and to concretely define. In early modern theatre the representation of the object aims to achieve a mimetic effect. At least
24 Kant, Critique of Judgment (1790), 180. 25 Ibid.
this is the case for physical portrayals of disgusting acts. This undermines theatre’s ability to demonstrate disgusting things onstage without obliterating the aesthetic effect.
In explaining this dynamic, Kant draws on the ‘Furies, diseases, devastations of war,’26 in the context of ‘fine arts’.27 The evocation of the furies calls to mind their presence in Greek tragedy, however theatre as an artistic medium is not taken into consideration by Kant. Instead he focuses on poetry, music, and painting. Thus, the question is raised, how does Kant’s perception of the impact of disgust operates in the context of the theatre? Can his perspective be applied to, or is it
incompatible with, the artistic components which constitute the writing and staging of a dramatic piece? One category which Kant does address directly in relation to his claim that the presentation of the disgusting should be ‘distinguished in our sensation from the nature of the object itself’ is that of sculpture. In doing so clarity is added to his statement on ‘aesthetic liking’. He notes that the art of sculpture has ‘excluded from its creations any direct presentation of ugly objects…it has permitted [ugly objects] to be presented by an allegory’.28 In this regard- the artistic skill in communicating ugly objects through intellectual metaphor distances the artwork from the reality of disgusting objects in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Perhaps then, the possibility of linguistic disgust in drama has can be considered aesthetic. I will address this further when evaluating The Roaring Girl.
4.i. Defining the Aesthetic:
Before going any further it is necessary to define how I understand the term ‘aesthetic’. If we consider the quote again it is apparent that aesthetic liking is essential for artistic beauty. At the most basic we can take the dictionary definition, ‘Of or relating to the perception, appreciation, or taste; giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance.’29 Already then it is quite an insubstantial, non-definitive thing- dependent as it is on a subjective understanding of
26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.
29 Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Aesthetic (adj. 2)”, accessed February 25, 2020,
what we consider beautiful. In his Critique on Judgement Kant aims to clarify a more precise definition of the term. In doing so he identifies four distinguishing features of the aesthetic. Firstly, the aesthetic is disinterested: our pleasure in the aesthetic derives from its beauty, as opposed to the other way around. 30 According to Kant the aesthetic is universal, in that everyone should perceive it with the same degree of pleasure and should equally regard it as beautiful.31Kant then goes on to suggest that the aesthetic should impact us as though it has a further purpose, although it does not. 32 Lastly Kant claims that the aesthetic is necessary in that he refers to judgements of taste as being ‘common sense’.33 The friction between aesthetic and disgust therefore seems to be the impossibility of simultaneously feeling adoration and pleasure, whilst also experiencing disgust. However, this idea is complicated when consulting other understandings of the aesthetic. For example, in Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson’s The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic
Encounter, the aesthetic is noted as being present when:
information coming from the artwork (...) fuses with information in the viewers memory - followed by the expansion of the viewer's consciousness, and the attendant emotional consequences. (…) when the viewer focuses attention on the object there follows a sense of concentration, of freedom, clarity, control, wholeness and sometimes transcendence of ego boundaries (...).34
Their repeated reference to ‘information’ suggests that knowledge of a given thing, and an expansion of this knowledge is necessary for the aesthetic to come into play. But perhaps more significant is the stress placed on the ‘emotional’ reaction that the artwork prompts due to this interweaving of memory with new information. Emotions are key to the aesthetic, as is apparent in Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson’s listing of the senses which the onlooker goes through when
30Kant, Critique of Judgment (1790), 46. 31Ibid, 53.
32 Ibid, 64. 33 Ibid, 87.
34 Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, and Rick Emery Robinson, The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic
encountering the aesthetic. At first glance the idea that disgust can fit alongside feelings of ‘clarity, control wholeness’ is unlikely. However, the notion that the experience of the aesthetic is a process implies that a feeling of disgust could be conducive to later reaching the emotions we more readily associate with pleasure. This notion of a prolonged and complex aesthetic experience gains further credit when consulting how Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson argue that the ambiguities of a work of art are part of what establishes the aesthetic: ‘The interaction between those qualities that are apprehensible in the work in the first moment of the encounter and those that still provoke viewers to revise or expand their skills accounts for the continued investment of attention in a temporally stable object.’35 In this regard, the ambiguity of the art work goes some way in establishing the aesthetic. If this is so, then initial instinctive feelings of disgust can develop and be rethought: they can add to the questions raised by the piece and more deeply encourage an emotional response to a work.
4.ii. The Sensory Experience of Disgust:
Kant notes that disgust is produced when ‘the artistic presentation of the object is no longer distinguished in our sensation from the nature of this object’.36 In drama, particularly that from the early modern period, language plays a major role in establishing the situation and evoking emotion in the audience. In one respect the language inciting disgust in drama is not a mimetic
representation of an action, but also a thing which can be considered disgusting in itself, this will become apparent when analysing the hyperbolic disgusting language used to describe Moll Cutpurse in The Roaring Girl. It is not the act described which is necessarily disgusting, but rather the
language that is used to describe it. Thus, I will carry out a close reading of the linguistic creation of disgust in the drama of the period in order to find out what distinct qualities it takes on when produced in literary form. In this vein the notion of artistic beauty and the disgusting meet in an
35Ibid, 136. 36 Ibid.
ephemeral moment of communication. Distinction must be drawn here between the drama as text, and the drama as performance. Although the evocation of disgust in the play as text may be possible to excuse with the artistry involved in establishing it- the physical display of disgusting acts or things on stage requires additional analysis in order to determine its compatibility with Kant’s statement.
In early modern drama words and sounds were the key in establishing a time, place, and character. Andrea Stevens notes ‘language was exalted as the most important element of early modern drama, not spectacle. Lexis was held to supersede opsis; verbal descriptions created time.’37 The notion that ‘time’ is created through speech indicates the performative force of the utterance in early modern drama, indeed it also created space and interpersonal relations. The limited technical possibilities in early modern drama granted speech a heightened responsibility. In most theatrical settings it is sight and sound which aid the telling of the story and the incitement of emotion. Indeed, this is also the case in the fine arts which Kant describes, thus any triggering of disgust will lack the same intensity as that which smell, touch, and taste can achieve. This undermines the extent to which disgust can be felt by the audience. One way of approaching the nature of disgust portrayed onstage is to consider Aurel Kolnai’s analysis of the sensory nature of the emotion. Kolnai explains that ‘sounds and noises merely betray the existence of objects, they do not ‘present’ them in the sense in which this can be said of visual, tactile and olfactory sensations.’38 In this regard hearing lacks the
immediacy that the other senses retain. This view is also held by Miller in his Anatomy of Disgust who notes that ‘hearing is the sense that plays the smallest role in processing disgust’.39 However a distinction must be made between mere ‘sounds and noises’ which the two theorists discuss, and the impact of the spoken word which is neglected in their analysis of the role of sound and hearing in producing disgust. As we shall see when discussing the linguistic creation of disgust in The Roaring
37 Andrea Stevens, “Drama as Text and Performance”, A New Companion to Renaissance Literature and Culture ed. Michael Hattaway, vol.1 (London: Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2010), 507.
38 Aurel Kolnai, On Disgust, ed. Barry Smith and Carolyn Korsmeyer (Chicago & La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 2004), 48.
Girl and Tis Pity She’s a Whore, many instances of disgust are created through the evocation of
metaphor. This of course holds the audience at a further distance as they are not directly
experiencing that which is described. The most intimate senses are the strongest triggers of disgust- taste, smell, and touch- because they involve an object coming into contact with the body and require a closeness which serves to heighten anxieties regarding disgust. However, this does not mean that disgust cannot be evoked to a heightened degree- particularly via the use of disgusting acts and things on stage which supplement that aural description of such things. The aural rarely acts alone on stage, we also are often aided by a visual representation, or a sense of anticipation at what these metaphors may foreshadow. Further, the language of disgust triggers the thought of objects and acts which are absent from sight. It is apparent that the type of disgust established via the spoken word is therefore a form of moral disgust, as Kolnai would classify it- ‘it presupposes a sufficiency in associations called forth in succession by the objects which in visual disgust are consigned to a far greater extent to the background of the intention’.40 In this respect the
provocation of disgust is dependent on the imaginative capacity of the onlooker. This would suppose that the level of disgust induced in theatre is not stable, and thus the aesthetic potential of a given play is also changeable, if we are to suppose that Kant’s statement is accurate. This is important to keep in mind when analysing incidents of disgust and measuring how they may support Kant’s theory. Plays which explicitly reveal disgusting acts or physical things onstage of course escalate the level of disgust which can be achieved by language alone.
4.iii. The Temporality of Drama:
A second necessary element of Kant’s statement to evaluate is his forthright belief that when disgust is produced a work of art ‘cannot possibly be considered beautiful.’41 This idea is complicated in drama in that incidents of disgust are usually parts of a larger whole. The presence of disgust may
40 Kolnai, On Disgust, 49. 41 Ibid.
last for one scene out of four acts, or one minute out of one scene. In this respect the level of disgust and its power over the audience’s emotions is another nuanced element of drama which may not be as applicable to a painting or sculpture, and which therefore works to complicate Kant’s theory.
4.iv. The Difference between Appreciation and Enjoyment:
In order to make the evocation of disgust compatible with the creation of the aesthetic, it is helpful to consider Carolyn Korsmeyer’s notion that ‘there can be appreciation without enjoyment.’42 Korsmeyer’s observation introduces the distinction between artistic merit and emotional response. I argue that this distinction can have a temporal quality: that which we recoil from in the moment, encourages deep thought on why we experienced such a reaction, thus prompting admiration for the way in which this emotion was induced and to what ends. The evocation of disgust in this respect need not linger past the reception of the work of art. Indeed, even if ‘appreciation’ cannot be experienced in the moment, the potential for contemplative thought opens the possibility for the aesthetic to come into play. Indeed, the depth of thought which these emotions encourage can lead to more enlightenment than those works of art that do not provoke as strong a reaction. Again, Korsmeyer is a useful source to consult on this possibility, as she notes ‘confronting the revolting presents a fascination simply by virtue of challenging sensibilities.’43 In this sense we are more engaged in art which makes us feel uncomfortable, whether that be via disgust or another
traditionally unpleasant emotion. Disgust’s capacity to challenge expectations and outlook supposes that it is complementary to the aesthetic process as opposed to contrary to it. The revolting’s capacity to challenge becomes apparent on a close reading of Middleton’s The Roaring Girl. Before doing so though, it is necessary to more precisely define what is meant by disgust. In order to do so it is necessary to consider the range of approaches which have been taken to the subject, most notably since the beginning of the 20th century.
42 Carolyn Korsmeyer, “Disgust and Aesthetics”, Philosophy Compass 7, no.11 (12th October2012): 759,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2012.00522.x. 43 Ibid, 760.
5. Conceptualising Disgust:
A plethora of texts on disgust have been written by numerous theorists from various fields of study. As a disclaimer it is necessary to note that any attempt to comprehensively cover the topic will fall short. Indeed, there are disagreements concerning the precise nature and cause of disgust, thus my working definition is my own take on what constitutes the emotion.
4.i. Disgust Setting Boundaries:
A useful starting point to understanding the nuances of disgust is Aurel Kolnai’s 1929 book, On
Disgust. Kolnai aims to understand the causes and results of disgust. In doing so he demonstrates
the existence of both moral and physical disgust44. Whereas physical disgust stems from material objects, moral disgust is concerned with values which differ from our own. For example: the site of vomit may induce a physical disgust as it is an unsightly bodily fluid, whereas the witnessing of someone eating to excess prompts a moral disgust at the object’s gluttony. In this regard to be disgusted by such a person is to distance oneself from their supposedly poor morals. However before even considering what may cause disgust and the various different forms of disgust. It is necessary to determine what we understand disgust to be at a base level.
Kolnai is again useful in deciphering this. He productively defines disgust by comparing it to other apparently similar feelings in order to specify the unique makeup of the emotion. For example, he distinguishes it from fear noting that disgust does not concern ‘the subject’s survival which is constitutive of the object or of its mode of giveness but rather this object’s own intrinsic
constitution.’45Thus, unlike fear, disgust is concerned more with the external object, than with the subjects own internal anxieties at their safety. This is not to say that we cannot fear the disgusting- of course the two are very much interlinked, as is apparent in the evolutionary basis for disgust as explored by the likes of Paul Rozin. Rozin’s research largely concerns disgust’s adaptation
44 Kolnai, On Disgust, 48. 45 Ibid. 39.
throughout our ancestral environment, and on the continuous construction of the history of disgust over evolutionary time.46
However it is important to establish what the difference between these two emotions may be. Kolnai notes that ‘disgust is more aesthetically determined than is fear.’47 In this regard the physical qualities of the disgusting object incite a strong emotion regardless of the threat it poses. This is important in that it indicates the degree of judgement that plays a role in the creation of disgust- the implication being that disgust instils differentiation between what is appropriate and what is not. This is further evident in Kolnai’s notion that disgust creates a ‘certain low evaluation of its object, a feeling of superiority’.48 This idea of hierarchy is also expressed by Sarah Ahmed who points out the linguistic indicators of what we find disgusting, as is evident in the spatial metaphors which are used in its discussion, for example ‘that which is below.’49 Again, this suggests that disgust is a tool for social organisation, and can be used to distinguish people from one another, as well as what we may more traditionally deem as optimum objects of disgust- food, insects, bodily fluids. It implies that disgust demarcates what is acceptable and what is not.
Imogen Tyler also analyses disgust’s potential for segregation. She writes from a political perspective detecting the disgust which is encouraged by political regimes. For example, one may direct disgust at those who are not like them, thus encouraging a process of “othering”. Tyler notes that this dynamic is established through the false idea that one must define oneself in terms of their
difference from the “other”.50 Tyler’s work on the state hints at a notion which is present in the work of Rozin, amongst others, who argues for the arbitrary nature of disgust, citing it as something that
46 Paul Rozin, & Jonathan Schull, “The adaptive-evolutionary point of view in experimental psychology”,
Handbook of Experimental Psychology, ed. R. C Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, & R. D. Luce (New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1988), 503-546.
47 Kolnai, On Disgust, 34. 48 Ibid. 42.
49 Sara Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004), 88.
50 Imogen Tyler, Revolting Subjects, Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain (London; New York: Zed books, 2013), 20.
‘may have some roots in evolution, but it is also clearly a cultural product.’51 This becomes important when discussing disgust in the context of race and gender- again this is extremely relevant when considering the political and social context of early 17th century England. This idea can therefore be extended beyond the political sphere to include interpersonal relations. Tyler’s idea of the “othering” which disgust encourages hints at its role in establishing a sense of self. In this respect identity is grounded in terms not just of what one is but also what one is disgusted by, and this creates a desire for distance between from that which is considered disgusting.
The need for a clear distinction between what is and isn’t disgusting creates the desire for
boundaries. Kolnai argues that disgust establishes a need for distance established via boundaries.52 Again, this can be read in a political context, but also in a bodily one. The body has its own
boundaries, and this becomes crucial when considering disgust in an early modern context, as is evident in the early modern adherence to the humoral bodily system. Yet this idea of “othering” is more complex than may first appear. The notion that disgust is always directed at an external object is complicated by the fact that one can be disgusted at one’s self. This form of disgust is associated with feelings of shame at one’s own body or actions. It is established when one recognises a physical deformity of moral action which goes against the values of one’s own society. This can be a
retrospective disgust at one’s past actions, or a continuous disgust at one’s body and consistent lapsed morality.
5.ii. Disgust and the Self:
The relation between disgust and the self is apparent even when the self is not the source of disgust. Indeed, one of the intriguing aspects of disgust in general is that it encourages a reflection on the self. Julia Kristeva argues that a ‘subjective horror’,53 stems from the recognition of the self in that
51 Paul Rozin, et. al., “Body, Psyche, and Culture: The relationship Between Disgust and Morality,” Psychology
and Developing Societies 9, no.1 (March 1997): 110, DOI: 10.1177/097133369700900105. 52 Kolnai, On Disgust, 40.
which is supposedly other, thus upsetting the subject’s sense of self. This notion is also held by Rozin who argues that disgust is caused by an ‘animal-reminder’,54 which brings to mind our own bodily presence. This includes instances when the body is subverted and thus attention drawn to it, for example when it is injured, when it partakes in taboo sexual acts, or when it has poor standards of hygiene. Rozin notes that we ‘attempt to hide the animality of our biological processes by defining specifically human ways to perform them.’55 When the mask slips the ‘uncivilised’ instinctive aspects of the self are exposed. When we see these in another we are reminded of our own ‘animality’ and this provokes an anxiety surrounding our own body and thus our own mortality. Disgust is therefore produced when the parts of ourselves that are usually concealed are exposed in another. Miller takes this a step further arguing that the disgusting, particularly the visually disgusting human body, produces a strong reaction not just because we fear contamination, ‘the horror is not in being intimate with them (though that too), but in being them.’56 This hints at the human body’s malleability and functions which are hidden due to the shame they induce. When that which is hidden comes to the foreground- bodily fluids, deformities, the naked body- the mortal nature of the human body is exposed.
5.iii. Disgust and Desire:
The topic of shame is one that goes hand in hand with disgust and is particularly relevant when studying disgust in the early modern period, as previously discussed. It is found in the
psychoanalytical approach which has often been taken to disgust by the likes of Julia Kristeva and Sigmund Freud. One of the pillars of this approach is the idea that disgust is a defence mechanism against indulging in unconscious desire.57 Again, the notion that certain desires are unacceptable under particular societal codes hints at the moral disgust which Kolnai discusses. The link between
54 Rozin, et. al., “Body, Psyche, and Culture: The relationship Between Disgust and Morality”, 110. 55 Ibid. 113.
56 Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust, 81.
57 Sigmund Freud, “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality II” (1905), The Standard Edition of the Complete
disgust and desire is one which is important to consider when analysing why we might indulge in plays which demonstrate disgusting acts onstage.
The boundaries between disgust and desire are small. Indeed, one of the key triggers of disgust is the excess of that which we find pleasant. Miller notes ‘disgust is not a barrier to imbibing but either a punishment for having done so or, less ominously, simply a time activated barrier that judges (usually too slowly) when enough has been enough.’58 One of the most obvious examples of this is eating to the point of sickness. The temporal aspect of Miller’s explanation suggests that the limit of consumption cannot be known before it is surpassed. Again, disgust is regarded as a method of control: of stopping one from overindulging by setting boundaries of what is socially acceptable, but also of the body giving triggers when too much is too much. To partake in disgusting acts via excess is to demonstrate that one has no self-control.
Miller suggests that the ‘overindulgence in any number of foods, drinks, and activities, sexual or otherwise for which the desire is completely unconscious and acted upon leads to disgust also- the nausea and sickness of surfeit’.59 In his study of disgust Winfred Menninghaus expands this
connection of excessive food and drink, to include excessive sweetness. He notes that satietory disgust is ‘basically disgust from excess or over fulfilment.’60 In this respect too much of anything good eventually turns bad. This becomes particularly relevant when exploring the hyperbolic
portrayal of emotions in comedies such as The Roaring Girl, but more so in tragedies such as ‘Tis Pity
She’s a Whore, in which excessive love can be regarded as one of the key triggers of the catastrophic
ending.
5.v. Summary of Conceptions of Disgust:
58 Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust, 10. 59 Ibid. 110.
60 Winfred Menninghaus, Disgust: Theory and History of a Strong Sensation, trans. Howard Eiland and Joel Golb (Albany: State of New York University Press, 2003), 28.
To summarise how we might come to understand disgust, we can view it as an emotional reaction to something which unsettles us. This can take the form of disgust at the self, or disgust at an external object. This disgusting object is deemed socially unacceptable and the arbitrariness of this is found in the different standards of what is considered disgusting, dependent on cultural norms. Disgust is therefore a tool for segregation but is also produced when we recognise the uncivilised aspects of the human in others, reminding us of our own bodily functions and consequently our mortality. Disgust is a complex and multidimensional emotion. As Jenefer Robinson notes, disgust serves as a ‘building block for other more complex emotions.’61Robinson’s dismissal of disgust as somehow contrary to ‘complex’ emotions reduces the feeling to a simplistic knee-jerk reaction. A brief overview of just some of the works which deal with the levels on which disgust operate point to the ill-judged nature of her comment. However, the metaphorical building blocks invoked point to its collaborative nature. These include, discomfort, anxiety, and intrigue among others. Now that a basic understanding of disgust’s causes and effects has been established, I will analyse two case studies in order to detect how disgust operated in early modern drama, and what effect it has on the aesthetic.
6.i. The Roaring Girl, Summary of the Plot:
The Roaring Girl is a comedy written by Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker in 1611. It is set in
the city of London, and centres around a sexually ambiguous ‘roaring girl’, Moll Cutpurse. The plot concerns the ambition of a young man called Sebastian to marry Mary Fitzgerald, and his father, Sir Alexander’s disapproval of this union. In order to convince his father of Mary’s suitability, Sebastian pretends to be in love with Moll, hoping that his father will favour Mary in comparison. Concurrently a young gallant name Laxton assumes that Moll is sexually promiscuous because of how she dresses like a man, she proves him wrong by tricking him and declaring herself chaste to the extent that she
61 Jenefer Robinson, “Aesthetic Disgust?”, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 75, (2014): 58,
will never marry and remain celibate. The play also includes scenes of housewives and husbands from the city, these are concerned with gender dynamics and the city as a public space.
The disgust which I will consider in relation to The Roaring Girl is that which is directed towards Moll Cutpurse by the other characters in the play. I argue the language used to demonstrate the anxiety which others have towards coming in contact with Moll Cutpurse encourages a disgust in the onlooker and the reader. In this instance The Roaring Girl demonstrates the temporal quality of disgust, how it is produced, but also how it can be diffused. In this regard Kant’s notion that disgust obliterates aesthetic potential is challenged by the complicated dynamic of disgust which is
produced by the play. Disgust is produced in order to be challenged and is the starting point through which to explore the issue of gender fluidity. The comedic genre the play adheres to is key in
understanding how disgust operates in this instance, and what it might produce on stage.
6.ii Analysis of Prologue:
The prologue of The Roaring Girl introduces us to the titular character:
None of these Roaring Girls is ours: she flies
With wings more lofty. Thus her character lies;
//
But would you know who 'tis? Would you hear her name?
She is call'd mad Moll; her life, our acts proclaim.62
Thus, at the outset of the play we are made aware that Moll does not conform to the stereotype of other “Roaring Girls”. Middleton and Dekker supposedly coined the term which means quite literally, ‘The female counterpart of a roaring boy; a noisy, bawdy, or riotous woman or girl, especially one
who takes on a masculine role.’63 Thus the title signifies a recklessness, and a lack of refinement. In her book on leading early modern female characters Jennifer Higginbotham stresses the importance of Moll’s apparent girlhood. She notes that girlhood ‘carried connotations of unruliness and
transgressive behaviour…symptomatic of the general association between youth and rebellion in early modern English culture’.64 Therefore a paradox is established from the beginning of the play: Moll is a ‘Roaring Girl’, but she ‘flies/with wings more lofty’. The metaphor of the wings
communicates her superiority to other who share the title. Already a sense of intrigue is established, audience and reader are compelled to continue to pay attention. As Higginbotham remarks, ‘Moll systematically defies classification’65. The ‘roaring girl’ who is not a typical ‘roaring girl’ mirrors the ambiguous nature of her gender: she is a woman, who is not a woman, but neither is she man. The repeated rhetorical questions at the end of the prologue further draw out the suspense- at this stage we are yet to know her name. The questions also appear to be a sort of threat, adding to the idea that she is something so strange that one may not be prepared to ‘know who ‘tis’. The
characterisation of Moll as ‘mad’ to the extent that it is part of her name and title, combined with her surname ‘Cutpurse’ meaning ‘pickpocket, thief, robber’66, contrasts to the loftiness spoken about just a few lines earlier. The result of this is a confusion surrounding the character.
The positioning of this description of Moll in the prologue is significant. Far from being an irrelevant add-on, in the 17th century the prologue provided the playwright an opportunity to ‘comment meaningfully on the complex relations of playing and the twin worlds implied by the resonant phrase theatrum mundi...one of their greatest attractions for those interested in how these plays were designed to appeal to, and mean for, their audiences.’67 Thus analysing the prologue can provide
63 Ibid.
64 Jennifer Higginbotham, The Girlhood of Shakespeare’s Sisters: Gender, Transgression, Adolescence (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013), 87.
65 Ibid.
66 Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Cutpurse (n.)”, accessed March 27, 2020,
https://www-oed-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/view/Entry/46392?redirectedFrom=cutpurse#eid.
67 Douglas Bruster and Robert Weimann, Prologues to Shakespeare’s Theatre: Performance and Liminality in
substantial information of the cultural significance of the play, and the way in which it drew an audience in. Up until 1600 the prologue was used primarily as an allegory of relevant topics.68By 1700 it was mostly used in a satirical manner or as a framing device. In this instance the prologue serves to expose us to the character of Moll, without showing her and without filling all the gaps. The prologue is often considered to be the voice of the author. Indeed as Douglas Bruster and Robert Weimann note, they were considered ‘thresholds between and among, variously, playwrights, actors, characters, audience members, play worlds, and the world outside the
playhouse.’69 In Manfred Pfister’s categorisation of characterisation techniques, this would therefore be considered an ‘authorial explicit’70 introduction to her character. Pfister supposes that the
audience is therefore ‘obliged to await the entrance of that figure in a state of expectant suspense, a state that can be intensified if the audience is confronted with a number of different and
contradictory outside commentaries.’71 This becomes relevant when reviewing the harsher
judgements on her person by the characters of the play. It also has an impact on how we experience any feelings of disgust which are encouraged by the speech of other characters: we feel we have a knowledge that is being concealed from the characters in the internal communication system of the play. This prompts a sceptical understanding of what the characters say about her but does not obliterate the disgust produced by the language used. The reception of the prologue via the page differs to that witnessed on stage.
6.iii The Language of Disgust:
Our first introduction to Moll in the context of the play is Sebastian’s description of her:
68Fernando Cioni, “Refashioning Italian Theatrical and Dramatic Conventions: Prologues, Epilogues and Inductions in Early Modern English Drama”, Early Modern Culture Online, accessed February 10, 2020,
https://boap.uib.no/index.php/emco/article/view/1508/1288.
69 Bruster and Weimann, Prologues to Shakespeare’s Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern
Drama, 2.
70 Manfred Pfister, The Theory and Analysis of Drama, trans. John Halliday (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 185.
…a creature So strange in quality a whole city takes Note of her name and person.72
This distinguishes Moll as separate from everyone else in London- the ‘whole city’ regards her as noteworthy due to her reputation. It also draws attention to the city as a site for easy movement, and therefore easy contamination: Moll is able to travel through the ‘whole city’, and the whole city knows of her. Again, a sense of anticipation is established here, the superlative ‘so strange’ suggests that the character we are about to see will be unlike any we’ve seen before. The dehumanisation of Moll to a ‘creature’ further segregates her from the other characters of the social world that
Middleton and Dekker establish. It implies that what the audience are about to see is something that will offend their eyes. We are being prepared to be disgusted or at the very least shocked by what we are about to see. This compliments the description in the prologue in its vagueness, but sense of intrigue. In this regard a sensationalist approach towards the figure of Moll is firmly established, one that plays with suspense and tension. In this way it could be argued that the framing of Moll, as evident in the prologue and in the first scene, is a device used to induce thrill as opposed to elevate the work to the aesthetic.
I will now focus in on a particular scene which exemplifies the linguistic potential for disgust within the dramatic form. In Act 1, Scene 2, Sebastian and his Father discuss Moll. This results in an
accumulation of insults which play of the audience’s sense of disgust; thus, a purposeful triggering of the emotion is apparent. Sebastian exalts that Moll is a ‘Flesh-fly that can vex any man.’73 The reference to the flesh-fly or blow-fly, which eats and lays eggs in dead flesh, is an unusual and discomforting use of metaphor. The zoomorphism technique dehumanises Moll, depicting her as some form of monster. The short snappy nature of the line reinforces its grotesqueness, which is not
72 Roaring Girl (Brown, Poston, Williamson), 1.1.160-162. 73 Ibid, 1.2.331.
diluted by over explanation. The alliterative ‘f’ creates a plosive quality to the line, suggesting a force is inevitable upon delivery. The natural progress of birth conjoining with that of death incites disgust both in its unusual quality, but also in it calling up of the animal process- and indeed reminding the audience of their own mortal body which as we know is one of the key triggers of disgust. The gendered nature of the character’s disgust is apparent in his singling out of ‘man’. Thus, her status as a woman is undermined by her inability to please men. The gendered nature of the disgust projected onto Moll stems from her ambiguous gender: she dresses in breaches and does not conform to expectations that women should be humble, virtuous, and meek. Her ambiguous sexuality provokes disgust in the characters, but also has the potential to disgust the audience. Kolnai regards sexual acts as one of the key elicitors of disgust. He argues that ‘anything with a sexual accent can easily come to have a disgusting effect on the majority of persons’.74.Kolnai’s broad application to the relation between sex and disgust is perhaps too vague to be regarded as a meaningful point.
However, he goes on to more specifically argue that ‘disordered sexuality represents for the sense of disgust, above all what is disorderly, unclean, clammy, the unhealthy excess of life.’75 Again, Kolnai could be criticised here on his conservatism and generalisation in that he omits a definition of what might be regarded as ‘disordered sexuality’. However, his thoughts are applicable here in that the markedly unusual quality of Moll’s outward appearance reminds the onlooker of the human body- and of its animalistic components. It is not so much the transgressive sex act in itself that produces disgust, but rather the focus it brings to the body in a subverted way.
In response to Sebastian, Sir Alexander enhances the level of hatred portrayed:
A scurvy woman,
On whom the passionate old man swore he doted;
A creature, saith he, nature hath brought forth
74 Kolnai, On Disgust, 66. 75Ibid, 67.
To mock the sex of woman. It is a thing
One knows not how to name; her birth began
Ere she was all made.
….///
Nay, more, let this strange thing walk, stand or sit,
No blazing star draws more eyes after it.76
In contrast to Sebastian’s short sharp line, Alexander’s tirade indicates a sense of mounting pressure. His speech is an accumulation of strange, somewhat confusing metaphors. However, the pauses in speech, as indicated by the comma, for example, ‘a scurvy woman,’ effectively allow space for reflection. The word ‘scurvy’ is enough to produce disgust alone. The now obsolete meaning of the word which was in circulation in the 17th century meant ‘covered with scurf; suffering from, or of the nature of, skin disease; scurfy, scabby.’77 Here the reference to skin again implies a bodily
abnormality, a contagiousness, an unattractiveness. As in the first scene, Moll is again referred to as a ‘creature’, unhuman, unusual. This is reiterated by the use of ‘thing’ implying a limited vocabulary to describe such a person. The word ‘thing’ has many different uses and meanings- one that was in circulation during the 17th century but now obsolete was ‘a matter brought before a court of law; a charge brought.’78 There are therefore connotations with criminality which stem from the use of the word which gain further significance when considering the Moll’s ‘Cutpurse’ surname. Reflecting on contemporary understandings of the word, Heidegger’s ‘Thing Theory’, and the notion that an object becomes a ‘thing’ when it can no longer carry out its common function79 (for example when a glass is
76 Roaring Girl (Brown, Poston, Williamson),1.2.332-341.
77Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Scurvy (adj. 1a)”, accessed February 11,2020,
https://www-oed-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/view/Entry/173951?rskey=pHvZmT&result=2&isAdvanced=false#eid. 78Oxford English Dictionary Online, s.v. “Thing (n.2a)”, accessed February 20, 2020,
https://www-oed-com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/view/Entry/200786?rskey=hPAKfz&result=1#eid.
79 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time: A Translation of Sein Und Zeit 1927, trans. Joan Stambaugh (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), 70.
cracked and cannot hold liquid), is relevant in light of Moll’s rebellion against gender norms and her inability to function as is expected of a young woman. Sir Davy responds to Sir Alexander with, ‘A monster, 'tis some monster.’80 Again, the contrast of the short snappy line with the more descriptive speech of Sir Alexander, draws attention to the summarised version- that she is a ‘monster’, the repetition of which reinforces her unhuman qualities, again enhancing the sense of intrigue we have towards her character.
The suspicion expressed by Sir Alexander is related to the possibility of corruption within his family’s blood line. The breaking down of the boundaries which distinguish Moll from him are therefore a real possibility, thus an anxiety at the outside Moll entering and altering the blood of the family is the specific type of disgust demonstrated by Sir Alexander. This tells us something useful about the gender relations in terms of the body at the time. The early modern understanding of the body firmly associated excess with the female, and restraint and reason with the male. According to the Galenic humoral model much prescribed to at the time, men as a sex were considered hotter and drier than women.81 This is demonstrated by the different humoral qualities demonstrated in fig. 3. Further, women are held to be more impressionable than men because their brains are softer, to resemble children in the inconstancy of their feelings, and to be susceptible to different passions.82 However, in her work on love sickness and gender Lesel Dawson proposes that the process of love diverts the body from its normal course, ‘preconceived notions of the gendered conception of excess were somewhat subverted.’ 83 According to the Hippocratic and Galenic models lovesickness causes or is the result of a disruption in humoral balance. Dawson notes that ‘rather than confining
individuals to strict gender roles, lovesickness often releases them from conventions of gender and sexual orientation […] love is regarded as an emasculating force that leads to a reversal of the
80Roaring Girl (Brown, Poston, Williamson),1.2.342.
81 Kern Paster, Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage, 13.
82 Susan James, Passions and Action: The Emotions in Seventeenth Century Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 8.
traditional gender hierarchy.’84 The fact that Sebastian is supposedly in love with Moll implies to his father that he is under some sort of spell, that he cannot possibly be in his right mind ‘Will you love such a poison?’85 This emasculation that is associated with love sickness is elevated in the case of Sebastian, who apparently falls in love with a manly woman who ‘Tis woman more than man,/man more than woman’.86 Whilst this may inform some of the disgust incited in audience, it is instead the specific language which is used to convey disgust which creates a reaction of disgust itself.
Fig. 3, Diagram of Humoral model noting differences between males and females, “Quinta Essentia” by Leonhard Thurneysser, Leipzig, 1574, source: Shakespeare.org ( http://collections.shakespeare.org.uk/exhibition/exhibition/method-in-the-madness/object/method-in-the-madness-the-humours).
The language of The Roaring Girl has been recognised in its revived productions. One of the most famous revivals of The Roaring Girl is the Royal Shakespeare Company’s 1983 production directed by Barry Kyle. This production paralleled Jacobean capitalism with Thatcherite Britain. Kyle argues that ‘the cultural anxieties about the economic change in Jacobean Britain were similar to the social
84 Ibid, 5.
85 Roaring Girl (Brown, Poston, Williamson),1.2.364. 86Ibid,1.2.337.
upheaval caused by Thatcher’s economic imperatives.’87 The main thrust of the production was therefore its focus on the increasingly capitalist society that came into existence, and the presence of the growing mercantile class evident in the play. It is difficult to detect how precisely disgust was handled in this production. According to one review in The Times it showcased the ‘authentic smell and street speech’88of Jacobean London. Although the review does not elaborate on how this was achieved, of what the specific smells were, it nevertheless implies that the language of disgust remained unaltered. The attempt to bring in smell also indicates the possibility for heightened emotional reaction in general to the acts on stage.
The linguistic devices used by Middleton and Dekker induce disgust in the audience, regardless of the context. They do not refer to any particular activities of Moll, and we do not see disgusting acts onstage. Yet the imagery that is used conjures a series of strange and unsettling images which prompt the audience to fear for the presence of Moll and feel a sort of disgust towards her by association. The way in which these instances are crafted aligns itself with the Kant’s notion that the disgusting may be aesthetic, if the skill of the artist overpowers the lowly feelings experienced in the moment. However, in the context of a staged performance, the anticipation and outrage
experienced by the audience are heightened during these scenes. In performance the pace established by the dialogue leaves little time for thought, instead we experience the play through our emotions. Of course, this does not mean that we cannot reflect on the skill involved in evoking these emotions in retrospect. Important here is that the scenes discussed are part of a larger whole, and the evocation of pure disgust is essential for the comedy of the play to reach its full potential. This is in contrast to how disgust operates in Ford’s ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore which will be considered when consulted the nature of disgust in 17th Century Tragedy.
6.iv. The Comedic Impact:
87 Sophia Lee Chi-fang, “The Roaring Girl in Retrospect: the RSC Production of 1983”,New Theatre Quarterly 30, no.3 (August 2014): 292, doi:10.1017/S0266464X14000517.
