Robert Chapman-Morales
In the early modern era, the growing British empire sought to control and define its subjects but found this control difficult the more the empire colonized and expanded. The government tried to adopt laws and standards to ensure that only what the empire defined as authentic was allowed. There was a great fear of counterfeiting (Dunne). This need to control and define was undermined by the fluid nature of identity in the early modern era. For example, Shakespeare’s plays showed the largely lower-class audience that the class system was simply a matter of the clothes one wears. The government’s definition of upper class and lower class, noble and poor, was not as stable as they would hope. As a result, there was confusion knowing that one could act the part of noble on stage, in fact could be a noble temporarily, but when all was said and done, the costume had to be removed for fear of penalty from the government. During Shakespeare’s time, men on stage would play the part of women, women being banned from performing on stage, and this proved that identity was fluid and changeable. Ballads sung on the street in the early modern era, with the intended audience of subjects from all classes seeking entertainment, also played with the tension of identity classification. Dianne Dugaw’s catalogue of Warrior Women ballads (link to the catalogue), specifically those that feature crossdressing, suggest the idea that nobility and gender alike are identities that are primarily determined by the clothes, or costumes, one wears to signify that identity. In depicting protagonists who cross and re-cross gender and class boundaries, the ballads suggest that both categories are less essential than constructed and maintained by costume and behavior. In doing so, they undermine the early modern British government’s desire to control and regulate by showing that identities are fluid and gender is a construct that can be performed and “counterfeited.”[1]
In the early modern era, government control of gender, class, and other identity categories came about in the form of laws and strict penalties to dissuade counterfeiting. As Derek Dunne shows in “Rogues’ License: Counterfeiting Authority in Early Modern Literature,” The British government wanted control and regulation, but found it very difficult given the ease of counterfeiting official documents. “According to Adam Fox, ‘England was a society permeated by documentary standards of reference and proof’” (qtd in Dunne 137). In reference to this, Dunne says, “The proliferation of licenses attests to the fact that early modern England is acutely reliant, indeed over-reliant, on documentary proofs” (137). This desire for “proofs” can also be applied to identity and gender. Dunne’s assessment that the government was “over-reliant” on proofs shows a fear of authority being undermined by subjects attempting to determine their own rules in contrast to those prescribed by those in power and what society tends to expect. Dunne further adds,
The Act for the Punishment of Rogues, Vagabonds and Sturdy Beggars (1597) specifies that those whipped for vagrancy would be given ‘a Testimonial subscribed with the Hand and sealed with the Seal of the same Justice of the Peace,’ allowing them to return to their place of origin. Yet the cony-catching pamphlets of the 1590s describe how the false livelihoods and lively falsehoods of many ‘rogues’ depend upon forging such a document, making possible their deceits—by impersonating someone they are not, or allowing them to be somewhere they should not be.
(137-38)
Here we arrive at an important possibility of those making a “livelihood” of counterfeit: “to impersonat[e] someone they are not” and “be somewhere they should not be.” This, too, shows an unhappiness of many subjects with who they are “confined” to be. Confinement in early modern life, specifically for women in marriage, is an important concept Erika Carbonara discusses in her article, “My Body You May [..] Confine”: Depictions of Female Confinement and Cross-Dressing in Early Modern Broadside Ballads.” (link to article, click here to read the article). While Carbonara discusses literal confinement of women, my own approach considers confinement in its metaphorical and political goals. Indeed, confinement was goal of the early modern British government: confining subjects in their roles without the possibility for change. For example, the upper class did not want the lower class to have the ability to impersonate them, just as the government did not want officials impersonated by “rogues.” In this way, the views of the Parliament and the king were aligned with the nobility. Yet, despite the government’s desire to control its subjects with regulations, nonetheless it was very easy for subjects to in fact be “someone they are not” and “be somewhere they not be” and nowhere is this more possible than life at the sea: the setting of many of ballads of crossdressing.
While the government struggled on land to maintain authority and avoid impersonation, life at sea was even more difficult to control and presented the greatest possibility for a person to be “someone they are not” (Dunne 138). Eleanor Hubbard in her article, “Sailors and the Early Modern British Empire: Labor, Nation, and Identity at Sea” describes how the British government relied on sailors and privateering, or in essence “legalized piracy” (Hubbard 351), to further its aims. Yet, the government found it difficult to stop maintain order when ships turned rogue and became pirates. Further, Hubbard states,
The relationship between piracy and the state remained tangled in the 17th century. James I was outraged by his errant subjects, whose crimes caused him endless diplomatic embarrassment, yet remarkably few pirates were executed during his reign. Many more were pardoned, often under generous terms. Capturing pirates was difficult, and England’s security depended on its supply of warlike seamen.
(351)
One could argue the reason so “few pirates were executed during his reign” was the very fact that “[c]apturing pirates was difficult.” Despite a desire by the elite to maintain order, ships could serve as a safe-zone free from government control. In addition, ships are a perfect setting for critique: “England’s security” relied on the “warlike seamen” it could not even control. As the ballads of crossdressing show, the British government could not even ensure that the seamen were not actually women in disguise.
Hubbard also shows that pirate ships posed a model for equality that could exist outside of government control and regulation. Hubbard states,
piracy surged following demobilization after Queen Anne’s War, then was harshly repressed. Rediker has argued that piracy reached its fullest cultural form during this period in which neither merchants nor the state had any further use for outlaw seamen, and pirates do indeed seem to have developed egalitarian and democratic practices in this period. It is hard to know, however, whether this brief flowering of pirate culture revealed lawless seamen’s true animosity to capitalism and the state, or whether it was simply a reaction to particular circumstances.
(351)
It is important to note that when “neither merchants nor the state had any further use for outlaw seamen…pirates do indeed seem to have developed egalitarian and democratic practices” even if these “practices” still maintained existing ideas of gender hierarchy and exclusion. In other words, when pirates operated without the government’s control, equality and democracy was possible on board ships. While, as Hubbard notes, it may only be “simply a reaction to particular circumstances” it could very well be the result of “animosity” toward “the state” which was notorious for desiring to control, classify, and regulate its subjects on board its military ships. The warrior women ballads of crossdressing show, though, that even on their military ships the government lacked control, including and especially when it came to the identities of the sailors manning their ships.
Now, before analyzing specific ballads, it is important to define ballads and their intended audience. Matthew Jewell’s article, “The Merchant’s Fair Heiress and the Lowly Sailor Boy: Class Dressing and the Illusion of Class Mobility in Warrior Women Ballads,” (link to article, click here to read the article) argues that the ballads present a fantasy to the lower class of potential for “class mobility.” However, ultimately Jewell argues that the government uses the ballads to regulate its citizens and show them the fatal punishments for those who attempt to be who they are not supposed to be. In a similar vein, Kelly Plante’s “Marketing Empire: Military Recruitment and Companionate Marriage in Early English Broadside Ballads” (link to essay, click here to read the essay) argues that the British government uses the ballads to persuade men to join the military by enticing them with the potential for “companionate marriages” if they join. To these arguments I add my own claim that the focus of the ballads was for those in the lower class to critique their controlling government and show how futile attempts to control identity were. Mark Hailwood’s article,“Broadside Ballads and Occupational Identity in Early Modern England” helps us see that identity was a focus of ballads when he argues, “Broadside ballads therefore provide a valuable entry point for learning how occupational identities were constructed in this period. Indeed, ballads played an important role in the process of identity formation itself” (188). In addition, Hailwood states, “For example, as components of a broader cultural discourse about the characteristics of different types of workers, ballads undoubtedly contributed to what we might call external processes of identity formation: the ways in which occupational groups were understood by others. Moreover, occupational ballads may have contributed to internal processes of identity formation” (188). Thus, although Hailwood’s argument is that ballads show us “the ways in which occupational groups were understood by others,” more important is his statement on “identity formation.” Hailwood says that “ballads played an important role in the process of identity formation itself” and that “ballads may have contributed to internal processes of identity formation.” This shows that the ballads were targeted to individual perceptions of identities, identities that the British government tried to control, yet, as the ballads show, these identity constructs could be challenged by citizens.
In addition, ballads as a genre generally fall outside of the government’s control, even if they could have patriotic and propagandistic themes, as they could be sung in an alehouses. Alehouses are shown to be a “habitable site of vagrancy” (494) as Patricia Fumerton discusses in, “Alehouses, Ballads, and the Vagrant Husband in Early Modern England.” Fumerton states,
Alehouses thus kept pace with the growth and expansive movements of impoverished itinerants in early modern England. But as a temporary stopping point for vagrancy—that is, as a habitable site of vagrancy—the alehouse opened its doors to poor local dwellers as well as to those just “passing through.” And in doing so, it further opened up the metonymic power of vagrancy initiated already in its embrace of mobile and unstable labor.
(494)
Ballads were primarily targeted to the lower classes, a class that would have listened to ballads sung in alehouses. As a “temporary stopping point for vagrancy” alehouses allowed for those seeking to create identities outside of the government’s control to play with this idea in a safe setting. Given Hailwood’s argument how ballads served “the process of identity formation” (188), it would make sense that the crossdressing ballads would show women class and gender are able to be performed and that they could create identities outside of the control of men and the British government. For men, it shows that if they could accept women as equals when dressed as men and acting as men, then it is not a long step to being able to accept women as equals when in the “costume” of traditional feminine dress. Thus, the crossdressing ballads could be viewed as a critique of British government’s attempt to control identities by showing that a change of costume and mindset could create a counterfeit to the government’s regulations.
Using this framework that the ballads are meant to undermine the British government’s attempt to control its citizens’ identities, we can look at two specific examples from Dugaw’s catalogue to see the subversive nature of the ballads of crossdressing as they engage with gender and class. In ballad 35, “Young Henry of the Raging Main,” a narrator views the parting of two lovers, Henry and Emma. Emma insists that Henry stay behind and if he leaves, she promises to leave with him: “But if you enter, I will venture, / I swear by all the powers above! / I’ll venture with my lovely Henry, / Perhaps great honour I may attain; / She cried I’ll enter and boldly I’ll venture / With Henry” (“Young Henry” 497). This shows first that Emma, although leaving for love, sees a chance for a new identity in which she might “attain” “great honour.” In order to do this, though, she must change her “costume” of feminine dress in order to defy imposed expectations. She conveys this plan to Henry, despite his initial misgivings: “I’ll dress myself in man’s apparel, / So dearest Henry don’t complain; / In Jacket blue and tarry trousers, / I will plough the Raging main” (“Young Henry” 497). She commands Henry to accept this change in identity, in which she adopts the costume of “blue and tarry trousers” worn by men in the British navy. This changing of costume and telling Henry “don’t complain” shows that Emma is in command and Henry must listen to her even before she cross-dresses. Emma’s command is in place when in her female costume and her male sailor costume, and the only difference is society’s expectations for behavior based on appearance – in both costumes Emma is more stereotypically “male” than Henry. This suggests that her masculinity is more than just a costume and undermines the equating of masculinity to male sex that society attempts to postulate. Gender is shown to be a fluid concept that is independent of sex.
Finally, we see that “Then on board the brig Eliza, / Henry and his Emma went; / She did her duty like a sailor, / And with her lover was content” (“Young Henry” 497). Emma’s new identity is silently accepted by Henry and on board the ship, dressed as a man, she obtains a new identity of a sailor and finds contentment. Henry accepts this plan and goes along with it without a word of complaint, showing that Emma is able to change her identity and not be recognized as anything other than a seaman who does “her duty” and finds happiness. In fact, “[N]o one did suspect young Emma / Ploughing on the watery Main” (“Young Henry” 498). She also performs exceptionally well in the midst of a storm they encounter on the voyage: “Undaunted up aloft went Emma / Midst thunder, light’ning, wind and rain / With courage true, in a jacket blue, / Did Emma plough the Raging Main” (“Young Henry” 498). In defiance of expectations of what a woman can and cannot do, Emma wears her “jacket blue,” a symbol of the British navy and the government’s quest for colonization and control. Although the government does not recognize the ability of a woman to aid in this endeavor, Emma defies these expectations by courageously braving the storm. This further shows that courage is a part of one’s identity, no matter one’s “official” gender.
The fact that Henry accepts Emma’s masculine military identity without complaint shows that it is possible for equality to exist on the sea and this is carried over for them on land when they marry and “They happy dwell, and often tell / Their tales of love and ne’er complain” (“Young Henry” 498). Henry’s acceptance of Emma’s new identity and acquiescence to her prominent role and proven prowess, shows that attempts to control gender and identity are futile when all it takes is a change of costume for Emma to become a better sailor than the men on board, especially when the ship is in danger in the midst of a dangerous storm.
Finally, Emma, the main character of this ballad, stands as a critique of the British empire’s gender expectations: “Tho her hands were soft, she went aloft, / And boldly plough’d the Raging Main” (“Young Henry” 497). The “soft” hands of Emma are meant to signify feminine expectations: that she could not successfully sail and should not be permitted to sail with the men. But the ballad undermines those normative expectations by showing that even in their navy, there might be women dressed as “counterfeit” men and that, furthermore, they might be the finest in their crews. After all Emma is one telling Henry to “not complain” and follow her lead, defying Britain’s ideas on marriage and male authority.
Another important ballad that undermines the idea of a strict and immobile social hierarchy is ballad 43, “Caroline and her Young Sailor Bold.” In this ballad we see an example of the “classdressing” that Jewell references in his essay (link to essay here, click here to read the essay). We find that “a nobleman’s daughter” (“Caroline” 532) is an only child who goes off to sea, changing identity to a lower-class male. First, we find out that “Her father possessed a great fortune, / Full thirty five thousand a year, / He had but one only daughter” (“Caroline…” 532). This language establishes the extent of their wealth, and the daughter’s position to inherit it all. When Caroline falls in love with a handsome sailor named William, she tells him, “I’m a nobleman’s daughter, / Possest of ten thousand in gold / I’ll forsake both my father and mother, / To wed with a young sailor bold” (“Caroline” 532). The full stakes of Caroline’s oath to William are revealed by an examination of the early modern inheritance laws to see what Caroline would inherit. Christine Churches states, “The operation of the English Common Law governing the ownership and inheritance of property seems to offer compelling proof of the utter subjection of women: a woman inherited property only if she had no brothers [and] on marriage she surrendered all personal estate and control of her real estate” (165). As the only daughter, with no brothers, British law would allow Caroline to inherit all of her father’s “great fortune” (“Caroline” 532), yet she chooses to “forsake both…father and mother, / To wed with a young sailor bold” (“Caroline” 532), thus choosing to forsake her right to all of that fortune. The key point here is that her identities, whether female and rich or male and poor, are more fluid than a hierarchical system would have us believe. Although William attempts to dissuade Caroline by telling her she should obey her parents and that sailors have no “dependence” (“Caroline…” 532) or money, nonetheless she makes the choiceto leave to sea. In all instances, Caroline maintains her control of her identity and destiny. Caroline escapes the British government’s control of women in marriage to instead seek a marriage with her “sailor boy” in which she could determine the terms of the marriage herself. In response to William, Caroline says, “there’s no one shall persuade me, / One moment to alter my mind[”]…Then she drest like a gallant young sailor / Forsock both her parents and gold, / Two years and a half on the ocean, / She ploughed with her young sailor bold” (“Caroline” 532). Her determination to leave behind “both her parents and gold” coupled with her immediate donning of the costume of “gallant young sailor” shows her ability to change her identity for her own ideals in defiance of the regulations of the British government. In this new identity, she makes her own decisions rather than being a passive recipient of the rules.
Interestingly, in this ballad we see an ambiguous ending that allows for the possibility that Caroline maintains her costume on land. Before returning to England, Caroline endured three shipwrecks in which she “always proved constant and kind / Her duty she done like a sailor, / … in her jacket so blue” (“Caroline” 532). Here her identity is not questioned given her ability to maintain the identity of sailor. Finally, after returning to England from her life on sea,
Caroline went straightway to her father
(“Caroline” 533)
In her jacket and trowsers so blue.
He received her and momently fainted,
When first she appeared to his view,
She cried my dear father forgive me,
Deprive me for ever of gold
Grant me my request
I’m contented to wed with my young sailor bold.
Importantly, Caroline is now on land and still dressed defiantly in her costume as a sailor. This shows her desire to maintain her new identity and then be accepted by her father. Her father’s response, after his shock and fainting spell, is to accept her and allow her to marry, but only because he “admired young William” (“Caroline” 533). In many ways, this is a problematic ending with a marriage that restores, rather than undermines social hierarchy: “They were married and Caroline’s portion / Was two hundred thousand in gold / So now they live happy and cheerful / Caroline and her young sailor bold” (“Caroline” 533). However, the last line “Caroline and her young sailor bold” given the voyage and Caroline’s boldness in pursuing William, leads us to read “young sailor bold” in a humorous tone: after all, who actually is the bold sailor in the ballad? This leads us to wonder if perhaps this marriage, too, will defy the British government’s expectations, especially since it is never mentioned that she changed out of her costume. This signifies that even if she physically changes out of the costume, figuratively she has not abandoned her boundary-crossing identities. In such an identity, the audience could see that in all actuality, despite the inheritance laws of the time, Caroline, as an only child with no brothers, will inherit all because she married a sailor who will follow her orders. This defies society’s expectations of marriage and shows how tenuous and futile are attempts to establish set, one-size-fits-all definitions of identity.
Crossdressing warrior women in the ballads undermine the attempts to control and regulate British citizens. Given the humorous nature of the ballads and the intended audience, one could read the ballads as satirical anti-propaganda showing that despite the British government’s attempts to create an empire, they cannot even control their own citizens who transgress left and right, ignoring class and gender norms. The ballad’s setting of life at sea further undermines the British government: the rise of pirates, like vagrants on land, shows that despite the British government’s desire to portray themselves as a dominating power, citizens can defy them through counterfeit, both of documents and identity.
Works Cited
Dugaw’s Catalogue
“Caroline and her Young Sailor Bold.” A Catalogue and Collection of Anglo-American Female Warrior Ballads. Ballad 43, p. 529.
“Young Henry of the Raging Main.” A Catalogue and Collection of Anglo-American Female Warrior Ballads. Ballad 35, p. 495.
Secondary Sources
Carbonara, Erika. “My Body You May [..] Confine”: Depictions of Female Confinement and Cross-Dressing in Early Modern Broadside Ballads.”
Churches, Christine. “Women and Property in Early Modern England: A Case-Study.” Social History, vol. 23, no. 2, 1998, pp. 165–80.
“Custom, Memory and the Authority of Writing,” in The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, ed. by Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox, and Steve Hindle (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996), 89–116.
Dunne, Derek. “Rogues’ License: Counterfeiting Authority in Early Modern Literature.” Shakespeare Studies, vol. 45, 2017, pp.137-143.
Fumerton, Patricia. “Not Home: Alehouses, Ballads, and the Vagrant Husband in Early Modern England” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, Fall 2002, pp. 493-518.
Hailwood, Mark. “Broadside Ballads and Occupational Identity in Early Modern England.” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 79, no. 2, 2016, pp. 187-200.
Hubbard, Eleanor. “Sailors and the Early Modern British Empire: Labor, Nation, and Identity at Sea.” History Compass, vol. 14, no. 8, 2016, pp. 348-58.
Jewell, Matthew. “The Merchant’s Fair Heiress and the Lowly Sailor Boy: Class Dressing and the Illusion of Class Mobility in Warrior Women Ballads.”
“Just One of the Boyz 4 Now for Now.” Bob’s Burgers. Season 9, Episode 1, Fox, September 30, 2018.
Plante, Kelly. “Marketing Empire: Military Recruitment and Companionate Marriage in Early English Broadside Ballads.”
Notes
[1] The crossdressing ballads and the presentation of the idea that identity and gender can be performed and “counterfeited” is an applicable topic today, too. For example, shows like RuPaul’s Drag Race and Bob’s Burgers present these ideas. RuPaul’s show shows that men can perform as women to create a visual illusion. In the Bob’s Burgers episode, “Just One of the Boyz 4 Now for Now” from 2018, Tina transforms herself into a boy in order to sneak into an audition for the newly opened spot in the four-person boy band “Boyz 4 Now.” Tina is accepted as a boy simply by changing her clothes and donning a wig much like the men do in RuPaul’s Drag Race. This idea can even be traced back to the 20th century in J.R.R Tolkien’s portrayal of Éowyn in The Return of the King changing into a man in order to sneak off to war with the rest of the men. All she did was adopt the armor the men wore. One can also see crossdressing in the Mulan legend (link to context essay here, Click here to read about Mulan’s relation to the ballads), popularly known in Disney’s portrayal in which Mulan is able to disguise herself as her much older father simply by donning men’s clothes and armor. This acceptance by the men is important and it is a theme that runs through all of these examples. What is shown is that one can pass off one’s identity as a different gender and be accepted by that gender if one performs the part and wears the costume. This shows that acceptance is possible, yet there is something getting in the way: societal “rules” of how gender and identity should operate. These “rules” typically get transferred to society by the ruling power, which is typically the government in charge.