Intimacy and Sexuality in the Age of Shakespeare

219 Pages·2012·1.38 MB·English

by  James M. Bromley

INTIMACY AND SEXUALITY IN
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
JamesM.BromleyarguesthatRenaissancetextscirculateknowledge
aboutavarietyofnon-standardsexualpracticesandintimatelifenar-
ratives, including non-monogamy, anal eroticism, masochism, and
cross-racial female homoeroticism. Rethinking current assumptions
about intimacy in Renaissance drama, poetry, and prose, the book
blendshistoricizedandqueerapproachestoembodiment,narrative,
and temporality. An important contribution to Renaissance literary
studies,queertheory,andthehistoryofsexuality,thebookdemon-
strates the relevance of Renaissance literature to today. Through
closereadingsofWilliamShakespeare’s“problemcomedies,”Christo-
pherMarlowe’sHeroandLeander,playsbyBeaumontandFletcher,
ThomasMiddleton’sTheNiceValour,andLadyMaryWroth’sson-
netsequencePamphiliatoAmphilanthusandherproseromanceThe
Urania,Bromleyre-evaluatesnotionsofthecentralityofdeep,abiding
affection inRenaissance cultureand challenges our owninvestment
inanarrowlydefinedintimatesphere.
james m. bromley is Assistant Professor of English at Miami
University.Hehaspublishedessaysonintimacy,sexualpractice,and
Renaissance literature in Early Modern Literary Studies, Studies in
Philology,andModernPhilology.Heisthewinnerofthe2011Martin
StevensAwardforBestNewEssayinEarlyDramaStudiesfromthe
MedievalandRenaissanceDramaSociety.

INTIMACY AND SEXUALITY IN
THE AGE OF SHAKESPEARE
JAMES M. BROMLEY
MiamiUniversity
cambridge university press
Cambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,
Singapore,Sa˜oPaulo,Delhi,Tokyo,MexicoCity
CambridgeUniversityPress
TheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridgecb28ru,UK
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781107015180
(cid:2)c JamesM.Bromley2012
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2012
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdata
Bromley,JamesM.,1978–
IntimacyandsexualityintheageofShakespeare/JamesM.Bromley.
p. cm.
Includesindex.
isbn978-1-107-01518-0(hardback)
1.Englishliterature–Earlymodern,1500–1700–Historyandcriticism. 2.Sexinliterature.
3.Intimacy(Psychology)inliterature. 4.Selfinliterature. 5.Homosexualityinliterature.
I.Title.
pr428.s48b76 2011
820.9(cid:3)353809031–dc23 2011043834
isbn978-1-107-01518-0Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceor
accuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredto
inthispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuch
websitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.
Contents
Listofillustrations pagevi
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction:Interiority,futurity,andaffectiverelationsin
Renaissanceliterature 1
1 IntimacyandnarrativeclosureinChristopherMarlowe’s
HeroandLeander 29
2 Afunnythinghappenedonthewaytothealtar:The
anus,marriage,andnarrativeinShakespeare 49
3 Socialstatusandtheintimacyofmasochisticsexual
practiceinBeaumontandFletcherandMiddleton 79
4 Nunsandnationhood:Intimacyinconventsin
Renaissancedrama 108
5 Femalehomoeroticism,race,andpublicformsofintimacy
intheworksofLadyMaryWroth 145
Epilogue:Invitationtoaqueerlife 179
Notes 186
Index 204
v
Illustrations
1. ThePassionatePilgrim(London,1599)signatureD5r–v.
ReproducedbypermissionoftheHuntingtonLibrary,San
Marino,California,andProQuest.Furtherreproductionis
prohibitedwithoutpermission.Imageproducedby
ProQuestaspartofEarlyEnglishBooksOnline. page21
2. England’sHelicon(London,1600)signatureAA1v–AA2v.
(cid:2)
C TheBritishLibraryBoard.Imagepublishedwith
permissionofProQuest.Furtherreproductionisprohibited
withoutpermission.ImageproducedbyProQuestaspart
ofEarlyEnglishBooksOnline. 22
vi
Acknowledgements
ItisperhapsaptthatabookaboutformsofaffectioninRenaissancetexts
should first pause to express my thanks for the relationships that have
sustainedmesincethisproject’sinceptionatLoyolaUniversityChicago.I
continuetoprofitimmeasurablyfromSuzanneGossett’srigorousreading
ofmyworkandheruniqueandindefatigablewayofpushingmetogrowas
ascholarandwriter.ChristopherCastiglia,amodelofclarityandinsight,
helped me to see what this project was actually about. With his broad
understandingofRenaissanceliteraryproduction,JamesBiesternurtured
the inclusion of non-dramatic texts of the period in this project. Jeffrey
Mastenunstintinglyofferedhisengagementwiththeworkonthisproject,
andmygratitudeforhisunflaggingencouragementandmentorshipofme
asascholaris,toadaptaphrase,toolittlepaymentforsogreatadebt.
AtMiamiUniversity,IamneverforgetfulofhowfortunateIamtohave
intelligentandsupportivecolleagues.Thisbookhasincalculablybenefitted
from my conversations with Katharine Gillespie, Elisabeth Hodges, and
other members of Miami’s interdisciplinary Early Modern Collective. I
am much obliged to Mary Jean Corbett and Kaara Peterson, who, with
keen eyes, proofread the text. At various stages, work on this project was
supported by a fellowship from the Arthur J. Schmitt Foundation and
by Summer Research and Assigned Research Appointments from Miami
University.
I also wish to extend my appreciation to the far-flung early modern
scholarswhohavehelpedshapethiswork.Avaluedinterlocutorandindis-
pensable friend, Will Stockton read the entire manuscript with the same
acuitythathedemonstratesinhisownwork,andthisbookandmythink-
ing about Renaissance sexuality are better because of him. I thank Gary
TaylorforpermissiontoconsulttheOxfordMiddletoneditionofTheNice
Valourpriortoitspublication.RichardStrierreadpartofChapter3inhis
capacityaseditorofModernPhilology,anditismuchimprovedasaresult.
Fran Dolan generously gave me constructive commentary on a draft of
vii
viii Acknowledgements
Chapter4.Atmanytimesandindifferentlocales,thoughtfulandfriendly
conversations with Will Fisher, Vin Nardizzi, and Michael Schoenfeldt
have invigorated my thinking about early modern literature. I have also
reapedmuchfromdiscussionbyaudiencesandseminarparticipantsatthe
Modern Language Association Convention; the annual meetings of the
Renaissance Society of America, the Shakespeare Association of America,
and the Group for Early Modern Cultural Studies; and the Elizabethan
TheatreConference.
IamgratefulforthesupportofSarahStantonatCambridgeUniversity
Press, and the comments from Rick Rambuss and an anonymous reader
have strengthened and enriched this book. Celeste Newbrough provided
theindex.
Finally,LauraLeMonehastaughtmemoreaboutthevarietiesofaffec-
tionthananyoneIhaveevermet.Forherpatienceandkindness,Idedicate
thisbooktoher.
PreviouslypublishedmaterialinChapter1isreprintedbypermissionof
the publishers from “‘Let it suffise’: sexual acts and narrative structure in
Hero and Leander”, in Queer Renaissance Historiography: Backward Gaze,
edited by Vin Nardizzi, Stephen Guy-Bray and Will Stockton. An earlier
versionofChapter3appearedas“SocialRelationsandMasochisticSexual
PracticeinTheNiceValour”inModernPhilology(2010).
note
WhereIamnotquotingfromamoderneditionofatext,Ihaveretained
earlymodernspellingandpunctuation.Forclarity,however,Ihavesilently
modernizedi/j,u/v,andlongs,andwheremacronsindicatethesuspension
ofaletterIhavere-insertedtheletter.
Introduction: Interiority, futurity, and affective
relations in Renaissance literature
failures of intimacy
In his 1583 The Anatomy of Abuses, Philip Stubbes famously charged that
1
drama taught audiences how to “play the Sodomits, or worse.” Stubbes’s
capacious “or worse,” I would suggest, refers to certain affective relations
thateventuallybecameillegibleundertherubricsofmodernintimacy.In
thisbook,Imapthecirculationofknowledgeaboutthesequeeraffections,
not only in the plays that Stubbes targets, but also in poetry and prose
writtenbetween1588and1625.Duringthesixteenthandseventeenthcen-
turies,theintimatespherecoalescedaroundrelationscharacterizedbytwo
elements: interiorized desire and futurity. Interiorized desire locates the
truthabouttheselfandsexualityinsidethebody,therebyorganizingand
limiting the body’s pleasures based on a hierarchized opposition between
depths and surfaces. Access to futurity involves the perceived sense of a
relationship’sdurationanditsparticipationinlegitimatesocialandsexual
reproduction. These changes, of which Stubbes’s charge is one of many
indices,laidthefoundationformodernunderstandingsofnormativeinti-
macy as coextensive with long-term heterosexual monogamy. Coupling,
and more specifically marriage, was invested with value as a site where
affection was desirable – as opposed to a primarily economic and politi-
cal arrangement with emotional bonds as a secondary concern – through
its figuration as the interpersonal relation with the proper combination
of interiorized desire and access to futurity. Other interpersonal relations
wereexcludedfromthecategory,becominginsteadwhatIcall“failuresof
intimacy,”despitebeingcharacterizedbyaffect,care,andpleasureforthose
involved,sometimestoagreaterdegreethanrelationstypicallyunderstood
asintimateinmodernWesternculture.
Nothing about the heterosexual couple inherently implies the auto-
matic presence of affect, care, or pleasure, any more than any other form
ofrelationality.YetmodernWesternculture’srelationaleconomyassumes
1