"Homoadventuring" -- I like the sound of that
There are some historians whose field of interest overlaps the focus of the Project very solidly. Susan Lanser is one of them. I have 13 publications under her name in my database and have now blogged 10 of them. I have another in my files, but two are yet to be tracked down. And I should probably hunt down her full bibliography and see what else I haven't stumbled across yet. In fact, now that I've asked mysefl the question the only authors who come close are Valerie Traub with 12 (7 blogged) and Marthia Vicinus with 11 (7 blogged), though there are a handful in the 8-10 publications range. Sorry, I can't help counting things!
Major category: LHMPTags: LHMP LHMP #502 Lanser 2001b Sapphic Picaresque About LHMP Full citation:Lanser, Susan. 2001. “Sapphic Picaresque: Sexual Difference and the Challenges of Homoadventuring” in Textual Practice 15:2 (November 2001): 1-18.
In this article, Lanser examines the intersection of changing conceptions of sexual difference (i.e., the difference between male and female) and changing attitudes toward sexuality in the 18th century, specifically with regard to how female homosexuality plays a part in these processes. Various theories have identified the 18th century as an inflection point, with Laqueur claiming it as the era when “sex as we know it was invented,” various authors including Trumbull identifying it as when male homosexuality became an identifiable identity, and Foucault as the beginning of institutional concern over how people used their sexuality. But Lanser argues that most of this work is disrupted and complicated when women’s sexuality, and especially female homoeroticism, is given adequate consideration. For example, rather than Hitchcock’s assertion that the changing nature of heterosexuality caused a change in f/f relations from “mock heterosexual” to “romantic,” Lanser suggests that changing images of female homosexuality may have been a cause rather than a result of other changes.
For this article, Lanser focuses specifically on England, the 18th century, and the genre of “sapphic picaresque” to illustrate her interrogation of the principles proposed in Michael McKeon’s “Historicizing Patriarchy: The Emergence of Gender Difference in England, 1660-1760.” McKeon connects the emergence of “modern patriarchy” in England with changes to ideas about class and sexuality. The change from viewing sex difference as a matter of hierarchy (women are inferior men, i.e., the “one-sex” model) to difference (men and women are a different species, i.e., the “two-sex” model) he argues connected to the emergence of the system of heterosexuality, which then automatically presupposes the existence of homosexuality. The increasing importance of identity based on sex, was accompanied by a shift in class identity from being based on familial inheritance to being based on socioeconomic status. The disruption of class identity is then stabilized by the importance of gender difference. As class becomes more mobile and permeable, gender (in the form of gender performance) becomes more rigidly enforced.
But Lanser points out that women don’t figure very strongly in McKeon’s theory—something particularly evident when considering same-sex topics. McKeon follows Trumbach in asserting that in the 18th century it was assumed that sapphic women also desired men, and therefore did not disrupt patriarchal dynamics. But this position rests on the erroneous conclusion that lesbianism had, historically been ignored as unproblematic. Here Lanser summarizes work on medical theories of sapphic anatomy and legal records of prosecutions. Earlier medical/anatomical theories of sapphic desire relied on the image of “masculinized” bodies—bodies that fell more toward the male side on the sliding scale of “one-sex” anatomy. But establishing the “two-sex” model that denied any overlap between male and female removed the basis for a physiological distinction between sapphic and non-sapphic female bodies. In the 18th century, this shift occurred in parallel with the rise in celebration of female intimate attachments. And in this context, there arose a literary genre that Lanser names “sapphic picaresque” at the same time that male homoerotic culture was manifesting as “molly culture” and generating its own cultural backlash. The space opened for sapphic picaresque texts was brief and was followed by an era of compulsory heterosexuality, manifesting not only in personal relationships but in an entire social structure of women positioned in complementary roles to men. Within sapphic relationships, this pressure returned to positioning female same-sex desire as “masculine”—not in terms of biology this time, but in terms of behavioral attributes.
The “sapphic picaresque” genre as defined by Lanser involves a same-sex connection within a non-domestic context, especially involving movement. It tends to have an episodic structure and presents the illusion of a realistic “true narrative.” Drawing from the traditional picaresque genre, the protagonist often fits the “loveable rogue” image—morally ambiguous and unconventional. The protagonists challenge not only the patriarchal status quo but interplay between class and sexuality.
Examples of the proposed genre include:
Daniel Defoe “The Apparition of Mrs. Veal” 1706 Delarivier Manley New Atalantis 1709 Giles Jacob Tractus de Hermaphroditus: Or, A Treatise of Hermaphrodites 1718 Eliza Haywood The British Recluse 1722 Jane Barker “The Unaccountable Wife” (in Patch-work Screen for the Ladies) 1723 Anonymous “Epistle from Signora F—a to a Lady” 1727 Giovanni Bianchi Breve Storia della Vita di Catterina Vizzani Romana 1744 Charlotte Charke Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Charlotte Charke 1755 Anonymous Travels and Adventures of Mademoiselle de Richelieu 1744The common features include a f/f relationship that is both primary and chosen, though not necessarily sexual, presented as a viable alternate to marriage, not simply as “second-best.” If the story involves cross-dressing, it does not exist to provide plausible deniability for the same-sex relationship (in contrast to works like Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, Lyly’s Gallathea, or Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure). The same-sex desire is not negated or replaced by heterosexuality. And the plot involves movement and adventure. (This contrasts with sapphic poetry of the same era, which has a more static setting.) Movement through the world enables the protagonists to interact with additional women, not just each other, sometimes as women and sometimes in male disguise—at which they are always successful. These romantic encounters undermine the idea of fixed gender identities—indeed, undermining the nascent “separate species” theory of sexual difference.
This brief literary fashion points out that the course of social attitudes towards sapphic themes is erratic and contradictory. Historians have identified periods of hostility both before and after the era of the “sapphic picaresque,” and it was coincident with other genres of literature that showed similar hostility, such as the rise of anti-masturbation tracts. This makes the admiring and even celebratory nature of sapphic picaresque works even more striking.
Lanser argues that one thing enabling this acceptance is the presentation of the texts as personal narratives, framing their characters as central and even heroic, either using first person narration or a sympathetic observer. The existing theme of the morally ambiguous “picaro” figure gives the characters license to step outside social norms. But in addition, this admiration is allowed by being cagy about the erotic nature of the women’s relationship. It might be alluded to, or explicitly danced around, or denied in an over-the-top “wink-wink” manner, or simply identified as “unaccountable.” The cause of their preference for women’s company is vague, though their aversion to heterosexual marriage may be made explicit. The narratives leave large open spaces for speculation and imagination.
At the same time, the old one-sex model was flailing, in part from arguments that if there is no qualitative difference between men and women, then attraction between men and women is not solidly linked to difference, but could be experienced between similar types. And if women—ordinary women—can be attracted to other women, if they can have the experiences, feelings, and desires depicted in the picaresque texts, then perhaps men aren’t necessary to them. This represents a clear danger to patriarchal structures. A new concept of sexual difference was necessary to reinforce heterosexuality as normal and inevitable, with new arguments against the viability of same-sex attraction. In mid-century, we begin to see texts that echo the picaresque genre while redirecting the resolution, such as Henry Fielding’s The Female Husband. Mary Hamilton could have been a picaresque heroine, but fails and is punished for the attempt. Furthermore, she is framed as having inevitably failed due to the inability of a woman to successfully carry out a gender-crossing adventure. The English translation of Bianchi’s life of Catherine Vizzani adds an epilogue criticizing and condemning her, where the Italian original had been fairly neutral (if bewildered). Novels turn to emphasizing the insufficiency of f/f desire (Fanny Hill) or its menacing nature (Pamela, Sir Charles Grandison) and poetic jabs at sapphic desire label it unnatural (Satan’s Harvest Home, The Sapho-an). These works may not be responding directly to the sapphic picaresque, but clearly represent a shift in the zeitgeist. Even within conduct literature, there come reminders that women’s friendships must give way to marital fidelity.
Among the forces contributing to the “separate spheres” model of sexual difference are—ironically—Enlightenment ideals of equality. If women, as human beings, have a claim to equal social and political rights with men, just as they have an equal potential for sexually desiring women, then some new argument must be made in order to stabilize patriarchal hierarchies. This new argument boils down to “separate but equal”—yes, women are equal to men, but only in fulfilling their entirely separate functions. Functions that are private, domestic, and centered around being useful and pleasing to men.
But which are the chickens and which are the eggs in this complex of forces and effects? Lanser speculates that discourse around sapphism rises in response to specific types of changes in gender relations, especially women’s social, cultural, and economic mobility. And given that this mobility is associated with national power, in the 18th century it manifests most in the great international powers of England, France, and the Netherlands. (Although Lanser does acknowledge that this may be an illusion due to differences in the amount and depth of historic research into sexuality history.) In this era, women’s social mobility is tied to sexuality: upward mobility through marriage, downward mobility through sexual transgression. And sexual propriety becomes a major signifier of gentry class identity. (See Lanser 1998 https://alpennia.com/lhmp/publication/6813) Sapphic discourse becomes a means of managing one aspect of female propriety by defining the performative boundaries of acceptable same-sex affective behaviors. But those very boundaries then become a means for manipulating the acceptability of same-sex relationships, regardless of their underlying nature.
But sapphic picaresque narratives are a background of instability for these principles. They destabilize official principles of sexual desire. They deny that gender can be fixed and known. And they suggest that even biological sex may be irrelevant. They offer alternate modes of economic and social mobility (due to escaping the restrictions of gender), and if mobility and disguise can successfully transcend gender boundaries, they can clearly transcend boundaries of birth and status. They make clear the economic basis for romantic freedom, placing significant emphasis on the financial arrangements necessary for female couples to be successful, at the same time pointing out how heterosexual marriage relies on female economic dependency for its success.
Time period: 18th cPlace: EnglandMisc tags: emotional /romantic bonds between womenEvent / person: The New Atalantis (Mary Delarivier Manley)Tractatus de Hermaphroditus or a Treatise of Hermaphrodites (Giles Jacob)The British Recluse (Eliza Haywood)The Unaccountable Wife (Jane Barker)An Epistle from SIgnora F-a to a LadyThe True History and Adventures of Catharine Vizzani / Breve storia della vita di Catterina Vizzani (Giovanni Battista Bianchi)Charlotte CharkeThe Travels and Adventures of Mademoiselle de Richelieu (Erskine)Twelfth Night (William Shakespeare)Gallathea (John Lyly)The Convent of Pleasure (Margaret Cavendish)The Female Husband (Henry Fielding)Pamela (Samuel Richardson)The History of Sir Charles Grandison (Samuel Richardson)Satan’s Harvest HomeThe Sappho-an View comments (0)
