“Rich like a Lady”: Cross-Class Dressing in the Brothels and Theaters of Early Modern London

Abstract

Recent scholarly work on the signifying power of clothing in early modern London has analyzed its erotic potential, but scholars generally have focused on cross-gender, rather than cross-class dressing.1 Specifically, much critical attention has been paid to the cultural anxieties created by men cross-dressing to impersonate women on the stage.2 When literary critics have studied female dress during this era, they often have focused on the threat to male authority posed by women cross-dressing as men.3 Cross-gender dress is of obvious interest to literary scholars since it reflects the theatrical practice of the boy actor and the device of the cross-dressed female, two significant elements of the drama of this era. Early modern English drama, however, also represents the practice of cross-class dressing by which men and women who dressed in opulent clothes passed for persons of higher social status. Archival evidence suggests that-at least among the middling sort who appeared in sexual-transgression cases before the Bridewell Court-cross-class dressing was a more prevalent practice among actual women in early modern London than cross-gender dressing.4 The same overtly theatrical, erotically stimulating, and disturbingly deceptive techniques of costuming, which scholars have studied with respect to men on the early modern stage, were being used by women in off-stage performances.5The most thoroughly documented instances of female cross-class dressing in early modern London take place in the context of illicit sexual activity. For example, Elizabeth Reignoldes, wife of a saddler, appeared before the Bridewell Court in August 1599 to testify against Mistress Miller and Mistress Wilkinson, who were accused of bawdry. Reignoldes describes how:. . . when she came first to Mistress Millers house the said Mistress Miller caused this examinate [i.e., witness] to putt on a crimson damask petticote of white and redd and a great farthingale covered over with yellow cotton and a rough velvett gowne with a payre of satten sleeves cutt with a here trayne cutt and a rabata [a type of fashionable standing collar] imbrodered with white flowers of needlework with a border of gold buttons with a white zer [a type of hat] uppon her head at whiche tyme [she had sexual relations with one of the Lord Chamberlain's men and Mistress Miller received half of her payment] . . . And this examinate saieth further that Mistress Wilkinson did usually send for her this examinate to her house when any gentlemen or cittizens did come to her house and this examinate went and, when she came thither, the sayd Mistress Wilkinson would most comonly take her and lead her upp into a chamber where a gentleman should be staying using theis wordes saying, I have brought you a gentlewoman that wanteth for that she hath an old man to her husband, and then Mistress Wilkinson would go downe agayne . . . the gentleman had the use and carnall knowledge of this examinate's body and most comonly this examinate had 4 shillings, 5 shillings, 6 shillings or 10 shillings. . . . (Bridewell Hospital Court Minute Books IV, fol. 101) 6Since the records note that her husband is a saddler, Reignoldes is no gentlewoman but plays the role of one in order to service the Lord Chamberlain's men, gentlemen, or citizens at Mistress Miller's and Mistress Wilkinson's houses. The sumptuous clothing Reignoldes wore at Mistress Miller's house, which is described in particular detail in the testimony, falsified Reignoldes's rank through dress for the benefit of her potential partner. Likewise, Mistress Wilkinson's assertion to the gentleman client that Reignoldes was a gentlewoman in need of occupying (a euphemism for sexual activity) suggests another instance when Reignoldes performed as someone above her class. Both bawds seem intent to match their clients with a woman who appears to be of an equivalent social status to them-or at least one who can play that role successfully for them. …