In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviews 151 Todd C. Parker. SexingtheText:TheRhetoric ofSexual DifferenceinBritish Literature, 1700-1750. Albany,N.Y.:The State U ofNewYorkP, 2000. 218 pp. $39.79 h/c,$17.95 p/b. ReviewedbyHans Turley ToddC. Parker'sSexingtheText:TheRhetoric ofSexualDifferenceinBritish Literature, 1700-1750examinesworksbysuch authorsas Swift, Pope,Haywood, and Clelandto showhow"From 1700 on...competing ideologiesofsexualityand sexual identity beginto givewayto an overriding constructofnaturalheterosexualitythatin its turndependson menand womenwho are rhetorically constituted as different from each other" (3). Parker drawsfrom theworkofscholarssuch as NancyArmstrong and RandolphTrumbach.He contendsthatan analysisofearlyeighteenth -century writers revealshow the distinction betweenthe sexualact (for example,sodomy) and theactor(thesodomite) was transformed intoa biological sexualidentity and subjectivity that is "natural"(theheterosexual) or "unnatural"(thehomosexual). "Iftheessentialnatureofseventeenth-century sexuality, particularlymale sexuality, is its 'sinfulness,'" Parkerargues,"bythe middleofthe eighteenth century thatessentialnaturehas becomeoneofbiological urgesandconspicuously noncultural sexual desires"(19). Parker's argument isnota newone,ofcourse. Since thepublication ofthefirst partofFoucault'sHistory ofSexuality, as wellas thepublication ofworkbysuch authorsas Armstrong, Jonathan Goldberg,Eve KosofskySedgwick,Trumbach,and GeorgeS. Rousseau, argumentsthathetero-or homosexuality are eithera modernconstruct or a universal,essential"nature" havebeendebatedwithin thescholarship ofstudiesofsexuality. Parker'spointhere,however, is thatbetween1660 (theRestoration )and 1750, "representations ofmasculinityand male sexualityconcernthemselves less and less withsubjectivevolitionoractivity , and morewithan essentially malestateofbeing, so thatcontextualmale sexuality, preciselybecause itcannotbe madeinterior tothesubjectand thus'natural, *can no longerrepresentan appropriately natural subjectivity" (22). This quote representswhat is bothoriginaland maddeningin the book: originalbecause Parkerrefusestosimplify through his readings themessyrelationship between constructed and biologicalsexuality ,maddening because Parkerrefusestowriteclearlyhisown interpretations ofthetextsthatlendcredencetohis thesis. To citejust one example,inhis analysisofPope's ToCobham (1734),hewrites a sentencethatcontains86 words(98). Parker's 152 TheJournal for Early Modem Cultural Studies at-timesconvoluted syntaxand relianceonjargonobscuresome ofthepotentially fineinsightsthatcan be foundinhisreadings. Ironically, Parkerexamines"therhetoric ofsexual difference," buthis ownrhetorical styleundermines hisanalyses. Theother maddening problem withthebookis thesparseevidencehe providesforhis thesis. He looksat thefirst Englishpopularpamphlettotreatmasturbation , Onania(1710?); threelesserknown Swift poems;Pope's ToCobhamand Toa Lady(1735); Haywood's obscure fictionPhiladoreand Placentia (1727); and Cleland's Memoirs ofa WomanofPleasure (1749) and Memoirs ofa Coxcomb (1751). By focusingon so fewprimary sources, Parker leaves theimpression ofan overdetermined thesis. He needs to be much moreinclusivein his choices and considerotherprimarysources tobolsterhis argument. Inhismostcompelling chapter, "Swift and thePolitical Anus," Parkerbegins by critiquing NormanO. Brown'sseminalessay "TheExcremental Vision. " Brown, hewrites, "has largely setthe toneforstudying whathave becomeknownas the'scatalogical' poems"(52). The effect has been that"thosepoemswhichdeal withexcremental anal eroticism nowstand,critically, forall expressionsofanal eroticism in Swift'sworks"(52). By showing thesodomitical imagery in"ASeriousPoemUponWilliam Wood" (1724), Parkeris able to argueconvincingly that"Swift's representationsofperverseanal sexualityencodesodomyas a potent and satiricalpoliticalforcecapable ofencompassingbothmale and femalefigures.... he also createsa complexpoeticnetworkwheregenderidentity , perversesexuality,and masculine politicsso intertwine thatmale sexual identity in Swift's poetry becomesa dangerously unstablesourceofpoliticalpower"(52). He then examines "Mad Mullinixand Timothy"(1728) and "Bounce to Fop" (1736), attributed to Swift. Allthreeofthese works,Parkerargues,showthat"Thefigure ofthesodomite is a richlytransformative one affording Swift articulations ofclass, gender,sexuality,and ethnicity thatredefine the politicaldynamicin whichhe wishestointervene" (80). In another effective chapter, Parker looks at Haywood's PhiladoreandPlacentiaand examineshowHay woodportrays the eunuch in thenovelinorderto showtheessentializing, biological , "natural"development ofheterosexuality.In a sweeping statement(sweepingsince,as Parkerpointsout,thisis notone ofHaywood'sbetter-known novels),he writes,"Rankand nobilitymarkthepassingoftheromance ;heterosexual difference heralds thearrivalofthenovel"(127). Again,as in his chapteron Swift,his close readingsare effective.The limitations of his Reviews 153 sources,however, makethereaderquestiontheir viability.Why onlyPhiladoreand Placentia? Whatotherfictions byHaywood couldhe analyze? WhataboutthenovelsofMaryHearne,orthe lateworkofDelarivierManley? Despite these quibbles,Parkerhas withSexingtheText written a provocative, interesting look at the sexual politicsof thefirst halfoftheeighteenth century.This bookis sure tobe read and talked about, particularly his analyses of Swiftand Haywood. Althoughthechaptersdo notall workas effectively as theycould,and at timesthelackofcohesivenessofthebook's structure revealsitslimitations, hisclosereadingsarewelldone, and thebook is a worthwhile additionto the scholarlydebates thatfocusoneighteenth-century sexuality, gayand lesbianstudies , and queertheory. ...

pdf

Share