Abstract

Abstract:

Roughly two decades ago, critics reoriented the central position of Christopher Marlowe's Edward the Second in discussions of sixteenth-century eroticism by clarifying important differences between sexuality and gender, dismissing transvestism as a sincere marker of homoerotic desire in the period's drama. Critics have continued to rehearse this dismissal under the curious assumption that if cross-dressing does not necessarily signify homoeroticism, then it simply does not signify it at all. This article returns to the anchor text for this thesis, asking whether certain cases of early modern theatrical playing show gender and sexuality consubstantiating in more complicated ways than previously thought.

pdf

Share