英文摘要 |
In early modern England, one of the most pressing social problems was vagrancy. Unemployed and deprived, vagrants were not only considered rootless and disorderly, but associated and even conflated with dirt, pollution and peril that threatened to endanger the society. In popular literature, they were also portrayed as despicable and immoral criminals, threatening to endanger respectable society and the state. Although contemporaries’ perception of vagrants is generally negative, the representation of bedlam Diccon in Gammer Gurton’s Needle (c. 1560) seems far from typical in its light-hearted portrayal of his disorderly behavior. If the play downplays the negative implications of Diccon as a bedlam, critics replicate this tendency as well. In their reading, the kind of dirt and disorder usually associated with vagrants are attributed, instead, to the villagers, more specifically to Gammer Gurton and Dame Chat. This way, critics not only downplay the problem of vagrancy, but also reinforce a contemporary stereotype of woman, especially independent single woman, as the source of danger and disorder. It is the contention of this article that, while the play displaces anxiety about vagrancy onto the two housewives, such a displacement is facilitated by the conceptual conflation between women and vagrants, a conflation made possible by their common association with dirtiness and idleness. Ostensibly, early modern housewives had a close affinity with cleanliness because they were responsible for purifying their households from every kind of dirt and disorder. However, forced by their duty to have direct, frequent contact with waste matter, they also risked being polluted by it, which simultaneously rendered them suspect of idleness. From this perspective, the dirt and disorder in Gammer Gurton’s Needle represent not so much the two housewives’ idleness and incompetence as the very work that they struggle with everyday. Due to their intimate yet ambivalent relationship with dirt and disorder, they become easy targets for suspicion and censure, and are scapegoated for Diccon’s errant behavior. |