I remember, a few months ago, there was an exchange of correspondence in the Opinion Column of The Island between a couple of readers about what is decent or not decent in the way some Sri Lankan women dress themselves, and the controversy eventually petered out; it appeared all over and done with. However, in the recent weeks there seems to have been a revival of interest in the subject.
Probably it betrays a lingering fascination with the topic of women’s attire. The nature of this apparent enchantment has both positive and negative aspects. Personally I don’t have anything original or interesting or useful to say about the matter. Nonetheless my attention was caught by what I would suspect to be a trace of possible bias against women in the collective treatment of the subject, though it is cunningly couched as light-hearted banter (though not all those who have commented on the subject can be said to be guilty of such an attitude).
There is a popular a piece of wisdom, especially among men themselves, that some men condemn in public any deliberate or inadvertent display of nudity or supposed wantonness or erotic insouciance in women which they would indulgently connive at in private. I don’t at all want to suggest that any of those who wrote critically about the question under discussion are guilty of such hypocrisy. Yet the risk of being suspected of some degree of hypocrisy is a realistic possibility that people who venture to express their opinions about a hush-hush topic like this including me cannot avoid. Not that it matters.
Some women, like some men, exhibit a poor dress sense, and upset others for that reason. Whatever it is, there is reason to believe that our society prefers to observe a critical point beyond which women are not expected to dress down, if they are allowed to dress down at all by their family or community, which restriction does not seem to apply to men at all. Apparently, dressing up has no such limit for either gender.
What I am writing here should not be taken as an attack on someone, or a challenge of some point of view. It is just a reflection on a state of affairs that has prevailed, properly disguised of course, in human society at least for centuries, if not for millennia.
The exchange of views about women’s attire led my mind to an instance where the subject is treated in classical English literature. I decided to share with my readers two delightful short lyrics from 17th century English poetry: Ben Jonson’s (1573-1637) ‘Still to be neat…’, and Robert Herrick’s (1591-1674) ‘Delight in Disorder’. (Texts of the poems reproduced below are from A Book of English Poetry Collected by G.B.Harrison (Penguin Books. First published 1937). But first, let me provide a little bit of background information to facilitate understanding of the poems, for the social context in England in which these poets wrote, and the existential realities they took for granted, no longer exist even for English people today. It is also useful to be aware that certain key words which may seem familiar to a modern reader could mean something different from their modern denotations.
Both these poets were junior contemporaries of the famous William Shakespeare (1564-1616), who was a dramatist and a poet. However, Shakespeare is identified with the Elizabethan period, and Jonson and Herrick with the Jacobean and the Cavalier periods (the 17th century) when it comes to talking about the history of English literature.
Though Herrick was eighteen years junior to Jonson they were closely associated with each other in their literary pursuits. Jonson was a poet and a dramatist of repute; Herrick became his fan and pupil. This teacher pupil duo enjoyed many a “lyrick feast” in taverns. (It was normal at that time for artists and men of letters to meet in pubs to have learned discussions.) Their “lyrick feasts” were (needless to add, both literally and metaphorically) spirited conversations about art and literature. A common theme among 17th century poets is the hedonistic view that the most important thing in life is to enjoy to the fullest the present moment without worrying too much about the future, as expressed in Herrick’s well known line “Gather ye rose-buds while ye may”.
This is called the carpe diem theme: “carpe diem quam minimum credula postero” is a line from the ancient Latin poet Horace (65-8 BCE) which in English means “Enjoy the present day, trust the least possible to the future” (Chambers Dictionary). Such ideas were probably due to the uncertainties and apprehensions about what was yet to come for most people in that time of political instability at home (mainly characterized by the tussle between the King and the Parliament), and to the inevitable undermining of the sense of security guaranteed by traditional religious faith as a result of expanding horizons of scientific knowledge and rational thought.
Nevertheless the contemporary society was a highly ordered one. And it was a men’s world. Women were treated as naturally inferior in intelligence and strength of character to men. Another related point is that the time had not yet come when ordinary men and women began to be considered as proper subjects for treatment in literature. Poets wrote about the lives of lords and ladies. Women (of high class) generally figured as objects of beauty, love and romance. They were immaculately dressed; women covered themselves in flowing robes, and much finery. But since people were, unlike today, usually unaware of the causes of diseases, and the importance of personal cleanliness for good health, they were satisfied with very little washing! Poor hygiene led to outbreaks of illness among the population. Allusions to venereal disease abound, especially in Elizabethan poetry.
Let us now look at Ben Jonson’s “Still to be neat…” whose original title was “Simplex Munditiis” (another phrase from Horace which means “elegant in simplicity”). It was first published in 1609.
Still to be neat, still to be dressed,
As you were going to a feast;
Still to be powdered, still perfum’d;
Lady, it is to be presum’d,
Though art's hid causes are not found,
All is not sweet, all is not sound.
Give me a look, give me a face,
That makes simplicity a grace;
Robes loosely flowing, hair as free:
Such sweet neglect more taketh me
Than all the adulteries of art;
They strike mine eyes, but not my heart.
The poet is apparently saying to the elaborately dressed woman here that she might be trying to hide some unpalatable truth about herself (like sexual promiscuity) by dressing up like that; as far as he is concerned, an plainly attired woman in “Robes loosely flowing, hair as free:” with a touch of “sweet neglect” would be more alluring; such simplicity will take his heart more readily than all “the adulteries of art”.
The four times repeated “still” in the first stanza means “always” in modern English. The repetition registers the poet’s censure of the woman’s apparent preoccupation with dressing up. Is it to be assumed that there is some not so sweet, not so sound secret that she is trying to conceal under an attractive exterior? She might be an immoral woman who is even carrying venereal disease. The impersonality of “…it is to be presum’d…” suggests that such a negative judgment is unavoidable in these circumstances; it is not a matter of personal preferences; the poet is taking a hard objective look at this deceptive show! He will not be taken in by such a sham. He is not impressed by “all the adulteries of art” which, though appealing to his eye, will not move his heart. The simplicity he asks for is found in “such sweet neglect” as seen in “Robes loosely flowing, hair as free”. The word “art” is used in both stanzas. In “Though art’s hid causes are not found” art may mean either creation of beauty or crafty conduct; the same ambiguity is repeated in the recurrence of the word in the second stanza; but the phrase “adulteries of art” is a direct reference to the features of her make-up which are designed to invite an adulterous response from men.
Women’s vulnerability to accusations of impropriety or even immorality in the matter of dress in a male dominant society, especially when traditional social mores are deemed threatened, is not a new thing.
Below is Robert Herrick’s “Delight in Disorder” published in 1648.
A sweet disorder in the dress
Kindles in clothes a wantonness:
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction:
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthrals the crimson stomacher:
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribbands to flow confusedly:
A winning wave (deserving note)
In the tempestuous petticoat:
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility:
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.
Robert Herrick’s lines above differ somewhat from Jonson’s in tone as well as in theme. The latter’s rather dispassionate dismissal of “the adulteries of art” in favour of a woman being “elegant in simplicity” forms a fine contrast to Herrick’s presumably fatal attraction to a “sweet disorder in the dress” (of a beautiful woman). Though the tendency to represent women as a source of potential danger is common to both poets, the menacing manifestation of that potential is differently viewed. Whereas Jonson perceives possible/almost real treachery where
Herrick detects it in the apparent nonchalance of the way the woman is dressed: “A sweet disorder in the dress – Kindles in clothes a wantonness”; the scarf is thrown into a fine distraction (something that distracts you or makes you crazy); the erring lace …enthrals (enslaves) the crimsonstomacher (a separate piece of cloth for the centre front of a bodice); A cuff neglectful …Ribbands to flow confusedly ; a winning wave… in thetempestuous (stormy, violent) petticoat; a careless shoestring in whose tie the poet sees a wild civility… All the words that I have underscored above help conjure the image of a woman who is far from being a submissive, demure character before males, contrary to what traditional norms of propriety would demand. Instead, the “sweet disorder” that Herrick delights in seems to imply a promise of sexual abandon of the same kind (obviously not looked kindly upon in the strictly conservative, puritanical, male chauvinist 17th century English society).
This interpretation of the two short lyrics and their appropriation in this context are entirely mine, though my reading of the poems has been naturally influenced by what other commentators have written about them. However, it represents only one of the many different ways in which they could be creatively experienced by discerning readers.
I feel that these two specimens of lyrical poetry, despite their obvious literary worth, embody a warped view of women in society and that this idea is likely to be an essential strand in the fabric of any critical text produced on them. On a more positive note, I may add that the poems also represent two delightfully elegant responses to a display of female beauty through dress in a world where “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”.
Rohana R.Wasala
No comments:
Post a Comment