LHMP #440 Brown 2005 Jesting Rights: Women Players in the Manuscript Jestbook of Sir Nicholas Le Strange

“Jest books” and collections of short humorous tales were a staple of the 16th and 17th centuries. [Note: the genre has its roots even earlier, such as Walter Map’s 12th century “Courtiers Trifles.”]

This article looks at one particular example of this genre of recorded vocal performance that has far more evidence for female performance of jests than usual. The book is also unusual in the proportion of original contemporary material as opposed to “reprints” from previously published joke books.

The book was compiled by Nicolas L’Estrange, and includes an index where each anecdote is attributed to a specific person—presumably, the originator. The author’s mother, Alice, features prominently, and in all about 15% are attributed to women. [Note: that this is an unusually high proportion is telling.] Whether or not these attributions reflect authorship, or simply note “informants” (to use a sociological term) one can certainly class them as a type of “performer” on a private, domestic stage.

As noted, Alice L’Estrange is the most commonly cited, not simply among women, but overall. Much of the content is political satire with royalist sentiments (the collection having been compiled largely during the interregnum). The jokes are often scatological or bawdy, shedding interesting light on the private behavior of “respectable” women. Many make reference to class and ethnic stereotypes, and may use dialogue in dialect. Over half of Alice’s jests involve a female narrator or subject.

As an example of the type of jest source to Alice L’Estrange, I offer the following because it also has an interesting peek at contexts for women wearing male garments in the early 17th century.

The Bury Ladyes that usd [to go] Hawking and Hunting, were once in a great vaine of wearing Breeches; and some of them being at dinner one day at Sir Edward Lewkenors, there was one Mr Zephory, a very precise and a silenc’t minister, (who frequented that house much) and discourse being offered of fashions, he fell upon this and declaimed much against it; Rob[ert] Heighem a Joviall blade being there, he undertook to vindicate the Ladyes, and their fashion, as decent and such as might cover their shame: for says he, if an Horse throwes them, or by any mischance they get a fall, had you not better see them in their Breeches then Naked? [S]ayes the over-zealous man, in detestation of Breeches, O no, by no means[!] By my troth Parson, says Rob[ert] Heighem, and I commend thee for’t, for I am of thy mind too.

[My commentary: The backbone of the joke is that in his zeal for disapproving of cross-gender clothing, the uptight parson is tricked into proclaiming his desire to be an “upskirt” Peeping Tom, which the trickster then heartily supports as an outcome. Setting this aside, we have several observations. Well-born women might choose to wear breeches under their skirts when participating in horseback activities such as hunting and falconry. The implied purpose of this fashion (since the breeches would normally be hidden) is modesty in case of accident during this active pursuit. One could speculate that breeches might also enable a woman to ride astride. Women’s underpants were still a novelty in this era (perhaps more common in southern Europe). When riding side-saddle, the skirts would prevent contact with the saddle, but if riding astride, one might want breeches for comfort. But viewing this anecdote in the context of the “hic mulier” controversies around cross-gender fashions, we can see how religious disapproval of anything resembling cross-gender behavior can take no consideration of even a higher moral purpose in adhering to strict rules. Though, of course, the parson may also disapprove generally of women participating in active sports. And many of the cross-gender fashions criticized in pamphlets are clearly just fashion statements, though perhaps with an underlying layer of masculine power being fashionable.]