Cuckolds and Shaming Rituals

Student guest page by Molly McLaughlin, University of Massachusetts Boston

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the etymology of the term “cuckold” to 1250, but it was still relevant in the 17th and 18th centuries in England, where it referred to the husband of an adulterous woman. That the term describing this relationship applies to the husband implies much about the nature of social treatment of instances of infidelity in marriages. A man who was unable to regulate his wife’s behavior was held responsible for making himself a cuckold, though her actions precipitated the branding, and this seems to have sparked near obsession in many marriages. This instability could, in theory, translate to the community in general, and in many cases public action was taken to discourage similar behavior in the future. Literary texts provide stylized accounts of cuckold shaming by which a cuckold was revealed and ridiculed, an example for others to monitor their wives’ behavior.

The division of the public and private spheres is, in this area of study, ill-defined. What should be an extremely private matter, fidelity in marriage, is translated into the public forum, where it is commented upon and judged by seemingly unconcerned neighbors and officials. It seems that the overlap between the spheres allowed onlookers to exaggerate a fairly private matter into a subversive exploit that undermined the larger system. As it was the family unit, not the individuals involved, that would be shamed, the logic of punishing the cuckold for his wife’s behavior is sound. Potential for further social upheaval would have been greatly feared by other members of a cuckold’s community, as his home was now an unstable link that might strain others in close proximity to him. The transgression of a treacherous wife was a matter of national concern, as it placed her in a position of power over her husband, violating the patriarchal ideal on which social decorum relied.(1) Similar punishments were inflicted on cuckolds as on men whose wives beat them, indicating that “when a wife beat her husband or in some other noteworthy way proved that she wore the breeches,” it was in disregard for the patriarchal system that should have defined their relationship.

While they are mostly light and comical, cuckold-shaming ballads generally contain warnings and lessons for adulterous women and husbands unable to regulate their conduct. A particularly humorous ballad, entitled “The Lancashire Cuckold : or, The country parish-clark betray’d by a conjurer’s inchanted chamber-pot” features a suspicious husband, already a cuckold, who enlists the help of a Conjurer to prove his wife’s infidelity. At the advice of the Conjurer, the cuckold hides himself away from home while an enchanted chamber pot is placed in the room now shared by his wife and her lover. By the end of the ballad, the treacherous pair is “stuck fast” to the pot, along with the cuckold’s daughter and a local tailor, and all are forced to dance naked three times around the tree where the cuckold hides before they are free. While in this case it is the lovers who are most shamed, the husband’s business has now been revealed to the community at large.

Class, while not apparently significant in the making of cuckolds, played an important role in determining the manner in which they were treated in ballads. The protagonist in the previous example was a farmer, of fairly modest social standing, and it is interesting to compare his plight to that of an older Tradesman exposed to London society. “The London Cuckold: or An antient citizens head well fitted with a flourishing pair of fashionable horns, by his buxome young wife…” is a clear warning to would be cuckolds, in which a husband rides out to “take the air,” and is immediately made a cuckold by his young wife and a visiting Gallant. He remains in ignorance for months, until he begins to sprout horns, according to familiar cuckold fashion, and his wife finds she is inexplicably pregnant, then all is revealed. There is no lighthearted trip to the pub at the close of “The London Cuckold,” rather readers are left with his renewed vow to be more watchful of his wife’s actions, lest she fall to temptation again. This ballad gave rise to a reply or “Answer to the London Cuckold .  In all three ballads the wives are laughably quick to call upon lovers in their husbands’ absences, and in this second example the ultimate price is paid. The cuckold’s horns clearly indicate his foolishness and leniency with his wife, and her child will certainly raise questions, considering her husband’s age.

A third ballad approaches the issue from an interesting perspective, as a gathering of cuckolds preemptively share their stories in a pub, laughing at themselves and each other in high spirits. “The Catalogue of Contented Cuckolds: or A loving society of confessing brethren of the forked order…” contains condensed stories, told by the cuckolds themselves. While they are certainly shamed by having been cuckolded, these men are hardly shy in sharing their stories. Each verse ends with a variation of the phrase, “But I swear by this Glass of rich sparkling Wine, / I will not be contented and never repine,” indicating that they have accepted their identities as cuckolds. Their number is substantial, and the implicit warning seems to be that each in tolerating his wife’s behavior seals the fate of more cuckolds. The cuckolds’ club is the author’s representation of crumbling social standards, and even the levity of the piece cannot detract from that intention. It is interesting to note the last lines of the piece, which fit nicely into the discussion of the previous ballad. The cuckolds agree that they will “...never complain, / There is better than we that are Cuckolds in grain,” and thereby reinforce the idea that a cuckold’s social status informs how he may expect to be treated. These tradesmen have not far to fall socially, and if they must be cuckolds, they are glad at least that they were not ruined entirely in being so.

William Wycherley’s comedy, The Country Wife explores more fully the anxious preoccupation suspicious husbands experienced in regards to their wives behavior. Early in the play, Sir Jasper Fidget expresses this agitation when he says, “ ‘Tis as much a husband’s prudence to provide innocent diversion for a wife as to hinder her unlawful pleasures; and he had better employ her than let her employ herself”(3). The women in the play are constantly put upon to perform various duties and tasks, always under the jealous eyes of their husbands and male relatives, always with the fear that they will find some other way to “employ” themselves. Just as the composers of ballads seem to assume that a woman left home for a moment will immediately summon a lover to replace her husband, Wycherley plays on the husbands’ worry that a woman allowed to find her own entertainment will eventually turn to immoral action. Virtually every husband in the play is made a cuckold at some point by the duplicitous Mr. Horner, but none ever come to know their state, concealed as it is by the women’s consensus. In this way, although no public shaming occurs within the confines of the play, the male characters and the real men they may represent are shamed by the composition and performance of the play itself. Wycherley uses the publicity of performance to place cuckolds before an audience, altering the ballad format to great effect. Mr. Sparkish, a caricature of charlatan cavalier wit, points out that “you shall hardly see a fool upon the stage but he’s a knight,” indicating that Wycherley is specifically targeting the aristocratic cuckolds without explicitly naming them.(4)

1. Martin Ingram, ”Ridings, Rough Music and Mocking Rhymes in Early Modern England” in Popular culture in seventeenth century England, ed. Barry Reay (N.Y., 1985), p. 174.

2.  Ibid, p. 169.

3.  William Wycherley, The Country Wife in Restoration Plays, ed. Brice Harris (N.Y., 1953), p. 64.

4.  Ibid., p. 95.

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.