Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25751418
Online Users : 179
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Hic Mulier, Haec Vir: Women's Fashion and the Gender Controversy in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century England|
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century England;Cross-dressing;Mix and Match;Clothing;Gender
|Issue Date: ||2018-11-23 18:36:30 (UTC+8)|
|Abstract: ||約從十六世紀下半葉起至十七世紀上半葉，英格蘭女性流行在上半身混搭男性服飾，跨越了傳統性別與服飾分隔的界線。此行為不但引發時人強烈的批判，也帶動此時期英格蘭文人對性別與服飾的雙重辯論，其高潮是1620年的「陽剛女／陰柔男爭議」（hic mulier/haec vir controversy，或稱「變裝爭議」〔transvestite controversy〕）。本文以歐洲服飾發展歷程，及十六、十七世紀英格蘭法律、經濟與社會特性為背景，討論女性混搭男裝之風興起的原因，並以當時回應此社會現象的文獻與圖像為主要材料，探討當時評論者如何描述及詮釋這類男裝女性（man-clothed women）的行為與樣貌，尤其是1620年爭議中的論述。本文之目的在瞭解十六、十七世紀服飾與性別彼此定義的關係，並指出服飾秩序的建構，其實就是性別秩序的維護；論者也透過論述的過程，重建傳統上下分明的男女關係。|
It became fashionable for English women to adopt masculine attire in their upper bodies during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and therefore crossed the traditional divide of the two sexes in their garments. Women's new style of dress provoked adverse comments during that period, and aroused dual debate fervently on gender and clothing, which climaxed in the hic mulier/ haec vir controversy (or transvestite controversy) in 1620. This article will discuss the reasons behind this peculiar English female fashion, with the considerations of the development of European dress during the medieval and early modern periods, and the legal, economic and cultural characteristics of English society during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Then, it focuses on the writings and images of those ＂man-clothed women,＂ especially the debate in 1620, so as to understand the polemists' anxiety and their interpretation of this social phenomenon. As a whole, it intends to explore the relationship between dress and gender, and to inquire how and to what extent, clothing defined gender, and vice versa. Moreover, it investigates the change of themes from clothing to the nature of the female sex in this debate, showing the insistence that traditional identity of male/female or masculinity/femininity should not be confused by changeable fashions.
|Relation: ||台大文史哲學報, No.89, pp.151-206|
|Data Type: ||article|
|DOI 連結: ||http://dx.doi.org/10.6258/bcla.201804/PP.0001|
|Appears in Collections:||[歷史學系] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.