Horton, Shaun. “Of Pastors and
Petticoats: Humor and Authority in Puritan New England.” The New England Quarterly LXXXII.4 (2009): 608-36. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 23
Sept. 2011.
Summary of Horton’s
Argument
Shaun Horton employs the theories of
Henri Bergson and Sigmund Freud to explain how authors in Eighteenth Century
New England used humor to subvert social authority. After explaining Bergson’s and Freud’s theories which both
assert that jokes function to challenge systems of power, Horton explains that
the petticoat became a popular symbolic vehicle for such humor. He then presents a brief historical
background of the petticoat in England.
Adopted from French fashion trends, it became popular in Eighteenth
Century England. It soon became a
popular topic for sermons and satires alike as it threatened to expose
nakedness (with its propensity to tip with the wind), thwarted the shape of the
female body, and sent a mixed message about sexual accessibility (with the
lower body completely concealed by the wide skirt but also scantily clad
beneath it).
Horton next explains how popular humorous
texts in New England’s early years, such as the ballad “New England’s
Annoyances” (1640) and Nathaniel Ward’s The
Simple Cobbler (1647) were written to acknowledge Puritan identity rather
than challenge it. By targeting
England’s immoral behavior and juxtaposing it with New England’s values, the
satires promoted Puritan values.
For instance, Ward compared the hoop skirt to an English prison for
women. Horton then notes the shift
in humor in the second half of the eighteenth century. While humor once satirized corruption
in England, it later targeted Puritan pastors. In order to combat such “humor,” pastors such as Benjamin
Colman began to preach on mirth (proper versus improper mirth). Still, pastors who preached against
immodest dress and hoop petticoats continued to be the object of laughter. For example, a pamphlet by James
Franklin mocked Solomon Stoddard’s sermon against immodest dress. Texts such as these, Horton explains,
served to subvert the control Puritan pastors asserted over their
congregations.
Horton then explains other instances when
satire was used to undermine authority, including when young men would—against
pastoral advisement—read midwife’s books, laughing at the illustrations of
female anatomy, using the information to tease females and strip them of dignity. Horton ends by reemphasizing the power
of humor to undermine the authority of others, especially church leaders. Hooped petticoats provided not only
physical freedom for women (in their deviation from clingy underskirts), but
also freedom for authors to undermine the social order in their satires by
ridiculing those who took the petticoats seriously.
How It Works
Horton’s
article utilizes theories on humor to lay a foundation for his claim that the
humorous treatment of petticoats became a means for subverting authority in
Eighteenth Century New England.
His carefully constructed historical explanation regarding the
petticoat’s emergence in New England and his specific examples of
conversations—including books, poems, and sermons—which surround the petticoat
give his argument authority and depth.
Horton’s evidence includes primary texts, such as Franklin’s satire Hoop-Petticoats Arraigned and sermons
condemning petticoats, such as those by Solomon Stoddard.
While Horton was extremely thorough, I
believe that Horton could have left out the additional instances when
eighteenth century New England people used satire to undermine authority (such
as the young men who laughed at midwife’s manuals), because these seemed to
belong outside the scope of Horton’s article. In the beginning of the article, Horton seems to promise the
reader an analysis of laughter surrounding petticoats; yet in the end he gives
us more. Perhaps he could have
used this space to delve into some periodicals of the time period to strengthen
his analysis. After all,
petticoats were major objects of discussion in magazines of the time.
Relevance for my Project
First,
I could have seen myself going in this type of direction, as I was interested
in what purpose the satire served.
Now I know not to tread this exact path, as it has already been
taken. However, this article
helped me in several ways. First,
it provided me with more sources to examine. Second, it confirmed that I want to focus on
eighteenth-century (and now I know the implications of each half of the
century: the first half was more cordial satire—namely, it affirmed the Puritan
religious beliefs, while the second half subverted these beliefs).
Furthermore, I really enjoyed reading the
brief history of petticoats in New England, and this confirmed for me that I
want to focus on the petticoat as a physical material as well as what it
symbolized for women at the time.
I hold a particular interest in the whale-bone petticoat. I still do not have a clear direction,
but it is indeed clearer. I think I want to explore the idea of
confinement versus freedom, as the petticoat was portrayed as a paradox—on one
hand it provided a symbol of freedom for women, but on the other it was treated
as an object of confinement. I
need to make an appointment with my professor this week to unravel my idea more
fully.
