"A boy."

Holly's question about gender and hermaphadotical relations makes me think in Judith Butler-ian terms about the character of Epicoene and gender representations in the play overall. How is gender constructed in Jonson's world? Is there gender essence, such that Epicoene is always a boy? (And, at the level of acting and a staged performance, his always-already being a boy actor anyway?). Or is it a matter of gender performance? Characters do, after all, express desire for Epicoene based on that character's behaved and performed gender. How is this distinction complicated by the charges against "real" women in the play? Otter rants against his wife, "All her teeth were made i'the Blackfriars, both her eyebrows i'the Strand, and her hair in Silver Street. Every part o'the town owns a piece of her" (4.2.93-6). We see Truewit express similar sentiments in Acts 1 and 4. Of course these women are "put together" at the level of cosmetic-purchasers and as boy actors. What purpose does Jonson's so blatantly pulling the peruke off of a central, settled stage convention serve then? When and how can gender be unperformed?

Jonson takes the role of satirist to a new level with Epicoene. In the first Prologue, Jonson says he wishes to "not please the cooks' tastes, but the guests'" (9). Yet he complicates this metaphor by essentially saying, "I'm going to serve you many dishes," suggesting that the audience's tastes differ from his. Of course the audience realizes--with one pull on the peruke--how much Jonson's tastes differ. If satire is a feast, who else besides Jonson enjoys the bitter dessert? Which character's taste, if any, corresponds with Jonson's? If satire's aim is to inspire reform, what social group(s) feels the most shame and need for reform? Is the satire totalizing?