Advertisement

Conclusion: Early Modern Fantasies and Contemporary Realities

  • Lindsey Row-Heyveld
Chapter
Part of the Literary Disability Studies book series (LIDIST)

Abstract

This concluding chapter discusses the effects and afterlives of dissembling disability. Although it was a fictional trend that focused on fraudulent action, the counterfeit-disability tradition instructed audiences to approach disability with suspicion, both on the stage and in the streets of London. The tradition demanded that genuinely disabled people perform their disabilities to, paradoxically, prove the reality of their impairments. Although the counterfeit-disability tradition shaped the lived experiences of early modern disabled people, it also suppressed knowledge of that experience by prioritizing narratives of counterfeit disability over genuine disability. The chapter concludes by tracing the enduring presence of the counterfeit-disability tradition on contemporary literature, culture, and, even, social policy.

References

  1. Beier, A. L., and Robert Finlay. “The Significance of the Metropolis.” In London, 1500–1700: The Making of the Metropolis, edited by A. L. Beier and Robert Finlay, 1–33. London: Longman, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. Beier, L. M. “The Good Death in Seventeenth-Century England.” In Death, Ritual, and Bereavement, edited by Ralph Houlbrooke, 43–61. London: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. “Charity”. In The Office: Complete Series (UK), season 2, episode 5. Written by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. Directed by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. BBC Home Entertainment, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. Cora, Casey, and Rodney Thrash. “Treatment of Disabled Man Attracts National Spotlight.” St. Petersburg Times, 13 February 2008. Accessed 1 June 2017. http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/13/Hillsborough/Treatment_of_disabled.shtml.
  5. Floyd-Wilson, Mary, and Garrett A. Sullivan, Jr., eds. Environment and Embodiment in Early Modern England. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.Google Scholar
  6. Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. “Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept.” Hypatia 26, no. 3 (Summer 2011): 591–609.Google Scholar
  7. ———. Staring: How We Look. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  8. Groebner, Valentin. Who Are You?: Identification, Deception, and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe. Translated by Mark Kyburz and John Peck. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. Howard, Jean E. “Crossdressing, The Theater, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England.” Shakespeare Quarterly 39, no. 4 (Winter 1998): 418–40.Google Scholar
  10. Humphrey, Jill C. “Researching Disability Politics, or Some Problems with the Social Model in Practice.” Disability and Society 15, no. 1 (2000): 63–85.Google Scholar
  11. Hyland, Peter. Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage. Farnham: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. Iyengar, Sujata. “Introduction: Shakespeare’s ‘Discourse of Disability.’” In Disability, Health, and Happiness in the Shakespearean Body, edited by Sujata Iyengar, 1–19. New York: Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar
  13. Kassell, Lauren. Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London: Simon Forman: Astrologer, Alchemist, and Physician. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Kudlick, Catherine. “The Price of ‘Disability Denial.’” The New York Times, 24 May 2017. Accessed 1 June 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/opinion/disability-denial.html?_r=0.
  15. Levin, Richard. “The Economics and Erotics of Cross-Class Dressing in Early Modern (formerly Renaissance) English Drama.” Journal of Theater and Drama 3 (1997): 93–101.Google Scholar
  16. Orgel, Stephen. Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. Paster, Gail Kern. The Body Embarrassed: Drama and the Disciplines of Shame in Early Modern England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. ———. Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  19. Paster, Gail Kern, Katherine Rowe, and Mary Floyd-Wilson, eds. Reading the Early Modern Passions: Essays in the Cultural History of Emotion. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  20. Peace, William J. “The Outrage is Grossly Misplaced.” CounterPunch, 16–17 February 2008. Accessed 14 January 2017. http://www.counterpunch.org/peace02162008.html.
  21. Pitcher, John. “Introduction.” In The Winter’s Tale, by William Shakespeare, edited by John Pitcher, 1–135. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Methuen, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. Schoenfeldt, Michael C. Bodies and Selves in Early Modern England: Physiology and Inwardness in Spenser, Shakespeare, Herbert, and Milton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  23. Scotch, Richard K. “American Disability Policy in the Twentieth Century.” In The New Disability History: American Perspectives, edited by Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, 375–92. New York: New York University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. Shakespeare, Tom. Disability Rights and Wrongs Revisited, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2014.Google Scholar
  25. Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Edited by R. A. Foakes. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Bloomsbury, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. Shapiro, Michael. Gender Play on the Shakespearean Stage: Boy Heroines and Female Pages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. Siebers, Tobin. “Disability as Masquerade.” Literature and Medicine 23, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 1–22.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, Ian. “White Skin, Black Masks: Racial Cross-Dressing on the Early Modern Stage.” Renaissance Drama 32 (2003): 33–67.Google Scholar
  29. Stevens, Andrea Ria. Inventions of the Skin: The Painted Body in Early English Drama, 1400–1642. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  30. Stone, Deborah A. The Disabled State. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  31. Tankard, Danae. “The Reformation of the Deathbed in Mid-Sixteenth-Century England.” Mortality 8, no. 3 (August 2003): 251–67.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, David M. “‘Fraudulent’ Disability in Historical Perspective.” History and Policy, 1 February 2012: n.p. Accessed 1 June 2017. http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/fraudulent-disability-in-historical-perspective.
  33. Varholy, Christine M. “‘Rich Like a Lady’: Cross-Class Dressing in the Brothels and Theaters of Early Modern London.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 8, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 2008): 4–34.Google Scholar
  34. Wendell, Susan. “Who Is Disabled?: Defining Disability.” In The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability, 11–34. New York: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Row-Heyveld
    • 1
  1. 1.Luther CollegeDecorahUSA

Personalised recommendations