When biographies go bad: Monsieur d'Eon
Nov. 29th, 2011 09:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marinessGary Kates, Monsieur d'Eon Is a Woman: a tale of political intrigue and sexual masquerade (1995).
Charles Genevieve Louis Auguste Andre Timothee Eon de Beaumont, 1728-1810, lived one hell of a life as a French diplomat to the courts of Russia and England, a spy, soldier, and occasional scholar, and, at the age of 46, at the insistence of and with the backing of the French king, as someone who changed public genders from male to female, wearing female clothing and living as a woman until her death. A contemporary examination of her body at her death stated that although d'Eon claimed to have been born a girl forced to live as a boy and then a man, and lacked certain male secondary sexual characteristics, d'Eon also had male sexual genitalia (everyone was very discreet about what this meant, so I can't tell you). And since d'Eon met everyone and everybody, this created delightful scandal for everyone.
So I was thrilled to discover that someone had taken the time to write a biography of d'Eon, figuring it would make for fascinating reading. And I'm still certain that a biography of d'Eon would make for fascinating reading. Just not this one, which manages to combine poor organization, tedious writing, problematic sourcing and factual errors with some….shall we say questionable assertions about transgendered people in general and d'Eon in particular.
Before I go on, three caveats: one, I'm not transgendered. Two, at least three transgendered people irregularly read this blog (although since one is only here for the movie snark I suspect she'll be skipping this post), so, if you feel like commenting, keep both in mind. Three, I'll be using "she" in reference to d'Eon since according to her account this was her true gender, and, by happy coincidence, will allow me to refer to the author as "he." (A gender neutral pronoun feels off here, since it was not something d'Eon used; she believed strongly in two separate genders and the use of "he" and "she.")
Moving on.
Interestingly or frustratingly, depending upon your point of view, Kayes never raises the possibility that d'Eon may have been intersex/androgynous. At this distance, and without any genetic information, it's difficult to say for certain, but d'Eon's contemporaries noted that she lacked an Adam's apple, never grew facial hair, had small breasts, and had a "high" voice for a man. Other contemporaries speculated that she might be a hermaphrodite, well before d'Eon publicly revealed herself as a woman.
None of that is conclusive, of course, but helps explain why, when d'Eon announced that she had been born a girl and raised as a boy at her father's insistence, contemporaries believed her. This may also explain her account of her early days, where she states that her father kept her and her sister apart from neighborhood children and hid her as much as possible. The family desperately needed a son for inheritance purposes; if d'Eon's gender was in any way unclear when she was a child (and later events suggest that it was), it was in the family interest to keep this hidden and make d'Eon as "masculine" as possible.
Oddly, I'm gathering this not from Kayes' words, but from the few sources he quotes. I understand that intersex births are rare enough that the possibility might not have leapt to Kayes' mind, but it leapt to my mind just in the first couple of chapters (and later chapters only added weight to my theory) and even a tiny bit of research on transgender issues should have raised the possibility. Kayes, however, sticks to his assertion: d'Eon was found dead with male sexual genitalia and was therefore absolutely, completely male, no matter what evidence might suggest otherwise.
Which leads to the next problem: Kayes attitude towards transgender issues in general and d'Eon in particular and images of masculinity and femininity, introduced in the opening chapters. Kayes is correct to note that these images can and do change over time, and that Louis the XIV liked to show off his long hair and equally long (and, sorry, Kayes, very masculine) legs. (Also, Kayes, for the record, admiring men's legs is not a pastime that stopped after the 18th century. I'm digressing.) He is also correct to note that opportunities for women were often greater in 18th century England and France than they would be in 19th century England and France.
And then he gives us this.
"Elite women could not have achieved so much status before the French Revolution unless there were men who had admired them and championed their cause."
…..yeah.
This is followed by several questionable statements about gender roles in the 18th century (which are contradicted by examples in the very next chapter) warmed me up for this:
"The problem with pinning a psychosexual disorder on d'Eon is that it minimizes his own will and cognition in the process of his own gender transformation. Interpreting d'Eon as a transsexual renders him fundamentally passive."
The fundamental passiveness is never sourced; Kates just assumes it. And this leads to the largest problem with the book: Kates has fixated on his theory that d'Eon was not transsexual/transgendered, only a man who admired women and decided to act as one (you see the problem) from that admiration (and some heavy influence from the French court) but, to repeat, was always a man; anything that deviates from this belief is dismissed as a myth or one of d'Eon's lies.
So, for example, although d'Eon drops hints that really, something was up (for instance, his mother kept in in the 18th century equivalent of diapers until he was six), Kates dismisses d'Eon's entire account. But, and this is key, Kates offers no evidence or counter narrative. I checked the footnotes, just to be sure, and sure enough, although Kates lists some general texts about how aristocrats would fashion themselves, he lists no other documents about d'Eon's early life. Perhaps none exist, but without any other information, we're left with d'Eon's tale – which may, indeed, be a complete lie, or may reflect that d'Eon always believed she was a girl, and resented her father's forcing her into a male role, or, again, the possibility that she was an intersex child.
In discussing d'Eon's exploits in Russia, where d'Eon claimed to play the double role of a male French secretary by day and a female French tutor to the Empress by night, Kates does more or less the same thing – dismissing d'Eon's version as a myth created to improve the argument that women could and did make important contributions in public affairs. (I'll just add that the fact that d'Eon felt the need to argue this in the first place strongly suggests that gender roles were more segregated – and women more limited by gender – that Kates admits in other parts of the book.) Kates states d'Eon's story "is not at all true," then tells us just a few pages later that no less a source than Catherine the Great reported continual cross-dressing and playing with gender roles at the Russian court, suggesting that indeed, some of this story might well have been true. (Others aside from Catherine the Great confirmed that the Empress Elizabeth of Russia did dress in male garb from time to time.) And, after admitting to this, in the very same chapter where Kates told us that d'Eon's version of events "is not at all true," he concludes with "…the gist of his account was not so far from the truth."
By gist, Kates means that well, yes, d'Eon was definitely at the Russian court; it's everything else – that doesn't fit Kates' theory – that must be untrue.
And when d'Eon finally begins to report on the rumors that d'Eon was a woman, which began around 1770, well before the French court ordered her to begin to wear women's clothing in 1777, he tells us that logically, the only conclusion is that d'Eon was the only possible source of these rumors – despite directly quotes showing that these rumors came from d'Eon's servants and that d'Eon's response was negative and violent. (She challenged people to duels.) But logically, Kates tells us, the "only" explanation is that d'Eon initiated the rumors in an attempt to collect her missing pension funds from the French government as her job was drawing to a close – something she would find easier to do if she portrayed herself not as a successful French spy and long time ambassador, but as a woman who had pretended to be a successful French spy and long time ambassador.
Financial stress makes people do strange things, and this is certainly one possible theory, although I should note that even Kates agrees that absolutely no one else in the 18th century attempted to change genders to collect pension funds. (To be fair, this is possibly because d'Eon's attempt to collect said funds was not overly successful.) But another possible theory is that d'Eon's servants noticed something, reported it, and people placed bets because, again, they noticed something.
I'm also made a little uncomfortable by Kates' theory that d'Eon decided to live as a woman because her career had ended and she needed something "different and better." I have no doubt that transgender people may not decide to change public genders until they are out of the workplace, then and now. What I question here is why Kates thinks that d'Eon would believe that a woman's life, in that era, would be "better." This was, after all, an age in which a respected thinker such as Diderot could argue that women were more savage than men and lacked basic moral principles (Kates even quotes this) and be praised for these statements.
And, once a woman, d'Eon spent her life advocating – unsuccessfully, Kates notes – for increased opportunities for elite women, again strongly suggesting that the opportunities were just not there, and that no one as logical, intelligent, competent and sane as Kates argues would change into a woman for the improved career and financial opportunities.
These are not Kates' only questionable statements – I particularly liked this gem from page 57: : "…while the basic structure of European diplomacy [in the 1750s] was the same as it is today, the substance arguably was more Machiavellian." (For today, Kates means the 1990s.) And it gets wearying.
So alas, I can't recommend this book. I can hope that someone else takes up the opportunity to write about d'Eon, because it really ought to be fascinating.
Charles Genevieve Louis Auguste Andre Timothee Eon de Beaumont, 1728-1810, lived one hell of a life as a French diplomat to the courts of Russia and England, a spy, soldier, and occasional scholar, and, at the age of 46, at the insistence of and with the backing of the French king, as someone who changed public genders from male to female, wearing female clothing and living as a woman until her death. A contemporary examination of her body at her death stated that although d'Eon claimed to have been born a girl forced to live as a boy and then a man, and lacked certain male secondary sexual characteristics, d'Eon also had male sexual genitalia (everyone was very discreet about what this meant, so I can't tell you). And since d'Eon met everyone and everybody, this created delightful scandal for everyone.
So I was thrilled to discover that someone had taken the time to write a biography of d'Eon, figuring it would make for fascinating reading. And I'm still certain that a biography of d'Eon would make for fascinating reading. Just not this one, which manages to combine poor organization, tedious writing, problematic sourcing and factual errors with some….shall we say questionable assertions about transgendered people in general and d'Eon in particular.
Before I go on, three caveats: one, I'm not transgendered. Two, at least three transgendered people irregularly read this blog (although since one is only here for the movie snark I suspect she'll be skipping this post), so, if you feel like commenting, keep both in mind. Three, I'll be using "she" in reference to d'Eon since according to her account this was her true gender, and, by happy coincidence, will allow me to refer to the author as "he." (A gender neutral pronoun feels off here, since it was not something d'Eon used; she believed strongly in two separate genders and the use of "he" and "she.")
Moving on.
Interestingly or frustratingly, depending upon your point of view, Kayes never raises the possibility that d'Eon may have been intersex/androgynous. At this distance, and without any genetic information, it's difficult to say for certain, but d'Eon's contemporaries noted that she lacked an Adam's apple, never grew facial hair, had small breasts, and had a "high" voice for a man. Other contemporaries speculated that she might be a hermaphrodite, well before d'Eon publicly revealed herself as a woman.
None of that is conclusive, of course, but helps explain why, when d'Eon announced that she had been born a girl and raised as a boy at her father's insistence, contemporaries believed her. This may also explain her account of her early days, where she states that her father kept her and her sister apart from neighborhood children and hid her as much as possible. The family desperately needed a son for inheritance purposes; if d'Eon's gender was in any way unclear when she was a child (and later events suggest that it was), it was in the family interest to keep this hidden and make d'Eon as "masculine" as possible.
Oddly, I'm gathering this not from Kayes' words, but from the few sources he quotes. I understand that intersex births are rare enough that the possibility might not have leapt to Kayes' mind, but it leapt to my mind just in the first couple of chapters (and later chapters only added weight to my theory) and even a tiny bit of research on transgender issues should have raised the possibility. Kayes, however, sticks to his assertion: d'Eon was found dead with male sexual genitalia and was therefore absolutely, completely male, no matter what evidence might suggest otherwise.
Which leads to the next problem: Kayes attitude towards transgender issues in general and d'Eon in particular and images of masculinity and femininity, introduced in the opening chapters. Kayes is correct to note that these images can and do change over time, and that Louis the XIV liked to show off his long hair and equally long (and, sorry, Kayes, very masculine) legs. (Also, Kayes, for the record, admiring men's legs is not a pastime that stopped after the 18th century. I'm digressing.) He is also correct to note that opportunities for women were often greater in 18th century England and France than they would be in 19th century England and France.
And then he gives us this.
"Elite women could not have achieved so much status before the French Revolution unless there were men who had admired them and championed their cause."
…..yeah.
This is followed by several questionable statements about gender roles in the 18th century (which are contradicted by examples in the very next chapter) warmed me up for this:
"The problem with pinning a psychosexual disorder on d'Eon is that it minimizes his own will and cognition in the process of his own gender transformation. Interpreting d'Eon as a transsexual renders him fundamentally passive."
The fundamental passiveness is never sourced; Kates just assumes it. And this leads to the largest problem with the book: Kates has fixated on his theory that d'Eon was not transsexual/transgendered, only a man who admired women and decided to act as one (you see the problem) from that admiration (and some heavy influence from the French court) but, to repeat, was always a man; anything that deviates from this belief is dismissed as a myth or one of d'Eon's lies.
So, for example, although d'Eon drops hints that really, something was up (for instance, his mother kept in in the 18th century equivalent of diapers until he was six), Kates dismisses d'Eon's entire account. But, and this is key, Kates offers no evidence or counter narrative. I checked the footnotes, just to be sure, and sure enough, although Kates lists some general texts about how aristocrats would fashion themselves, he lists no other documents about d'Eon's early life. Perhaps none exist, but without any other information, we're left with d'Eon's tale – which may, indeed, be a complete lie, or may reflect that d'Eon always believed she was a girl, and resented her father's forcing her into a male role, or, again, the possibility that she was an intersex child.
In discussing d'Eon's exploits in Russia, where d'Eon claimed to play the double role of a male French secretary by day and a female French tutor to the Empress by night, Kates does more or less the same thing – dismissing d'Eon's version as a myth created to improve the argument that women could and did make important contributions in public affairs. (I'll just add that the fact that d'Eon felt the need to argue this in the first place strongly suggests that gender roles were more segregated – and women more limited by gender – that Kates admits in other parts of the book.) Kates states d'Eon's story "is not at all true," then tells us just a few pages later that no less a source than Catherine the Great reported continual cross-dressing and playing with gender roles at the Russian court, suggesting that indeed, some of this story might well have been true. (Others aside from Catherine the Great confirmed that the Empress Elizabeth of Russia did dress in male garb from time to time.) And, after admitting to this, in the very same chapter where Kates told us that d'Eon's version of events "is not at all true," he concludes with "…the gist of his account was not so far from the truth."
By gist, Kates means that well, yes, d'Eon was definitely at the Russian court; it's everything else – that doesn't fit Kates' theory – that must be untrue.
And when d'Eon finally begins to report on the rumors that d'Eon was a woman, which began around 1770, well before the French court ordered her to begin to wear women's clothing in 1777, he tells us that logically, the only conclusion is that d'Eon was the only possible source of these rumors – despite directly quotes showing that these rumors came from d'Eon's servants and that d'Eon's response was negative and violent. (She challenged people to duels.) But logically, Kates tells us, the "only" explanation is that d'Eon initiated the rumors in an attempt to collect her missing pension funds from the French government as her job was drawing to a close – something she would find easier to do if she portrayed herself not as a successful French spy and long time ambassador, but as a woman who had pretended to be a successful French spy and long time ambassador.
Financial stress makes people do strange things, and this is certainly one possible theory, although I should note that even Kates agrees that absolutely no one else in the 18th century attempted to change genders to collect pension funds. (To be fair, this is possibly because d'Eon's attempt to collect said funds was not overly successful.) But another possible theory is that d'Eon's servants noticed something, reported it, and people placed bets because, again, they noticed something.
I'm also made a little uncomfortable by Kates' theory that d'Eon decided to live as a woman because her career had ended and she needed something "different and better." I have no doubt that transgender people may not decide to change public genders until they are out of the workplace, then and now. What I question here is why Kates thinks that d'Eon would believe that a woman's life, in that era, would be "better." This was, after all, an age in which a respected thinker such as Diderot could argue that women were more savage than men and lacked basic moral principles (Kates even quotes this) and be praised for these statements.
And, once a woman, d'Eon spent her life advocating – unsuccessfully, Kates notes – for increased opportunities for elite women, again strongly suggesting that the opportunities were just not there, and that no one as logical, intelligent, competent and sane as Kates argues would change into a woman for the improved career and financial opportunities.
These are not Kates' only questionable statements – I particularly liked this gem from page 57: : "…while the basic structure of European diplomacy [in the 1750s] was the same as it is today, the substance arguably was more Machiavellian." (For today, Kates means the 1990s.) And it gets wearying.
So alas, I can't recommend this book. I can hope that someone else takes up the opportunity to write about d'Eon, because it really ought to be fascinating.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-11-30 11:10 pm (UTC)