ACTA HISTRIAE 
28, 2020, 1 

UDK/UDC 94(05) ACTA HISTRIAE 28, 2020, 1, pp. 1-184 ISSN 1318-0185 
UDK/UDC 94(05) ISSN 1318-0185 (Print) ISSN 2591-1767 (Online) 

Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper Societa storica del Litorale - Capodistria 
ACTA HISTRIAE 28, 2020, 1 
KOPER 2020 
ISSN 1318-0185 (Tiskana izd.) UDK/UDC 94(05) Letnik 28, leto 2020, številka 1 ISSN 2591-1767 (Spletna izd.) 
Odgovorni urednik/ 
Direttore responsabile/ Editor in Chief: 

Uredniški odbor/ 
Comitato di redazione/ Board of Editors: 
Uredniki/Redattori/ Editors: 
Gostujoča urednica/ 
Guest Editor: 
Prevodi/Traduzioni/ Translations: Lektorji/Supervisione/ 
Language Editor: Izdajatelja/Editori/ Published by: 

Sedež/Sede/Address: 
Tisk/Stampa/Print: Naklada/Tiratura/Copies: 
Finančna podpora/ 
Supporto finanziario/ 
Financially supported by: 

Slika na naslovnici/ 
Foto di copertina/ Picture on the cover: 
Darko Darovec 
Gorazd Bajc, Furio Bianco (IT), Stuart Carroll (UK), Angel Casals Martinez (ES), Alessandro Casellato (IT), Flavij Bonin, Dragica Čeč, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko Darovec, Lucien Faggion (FR), Marco Fincardi (IT), Darko Friš, Aleš Maver, Borut Klabjan, John Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), DarjaMihelič, Edward Muir (USA), Žiga Oman, Jože Pirjevec, Egon Pelikan, Luciano Pezzolo (IT), Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (MNE), Luca Rossetto(IT), Vida Rožac Darovec, Andrej Studen, Marta Verginella, Salvator Žitko 
Urška Lampe, Gorazd Bajc, Arnela Abdić 
Katarina Keber 
Urška Lampe (slo.), Gorazd Bajc (it.), Petra Berlot (angl., it.) 
Urška Lampe (angl., slo.), Gorazd Bajc (it.), Arnela Abdić (angl.) Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Societa storica del Litorale - Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for 
Research, Development and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della societa, cultura e ambiente© Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, SI-6000 
Koper-Capodistria, Garibaldijeva 18 / Via Garibaldi 18 e-mail: actahistriae@gmail.com; https://zdjp.si/ 
Založništvo PADRE d.o.o. 300 izvodov/copie/copies Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije / Slovenian 
Research Agency, Mestna občina Koper 
Medicinska sestra z masko kot zaščita pred špansko gripo, 13. september 1918 /Infermiera che indossa una maschera come protezione contro l'influenza spagnola, 13settembre 1918 / Nurse wearing a mask as protection against the Spanish influenza, September 13, 1918 (Wikimedia Commons; National Archives). 
Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 31. marca 2020. 
Revija Acta Histriae je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / Gli articoli pubblicati in questa rivista sono inclusi nei seguenti indici di citazione/ Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: CLARIVATE ANALYTICS (USA): Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI),Social Scisearch, Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition (USA); IBZ, InternationaleBibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) (UK); Referativnyi Zhurnal Viniti(RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS (NL); DOAJ. 
To delo je objavljeno pod licenco / Quest'opera e distribuita con Licenza / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0. 

Navodila avtorjem in vsi članki v barvni verziji so prosto dostopni na spletni strani: https://zdjp.si.
Le norme redazionali e tutti gli articoli nella versione a colori sono disponibili gratuitamente sul sito: https://zdjp.si/it/.The submission guidelines and all articles are freely available in color via website http: https://zdjp.si/en/. 

UDK/UDC 94(05) Volume 28, Koper 2020, issue 1 ISSN 1318-0185 (Print) ISSN 2591-1767 (Online) 
VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS 
Miha Seručnik: Pandemija španske gripe med Kranjsko in Istro – Možnosti in omejitve digitalnih pristopov .................................................................... 1 
La pandemia dell’influenza spagnola tra la Carniola e l’Istria – Possibilita e limiti degli approcci digitali The Spanish Influenza Pandemic Between Carniola and Istria – Possibilities and Limitations of Digital Approaches 
Urška Bratož: Vojna, lakota in bolezen: Po sledeh španske gripe v Kopru ............... 21 
Guerra, fame e malattia: Sulle tracce dell‘influenza spagnola a Capodistria War, Famine and Disease: Tracing the Spanish Influenza in Koper 
Katarina Keber: »O španski bolezni, hripi posebne vrste«. Ljubljanska izkušnja s pandemijo španske gripe ......................................................... 41 
«Sulla malattia spagnola, un’influenza di tipo particolare». L’esperienza di Lubiana con la pandemia dell’influenza spagnola “On a Spanish Disease, a Specific Type of Flu”. Experience with the Spanish Influenza Pandemic in Ljubljana 
Iva Milovan Delić & Marlena Plavšić: Spanish Flu and Mental Disorders in the Margraviate of Istria at the End of WWI .......................................... 59 
L’influenza spagnola e i disturbi mentali nel margraviato d’Istria alla fine della prima guerra mondialeŠpanska gripa in duševne motnje v markgrofiji Istra ob koncu prve svetovne vojne 
Alenka Divjak: Southwestern and Central Slovenia. Nauportus: The Argonautic Legend – the Romans Go East ............................................................ 75 
Slovenia sudoccidentale e centrale. Nauportus: la leggenda degli Argonauti – i Romani vanno verso est Jugozahodna in osrednja slovenija. Navport: legenda o Argonavtih – Rimljani gredo na vzhod 
Izidor Janžekovič: The History of Masculinity in the 
British Atlantic World .................................................................................................. 99 
La storia della mascolinita nel mondo Atlantico Britannico Zgodovina moškosti v britanskem Atlantiku 
Neva Makuc: Goriška deželna zavest in identitetne dinamike na habsburško-beneškem obmejnem prostoru v luči (samo) oznak šolajoče se mladine ......................................................................................................127 
La coscienza provinciale Goriziana e le dinamiche identitarie nell’area di confine tra la Repubblica di Venezia e le province degli Asburgo alla luce delle (auto)identificazioni degli studenti Provincial Affinity in the Area of Gorizia and Identity Dynamics in the Habsburg-Venetian Borderland in Light of the (Self) Labelling of the School Populations 
Ivan Miškulin & Barbara Riman: Mons. Leopold Jurca i njegovo djelovanje u razdoblju između dvaju svjetskih ratova u hrvatskoj Istri ....................... 141 
Il monsignor Leopold Jurca e il suo ruolo nel periodo tra le due guerre mondiali nell’Istria croata The Monsignor Leopold Jurca and His Work in the Period between Two World Wars in Croatian Istria 
Blaž Torkar& Gorazd Bajc: Slovenci v vrstah britanskih komandosov .................161 
Gli sloveni nelle fila dei commandos britannici Slovenes in the Ranks of the British Commandos 
Received: 2019-04-24             DOI 10.19233/AH.2020.06 
THE HISTORY OF MASCULINITY IN THE BRITISH ATLANTIC WORLD 
Izidor JANŽEKOVIČ 
Central European University, Department of History, Nador u. 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary e-mail: izidor.janzekovic@gmail.com 
ABSTRACT The paper addresses the issue of how successfully have historians made use of the concept of masculinity in relation to the British Atlantic world. It does so in three parts. 
The first part unfolds the history of the research of masculinity in Great Britain and 
her North American colonies. The second part presents the key anthropological and sociological concepts: masculinity and masculinities. In the third part, light is shed on historians who used the term(s) when studying the British Atlantic world. The author claims that historians, hitherto, have not used all the sociological tools to its fullest potential. 
Keywords: masculinity, manhood, early modern era, sociology, British Atlantic world, 16th–18th centuries 
LA STORIA DELLA MASCOLINITA NEL MONDO ATLANTICO BRITANNICO 
SINTESI L’articolo affronta il problema di come gli storici abbiano utilizzato il concetto di 
mascolinita in relazione al Mondo Atlantico Britannico. Lo fa in tre parti. Nella prima 
parte presenta la storia della ricerca delle mascolinita nella Gran Bretagna e nelle sue 
colonie del Nord America. La seconda parte spiega i concetti chiave antropologici e sociologici, dunque la mascolinita e le mascolinita. Nella terza parte, si fa luce sugli storici che hanno usato questi concetti durante lo studio del Mondo Atlantico Britan­
nico. L’autore sostiene che gli storici, finora, non hanno usato correttamente tutti gli 
strumenti sociologici. 
Parole chiave: mascolinita, virilita, prima eta moderna, sociologia, Mondo Atlantico 
Britannico, secoli XVI–XVIII 
INTRODUCTION1 
It would never occur to a man to write a book on the singular situation of males in humanity… A man never begins by positing himself as an individual of a certain sex: that he is a man is obvious … He is the Subject; he is the Absolute! (Beauvoir, 2009 [1949], 25–26). 
Perhaps it is a bit strange to start an article on masculinity with a quote from one of the seminal books of feminist literature, The Second Sex (Le Deuxieme Sexe). Simone de Beauvoir published her opus magnum in 1949 and there were few if any books that could challenge her notion. There were no works about the special situation(s) of men because men’s situation was simply not considered special – it was general, universal, the common denominator of history. 
In addition to this point, the word for man in many languages relates to both man and woman, basically a person (Eng. man, Fr. homme, Lat. homo, etc.). The historical linguistics and etymology of the word gives an answer to this phenomenon since the word man first meant “a human being (irrespective of sex or age)” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019, s.v. man). Feminists and other researchers have been highlight­
ing the sexual biases in our everyday speech and what they aptly called “he-man language” for decades (Miller & Swift, 1976; Miller & Swift, 1980; Pauwels, 1998; Mills, 2008; Curzan, 2014). 
Thus, because men’s situation was considered general, there were no studies on the special situation of men. Only the development of gender studies and cultural 
history led to the formation of a new research (sub)field: the history of masculinity. 
I and the majority of researchers use the terms masculinity, manhood and manliness 
interchangeably without any difference in meaning. These different terms are used by 
the same person at the same time, which can get confusing. Anthony Fletcher’s chap­ters in his Gender, Sex and Subordination in England, 1500–1800 are “Effeminacy and Manhood” for the 16th century and “The Construction of Masculinity” for the late 17th century and onward (Fletcher, 1995). The reason for different terms oc­casionally being used could be that the word manhood is an uncountable noun, while masculinity is countable and can include the myriad of subjective male experiences, 
i.e. masculinities. 
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word masculinity first appears in 1748 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2019, s.v. masculinity; Norton, 2011, ix–x). A con­temporary writer and lexicographer, Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), in his breakthrough dictionary of 1755 spoke of masculineness as mannishness or a male figure, which is a 
First and foremost, a special word of thanks to Natalie Zemon Davis who graciously took the time to talk to me about some aspects of the article. A personal thanks also to David Parrott, whose insightful criticisms and suggestions over many drafts immesurably improved the paper. I thank Alan Strathern and Gabriela Frei who 
offered an invaluable global perspective and suggestions to a now greatly expanded and sophisticated work. Irena Selišnik and Ana Cergol Paradiž provided priceless sociological perspective, for which I am grateful. I also thank Darko Darovec for offering valuable tips. All errors, mistakes and inconsistencies are my own. 
fine example of a circular definition if ever there was one. According to Johnson, there 
are three uses of the adjective masculine: grammatical, biological and anthropological/ 
social. The latter is of interest to us and was defined by Johnson as “resembling man, virile, not soft, not effeminate” (Johnson, 1755, s.vv. mannishness, masculine). Defin­ing masculinity with the supposedly dialectical opposite of femininity was a constant in the early modern era. However, men had tried to follow manly attributes long before the nominal invention of the word in the mid-18th century (Arnold & Brady (eds.), 2011). 
The article addresses the issue of how successfully historians have made use of the concept of masculinity in relation to the British Atlantic world. It does so in three parts. The first and the shortest part of the essay presents the history of research of masculinities in general and of the history of masculinities in the United Kingdom and the United States in particular. The slightly longer second part explains the key anthropological and sociological concepts of masculinity and masculinities, and how history has appropriated the concepts. In the third and largest part, light is shed on historians who have used the term(s) when studying the British Atlantic world. I argue that historians of the British Atlantic, hitherto, have not used all the concepts properly and there is still room for improvement. 
THE HISTORY OF THE HISTORY OF MASCULINITY 
The history of masculinity is a relatively fresh field of historical exploration. In 1996, Michael Kimmel asserted in the introduction of his influential book Manhood in America: “American men have no history” (Kimmel, 2012, 1). At first glance, he turned Beauvoir’s statement that women have no history on its head (Beauvoir, 2009 [1949], 28). Kimmel was well aware that libraries were full of books about men (mostly written) by men. However, what he was missing were history books about “the experience of being a man, of manhood”, i.e. the studies on the special situation of men. Therefore, the questions he wanted to answer were what it meant to be a man and how mankind structured the lives of men. 
The real recognition of the particular and unique experiences of men started to form in relation to the second feminist wave in the late 1960s and 1970s. As a reaction to the women’s liberation movement, there was also a short-lived men’s liberation movement, which attempted to reform the “male sex role” (Connell, 2005, xii; Murphy, 2004, 25–148; Digby (ed.), 1998; for the “exclusion of men” from the women’s movements in Great Britain see Owen, 2013). Although some stimulating political and societal discussions about men took place at the time, it did not im­mediately result in scientific and academic research. This rose only in the context of 
inequality studies approximately ten years later. Most scholars researching gender inequality focused, and justly so, on women and 
“the ways they are structurally and systematically subordinated to men and disad­vantaged” (Kimmel & Bridges, 2011). Even this notion, albeit generally and almost 
universally correct, can be an oversimplification. For example, in African-Caribbean 
families, a substantial number of women tend to hold the dominant position without 
any social stigma (Chevannes, 2006). This, of course, would be one of the few excep­
tions that prove the rule of societal systematic subordination of women. 
Soon, however, researchers realized that there were two sides to this disparity: privilege and disadvantage. If women were usually disenfranchised and deprived, men were usually privileged and favoured. So, the (sub)field of the studies of mascu­linity was formed. Experts fixated on masculinity studied the diverse conditions and practices that privilege men as a group. Furthermore, they shifted the attention on the ways in which not all men enjoyed these privileges equally (Bock, 1989; Roper & Tosh (eds.), 1991; Tosh, 1994). A farmer and his wife had much more in common than a farmer and his king. 
Already in the mid-1970’s, Natalie Zemon Davis remarked to a feminist audi­ence that “it seems to me that we should be interested in the history of both women and men, that we should not be working only on the subjected sex any more than an historian of class can focus entirely on peasants. Our goal is to understand the significance of sexes, of gender groups in the historical past” (Zemon Davis, 1976, 90). Zemon Davis clarified in our discussion that the intention in the 1970s or 1980s was never to divide, disengage or disconnect the fields, but to expand, enlarge and extend the understanding of gender roles. 
Historians have fairly quickly appropriated gender as “a useful category” (Scott, 1986; Scott, 1988; later she modified her stance on studying gender and also women’s history in Scott, 2001). Although one can understand Kimmel’s assertion of there being no history of manhood, it was a clear overstatement even at the time. Historians, especially social and cultural, had already appropriated the sociological concepts in the late 1970s and especially in the 1980s. Today, gender and masculin­ity studies are popular, and there are special seminars in universities devoted not only to gender history in general, but also to the history of masculinity in particular (Traister, 2000). 
Following the semi-official motto of the current President of the USA, America was first in adopting and embracing the history of masculinity. The aforementioned Kimmel’s book was far from first because the first publications on manhood in history were written in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Kirshner, 1977; Dubert, 1979; Pleck & Pleck, 1980). Ever since, there has been a steady stream of publications concerning manhood in colonial or pre-revolutionary America. The preeminent scholars are Toby 
L. Ditz, Ann M. Little, Thomas A. Foster, Kathleen M. Brown, Carolyn Eastman and many others. The bibliographies of these authors are extensive, so I am using 
only their most influential texts (a nice overview with the main issues is provided by 
Foster (ed.), 2011). 
In the former “mother country” of the North-American colonies, the adoption of the “masculine” subfield followed a decade later, in the late 1980s (Tosh, 2011). The focus was somewhat different in Great Britain than in the US. The ground-breaking work for early modern England was done by Anthony Fletcher, Elizabeth Foyster and Alexandra Shepard in the 1990s. Other leading experts are Philip Carter, Karen Harvey, John Tosh, Michael Roper and many others (the good and complementary review essays are Shepard, 2005; Harvey, 2005). Coincidentally, see the different 
terms, akin to Anthony Fletcher, Shepard's “manhood” and Harvey’s “masculinity” 
in their respective works; the boundary is around the Glorious Revolution in 1688. 
It is interesting to note that there is no “common” study or history of the British 
Atlantic masculinity so far (the exception that proves the rule is Kane, 2015), which I address later in the paper. 
THE CONCEPT OF MASCULINITY 
But, let us first recognize the anthropological and sociological forerunners. One of the key tenets of anthropology and sociology is that the differences between genders are not natural, universal or ahistorical, although they have usually been presented as such (Bederman, 1995, 7). The notion of the objective biological defi­nitions of sex has been questioned recently because the history of science showed that many biological categories had been historically sensitive (Small, 1998; Wilkins, 2011; Wilkins & Ebach, 2013); not unlike today. Furthermore, the research on queer, transgender and intersex individuals has also stirred debate (Bagemihl, 1999; Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Marcus, 2005). 
This is not to say that there are no biological differences between sexes, but the differences are more quantitative in nature than qualitative. Gender roles were par­tially based on these biological differences, but  gender roles, by definition, were social and cultural constructs, often also projections, postures and performances. Nowadays, it usually depends on person's worldview to decide which was and is the prevalent part. Manhood was not a social edict enforced by law, it was rather learned, used, reinforced, and reshaped in society. It was a culturally sensitive discursive construction and men were not eternally attached to the same patterns. They rather chose in each case from a cultural repertoire of masculine conduct, which Margaret Wetherell and Nigel Edley called a form of discursive accomplish­ment and imaginary positioning (Edley & Wetherell, 1996; 1997; Wetherell & Edley, 1999). 
Each society has its own cultural ideas about what is and what is not appropriate for a man and a woman. Therefore, the concept itself was not autonomously grounded, but was rather inherently relational. To truly understand manhood, we always have to broaden our perspective to see the whole structure because it interacts with other social structures and parameters (Connell, 2005, 75). In the next paragraphs, I show what are some of the parameters, around which the scholars have chosen to explore the concept of masculinity in different cultures and societies. 
For Raewyn W. Connell, masculinity existed in contrast to femininity. Accord­ing to Connell, before the 18th century, Western society did not look at women as characteristically different from men. Women were deemed as different, but different as deficient or lesser specimens of the same character. Only in the 19th century, were women supposedly defined (by men) as qualitatively different beings. This relates to the so-called ideology of separate spheres or the domestic-public dichotomy that 
prescribed separate spheres for women and men, i.e. domestic and private for women, and public or social for men (Vickery, 1993; Capp, 1996; Shepard, 2003, 75–79). 
Connell relied on the very influential one-sex theory put forward by Thomas W. Laqueur. Laqueur rightly claimed that definitions of sex (and gender) were histori­cally sensitive and subject to change. Yet, he went further by asserting that prior to the 18th century, there was a homogenous one-sex model, in which woman was defined as imperfect (hu)man. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries, was there a fundamental change to the more differentiated and even dialectical two-sex model (Laqueur, 1990; Gallagher & Laqueur, 1987). His theory has received a fair share of fair criticism by Joan Cadden, Michael Stolberg and Helen King, who presented ample "pre-modern" evidence for the "two-sex model" (Cadden, 1993; Stolberg, 2003; King, 2013). 
Connell thought that the culture that does not regard men and women as polar­ized beings – as in pre- and early modern Europe – should not know the concept of masculinity (Connell, 2005, 67–68). This is, of course, wrong as the existence of the observable phenomena of separate spheres is much older, going back at least to ancient Greece (Aristotle, 1943, 77; Aries & Duby (eds.), 1992–1998; for the early modern era’s confirmation of separate spheres and biological determinism see Rous­seau, 1762 and 1763; Venn, 1763; Gisborne, 1797). What is more, the field of gender archaeology today helps us distinguish the potentially different positions of men and women in society even before the invention of writing (Gero & Conkey (eds.), 1991; Sensen, 2000; Joyce, 2008). Not to sound to deterministic or pessimistic, but there seems to be some universal (hu)man trait that wants to dominate. 
Michael Kimmel, unlike Connell, did not think that women were central in the con­stitution of masculinity, but rather (other) men. Kimmel disagreed with the (feminist) perspective of women being the focal point of men’s gender identity. Women were not unimportant, but they were not central to defining masculinity. He claimed that men have defined themselves more in relation to other men. Kimmel highlighted the concept of homosociality. The notion of homosociality was introduced into gender studies in 1976 as “seeking, enjoyment, and/or preference for the company of the same sex” (Lipman-Blumen, 1976, 16). Manhood, according to Kimmel, was not defined by the desire for domination, but rather by the fear from being dominated (Kimmel, 2012 [1996], 3–6; cf. Shepard, 2005, 284). 
Anthony Rotundo gave prominence to yet another parameter in the formation of masculinity, namely age. Boys could and can be dressed like girls and have girls’ haircuts, so in youth, obviously, the male role is less strictly enforced (cf. also Aries & Duby (eds.), 1992–1998). However, that changes when a boy comes of age. While boys can be playful, men have to be respectable, sober and determined (Rotundo, 1993, 7). As I show in the third part, true manhood was not limited only downwards with boyhood, but also upwards with old age, impotence and senility. 
Masculinity depended on the parameter of race. The concept of race is also so­cially constructed and far from being an undisputed biological fact (Malik, 1996; Goldenberg, 2003; Isaac, 2004; Yudell et al., 2016). Perhaps the parameter of race shows best how closely gender is connected with another elusive concept: power. 

Fig. 1: The first "Fight of the Century" between Johnson and Jeffries in Reno, on 4 July 1910, in front of 20,000 peo­ple (Wikimedia Commons). The racial (under)current of 
the fight was clear as the media named Jeffries the "Great White Hope" and he came out of retirement even though before he had constantly refused to fight any black fighters. 
Much of gender studies is based on the works on power by Michel Foucault, notably on his infamous pairing of power-knowledge with sexuality (Foucault, 1988–1890; Foucault, 1976). Indeed, race was a very important parameter in the early modern 
era and it never ceased to influence the perception of manhood – race became an 
increasingly important criterion. The boxing bout between the black champion Jack 
Johnson and white contender James J. Jeffries in 1910 was seen as a trial between 
black and white masculinities; when Johnson won riots broke out (Bederman, 1995, 1–10, 20–23). George L. Mosse, a foremost expert on nationalism and Nazism, emphasized the 
connection of national stereotypes with the image of male bodies. In his influential 
book Nationalism and Sexuality (Mosse, 1985; Mosse, 1982), focusing on the 19th­century Germany, he wrote that there was a connection between male eros, the Ger­man youth movement and vkisch thought. The social elites of Europe established 
sexual guidelines for “respectable” individuals and nation. Every deviation from 
these ideals was seen as threatening to nationalistic goals. Romanticism extolled the 
differences between heroically dominant males and delicately subservient females 
(Mosse, 1996). 
There were many other parameters through which manhood has been shaped. Among the more accentuated are class, wealth, vocation, body, etc. Even religion played a part. Male religious “adversaries” or heretics were commonly and pejoratively labelled as “women” (Lindman, 2011). Interestingly, even priests and pastors of one's own culture were often somewhere in between, because they were not considered either men or women, but some sort of intermediaries. 
The scholars have realized that, with the interplay between gender, sexuality, age, race and class, there are multiple masculinities in any given society: black and white, upper-class and lower-class, straight and gay, etc. However, one identity does not im­mediately exclude the other. There are, after all, gay black politicians, retired Irish firemen and cross-dressing athletes (Connell, 2005, 76). In summary, masculinity or manhood could be defined in three ways: 
1. 
masculinity or manhood (only singular!) – the prevailing norms according to which men should behave, the normative expressions of masculinity (cf. Connell’s hegemonic masculinity); 

2. 
masculinity (with the plural form!) – the subjective experiences of male iden­tity, the norms of each male group (cf. Connell’s complicit, subordinate, marginalized masculinity); 

3. 
manhood – a euphemism for a male sexual organ, penis (this corporeal history is the least researched and studied despite phalluses having been worshipped since the earliest cultures in Paleolithic; cf. Friedman, 2001; Raveenthiran, 2017). 


The different meanings have been debated in recent decades. Historians used Con­nell’s analysis that links masculinity to power and hegemony. The concept of hegemony itself was derived from the analysis of class relations by Antonio Gramsci and refers to the cultural dynamics through which a certain group maintains a leading position in society (Gramsci, 1971). Hegemonic masculinity is the structure that legitimizes patri­archy. At any given time, one form of masculinity is exalted culturally; its exclusivity gives it power. The sign of hegemony is the successful appropriation of authority, rather than simply direct violence, although authority often justifies violence (Connell, 2005, 77; Tosh, 2004; Roper, 2005). 
On the other hand, there were many “subjective” masculinities. Connell defined them in relation to hegemonic: complicit, subordinate and marginalized. Complicity points to the fact that although only a few men (can) achieve hegemonic masculin­ity, the majority of men gain from it (e.g., the advantage over women). Subordination usually relates to either homosexual men or boys. If the latter relations are internal to hegemonic order, marginalization is expulsion from this order (inferior classes, castes, races, or ethnic groups) (Connell, 2005, 78–81; Shepard, 2005, 290–291). 
The problem with this categorisation, which was largely build in dialectic with 
hegemonic masculinity, is that “subjective” or alternative codes are given little 
autonomy. In reality, each masculinity contains dominant and subjected representa­tives. Furthermore, a man can practice hegemonic masculinity at home, while he has to practice complicit or even subordinate masculinity at work. This framework is a 
simplification of reality (as are all academic and scientific models), and is of course 
highly contentious and porous, so it should only be used as a general guideline. The historical research should allow for recognition of several masculinities within and beyond this framework. 
THE BRITISH ATLANTIC WORLD AND THE MASCULINITIES 
Before I, in the third act, delve into the topic of masculinities in the British Atlantic 
world, let me first define the latter. This four-dimensional spacetime is Great Britain and 
her North American and Caribbean colonies in the early modern era (excellent over­views are Armitage & Braddick (eds.), 2002; Bailyn, 2005; Sarson, 2005; Benjamin, 
2009; Morgan & Greene (eds.), 2009). The field of Atlantic history has been growing 
in the last three decades and, similar to the history of masculinity, there are now special university seminars dedicated to it. Although the British Atlantic is considered to be 
a relatively unified world, there are many contested chronological and spatial issues 
inherent in it with no clear-cut boundaries. 
Let’s begin at the foundation of each historical study, i.e. with the question of primary sources. What sort of sources do historians use to detect masculinity and/or masculinities? Historians studying masculinities in the British Atlantic world rely on private writing or ego-documents, like letters (e.g. Bush (ed.), 2001), autobiographies 
(e.g. Gibbon, 1796) and diaries of men (e.g. Evelyn, 1882), in which they try to detect feelings, attitudes, and daily experiences of men. However, there are some issues that tend not to be addressed in these texts, especially sexuality and sex life. So, historians also reference the so-called prescriptive texts like sermons and research texts by early 
“social scientists” (Rotundo, 1993, ix–x). 
Nonetheless, there were many non-elite and poor groups of people who would be 
left out if historians only consulted the sources for the most prolific groups of men. 
Lisa Wilson addressed this imbalance and wanted to discover farmers’ voices in the domestic world. She used farmers’ diaries, but they mostly recorded weather and remarkable local events with little personal commentary. So, she combed through the court, town and church records, which were more revelatory, but still quite heavily 
influenced and skewed by the literate and articulate elites (Wilson, 1999, 1–10). 
The so-called self-revelatory records or ego-documents are also practically non­existent for the African and Native American masculinities. Sources such as captivity memoirs or trade reports were mainly written by the English colonists, so (ethno) 

Fig. 2: The frontispiece of Much Ado About Nothing from the first illustrated edition of Shakespeare's works (Shakespeare, 1709). 
Shakespeare's comedies often addressed the issue of gender roles. However, he did not just reflect the contemporary Renaissance at­titudes, but also challenged the traditional view of the gender roles. 
historians have to discern the Native voices second-hand (Little, 2007; Boulware, 2011). Therefore, because of the state of sources, the privileged white men are ac­cordingly overrepresented in literature. For example, Clare A. Lyons wrote a whole book on the gender and power in one city, Philadelphia (Lyons, 2006). Writing a book on masculinities in an African slave or Native American communities is much harder considering the nature of sources. 
Literary scholars have analysed poems, dramas and novels to discern the con­ventions used for depicting men. Mark Breitenberg studied a wide range of writers, from Shakespeare and Bacon to Burton and Jane Anger. To Breitenberg, masculinity in early modern England was unavoidably anxious because of the society based on patriarchal prerogatives. Although the phrase "anxious masculinity" may seem para­doxical, it actually helped to perpetuate patriarchal norms (Breitenberg, 1996). Robin 
H. Wells and Bruce R. Smith practically simultaneously provided a detailed analysis of Shakespeare's evolving engagement with masculinity (Wells, 2000; Smith, 2000; cf. Reeser, 2006; Capp, 2014). 
Because masculinity is a multi-relational concept, it has been necessary for histo­rians to comprehend the complex interaction of gender with other parameters of status and identity in early modern society. Historians in North America and Great Britain alike collectively generally acknowledge three key parameters to be considered when studying masculinity, namely gender, age and class. In this context, early gender historians have relied heavily on earlier research of social and cultural historians on family, traditional values, religious ideas etc. History of masculinity, or gender history for that matter, did not appear in the vacuum and “masculinity” was studied before (Kahn, 1981), but the focus has shifted in the last decades. 
Historians have appropriated sociology’s concepts and approaches on their own terms. As hegemony is a concept established by a modern Marxist scholar, Gramsci, and is relatively new in context of social and family studies, historians instead sometimes use the more contemporaneous concept of patriarchy. With patriarchy the historians describe the hegemonic relationship of men over women and other non-hegemonic men. English philosopher Robert Filmer explains the divine right of kings and links it to the “natural” authority of parents, especially father (Lat. pater) (Filmer, 1680). Today, patriarchy has a pejorative meaning of the male subjugation of women, but it did not connote negative emotions in the early modern era (Rowbotham, 1981; Alexander & Taylor, 1981). 
Close reading of contemporary authors gives us a clue to the complexity of the contemporary stances and our current value judgements. Thomas Hobbes seemingly promulgated patriarchy and the traditional idea that fathers ruled over family, i.e. the children and wife (Hobbes, 1642; 1650; 1651). However, the interpretations of his texts concerning his attitude towards women range from him being an early feminist (Hirschmann & Wright (eds.), 2012) to him being an entrenched misogynist (Pate-man, 1989). As Susanne Sreedhar recently pointed out, Hobbes's constant use of the Amazon myth could be read as a part of his "dethroning" mission. Sreedhar claims that Hobbes wanted to show that social hierarchies are artificial and ordinary, in order to build his socially stable state (Sreedhar, 2019). 
Alexandra Shepard recognized that there were many masculinities and defined 
them in relation to the patriarchal or hegemonic concept of manhood. However, she 
does not use Connell’s concepts of “secondary” masculinities. In the beginning of 
her book, Shepard listed three ways that men experienced the patriarchal norms: as 
beneficiaries, as subordinates, and as opponents. Yet, Shepard does not explore this 
division further (Shepard, 2003, 1; Shepard, 2005, 288–289; Shepard, 2006). Her names were practically identical to Connell’s notions of complicit, subordinate and marginalized masculinities, which begs the question of why we across the disciplines cannot use the same concepts for more or less the same things. Are our categories and concepts really so unique that they are impossible to transfer? 
Shepard further warned that one should not simply equate patriarchy with manhood in early modern England. Patriarchal ideology itself was muddled, contradictory, and selectively invoked rather than a monolithic system which simply required adher­ence or rejection. Shepard even recognized alternative or counter-codes of manhood. According to Shepard, the “boldest resistance” to patriarchy was led by rebel young (Cambridge) students, who were far from ideal moderate and restrained men. Their code was to be rowdy, drunk and violent (Shepard, 2003, 1–18, 93–126). 
Although Atlantic history has many salient subfields (economy, demography, 
politics), there is no common Atlantic gender history. For example, Rotundo did 
little to acknowledge the English influence. For him, in the tradition of American exceptionalism, a new society was formed “on a different continent” from the time of settlement (Rotundo, 1993, 14; the tradition of American exceptionalism dates back to French writer Tocqueville, 1838). This is so much more striking because Rotundo mentioned David H. Fischer as “his inspiring teacher” and that “his [Fischer’s] bold and convincing vision of American history lies at the foundation of this book.” 
Fischer is most famous for his book Albion’s Seed in which he put American colonial history in its proper English and British context. Fischer argued, quite convincingly, that the reason for the differences between the different regions of the United States today can be traced back to the settlement period. Since colonists ar­rived from different parts of Great Britain, they brought different cultural patterns (Fischer, 1989). If Rotundo overlooked the English influence, this has since changed (Foster (ed.), 2011; Norton, 1996; Lombard, 2003; McCurdy, 2011). 
The parameter specific to early modern American colonies was race. Race is rarely used or even mentioned in the British context. This is arguably tied to the post-war history in both "united political entities", as the UK did not have as many and as violent racial tensions as the US had, which influenced academic production. The UK was far from being a "racial haven;" e.g. the infamous "Rivers of Blood" or "the Birmingham" speech by Enoch Powell. But, compared to the US, with its post-war history of segregation, civil rights movement and even still occasional lynchings, it affected public discourse in the UK much less. However, where the British encoun­tered different races, as in India, race played an important role. 
With the large-scale arrival of slaves in America in the late 17th and 18th centu­ries, gender and race became intertwined components of social order in Virginia. As 

Fig. 3: The satirical print by W. Austin, The Duchess of Queensberry Playing at Foils with her Favorite Lap Dog Mungo (Austin, 1773). Mungo was a common name for a black slave or servant, originating in the comic opera The Padlock (Bickerstaffe, 1768). Catherine Douglas, Duchess of Queensberry (1701–1777), is depicted fencing with her servant, protégé, and reputed lover Julius Soubise (ca. 1754–1798). He was given to her in 1764 as an Afro-Caribbean slave and she manumitted him. The relationship between Soubise and Douglas is one in which the purportedly natural order of things has been inverted. 
Kathleen M.  Brown demonstrated, gender discourses were central for constructing racial categories and legitimating political authority. Racial slavery, in turn, breathed new life into patriarchal social relations (Brown, 1996, 1–9). Race and gender should be seen as overlapping and related social categories rather than variables competing for analytical supremacy. 
To be fair, these notions were especially common for the colonies that depended upon the African slave labour, mainly the so-called tobacco colonies (which later also produced cotton), but echoed in other areas of the British imperial world. Brown shows how this gave way to a racial opposition, in which women of English descent embodied the privileges and virtues of chastity, while women of African descent shouldered the burden of its corresponding evil and sexual lust. Such social categories figured centrally in the creation of exploitable categories of racial difference. It developed into the white anxiety about sex between white women and black men (Hodes, 1997). 
Kathleen M. Brown also studied masculinities among black slaves. Men in West Africa enjoyed patriarchal privileges and manhood was a matter of military skill, experience and reputation. Therefore, the slaves in the colonies often violently and brutally resisted, e.g. in 1739 in South Carolina. Slaves were robbed of two central points of (white) patriarchal masculinity, free marriage and property. So, for enslaved men, the body was the most important source for expressing masculinity. The bitter irony of slavery was that this valued and most personal source had been grounded into submission by exhausting work, discipline and brutal punishment (Brown, 2011). 
The history of masculinity was mostly centred on the most prolific social group, also because of the abundance of primary sources. Rotundo focused on the white middle-class Yankee Northerners in his American Manhood. He saw how this class gained more and more influence and how it challenged the values of masculinity. He distinguished three phases, the communal, the self-made, and the passionate masculinities. The first or communal manhood corresponded roughly with the colonial period. Here, masculinity was closely connected to the duties a man owed to his community and his “usefulness” more than his own economic success (Rotundo, 1993, 2–3, 10–18; for the similar conclusion for England see French & Rothery, 2012). 
The other tenet of men’s identity, according to Rotundo, was his role as the head of the household. Both these roles, private and public, were interconnected. The social status of a man’s family gave him his place in the community more than his individual achievements did. This social trust was important because family was the primary unit of (economic) production. Some historians even talked of the “agrarian patriarchy” since society’s economy was mostly based on agriculture, which was the primary source of wealth and worth for communities (Pleck & Pleck, 1980, 6–13). 
Through his role as the head of the household, a man expressed his value to his com­munity and provided his wife and children with their social identity. In the same vein, a man’s failure in his family was a matter of deep concern to those beyond his household. This can be discerned from the "first colonial constitution", the so-called Fundamental Orders of 1639 from Hartford in Connecticut, decreeing elections of Magistrates and nominating those "whom they conceive fitte to be put to election" (Fundamental Orders, 1639; Bates, 1936; Jones, 1988; Rotundo, 1993, 10–18; Wilson, 1999). 
True manhood was closely entwined with the needs and expectations of a man’s neighbours. Merchants and creditors realized the importance of being considered an “honest dealer” and the problems of declaring bankruptcy. Other people were dependent on them. Since creditors and clients were neighbours and kinsmen, a man’s failure at work was never a private concern. It sent waves through the entire com­munity and directed shame back at the man who failed. This type of commercial and merchant masculinity, according to Rotundo, led to the establishment of the so-called self-made manhood and individualism (Rotundo, 1993, 10–18). This is where gender history intersects with economic and cultural histories of the Atlantic, which are both well-established subfields. 

Fig. 4: The detail of the coloured map of New Virginia depicting the Native American "female" warrior (Blaeu, 1662). The source for Blaeu's map was the engraving by William Hole for John Smith's Map of Virginia (Smith, 1612, 8–9; Smith, 1624, 20–21, 24–25). Nota bene: although the depictions are practically identical in Blaeu and Smith, the latter noted that this was the picture of the greatest "of their chiefe Werovances," which is a male noun for a chief of a Native American tribe in colonial Virginia and Maryland; the female equivalent would be werowansqua. Smith also stated that these Susquesahanocks "seemed like Giants to the English" and pointed out the incredible size of their chief's calves: "three quarters of a yard about" (27 inches or c. 70 cm). 
Alexandra Shepard accentuated another parameter for defining masculine ideals by considering the connection between masculinity and adulthood. Naturally, boys were not considered real men, but neither were adolescents and young adults. She further saw the upward limits since the man and the ideal manhood started to "dete­riorate" with old age. True manhood in England was, thus, reserved for the middle-aged men, approximately from the years 30 to 50. This was of course case specific and varied considerably according to means and physical capacity. While some men retained their influence (“patriarchal dividends”), others retired or resumed positions as dependents (Shepard, 2003, 214–246). 
Historians highlighted the differences between different periods, places and cultures. The exception to the rule is Ann M. Little who emphasized the similarities between the gender roles in colonial New England. Traditionally, women were seen as more equal among Native Americans. This is clearly seen in the report by a French nun Marie Guyart who in the 17th century worked with the Iroquois in Canada and stated: 
These female chieftains are women of standing amongst the savages, and they have a deciding vote in the councils. They make decisions there like the men, and 
it is they who even delegated the first ambassadors to discuss peace (Bruneau (ed.), 1998, 106). 
Many Native Americans had a matrilineal kinship system. However, this sup­posed “equality” or even superior standing of women is also based on a contemporary cultural construct that emphasized differences and overlooked similarities between the native and colonial cultures. Thus, one has to be careful with the uncritical and verbatim reading of such sources. In reality, there were many similarities in gender ideologies between the indigenous people and colonists. Both had established sex hierarchies that privileged men and preserved politics and war in their domain. There was no mythic sexual equality among Indians (Little, 2007). 
Richard Godbeer addressed the theme of friendship and relationships amongst men. Fraternal love was commonplace in pre-Revolutionary America. Many men had romantic friendships with other men, but they perceived them differently from more recent generations. In common with their contemporaries in early modern England and Europe, North American colonists did not think about their sexual impulses in terms of a distinct sexuality that oriented men and women toward members of the same or opposite sex. Instead they understood erotic desires and acts as an expression of social or moral standing (Godbeer, 2009, 3–4). 
Declarations of love amongst men did not immediately suggest that sexual rela­tions might be taking place although sometimes it did include an erotic element. In the 18th century, there were no definitions of gay people as “sick” (as opposed to the medical definitions from the late 19th century onward), but they were judged for their specific gay acts, which were prohibited by various “sodomy” or “buggery” laws (Foster, 2006, 155–174). In English criminal law, in 1533 Henry VIII intro­duced the first legislation against sodomy with the Buggery Act that made buggery 

Fig. 5: The depiction of pirate Bartholomew the Portuguese (Wikimedia Commons; Exqueme­lin, 1684, 43; cf. the Dutch original Exquemelin, 1678). The conventions for depicting pirates usually involved them standing holding a drawn sword with a sea battle in the background. 
punishable by hanging; sodomy would remain a capital offence until 1861 (Kirby, 2011; Hyde, 1970). 
Historians of masculinity recognized many alternative masculinities. One of such and almost a complete contrast to the masculinity of “patriarchs” was the masculinity of pirates. The former valued stability, marriage and property, while the latter always had a certain charm, allure and proverbial carelessness. It was a masculinity without any obstacles and self-control. Gender and sexuality played a primary role in popular images of piracy. Conventions for rendering pirates as dangerous and desirable he­roes emerged precisely in the golden era of piracy, roughly between the years 1670 and 1730. Publishers supported and inflated the stereotypes about pirates in order to attract and excite the European and American readers (Eastman, 2011). 
During the Revolutionary era in the late 18th century, hegemonic masculinity reshaped itself to better mirror the new political, social and cultural circumstances. As the subjects were slowly converting to citizens, actively participating in leading their countries, a reactionary manhood was coming to the forefront. If being blindly loyal to the Crown, was the hegemonic norm before the Revolutions, afterwards it became a sign of cowardice and unmanliness (Dudink, Hagemann & Tosh (eds.), 2004, especially 3–21, 61–76). Carroll Smith-Rosenberg called the adherents of this new masculinity the republican gentlemen or citizen (Smith-Rosenberg, 2004; Smith-Rosenberg, 2010). 
Slowly but steadily loyalty shifted to the idea of nation states. A man willing to fight and die for his country, was a role model for all to follow. The semi-legendary immortal last words of Nathan Hale (1755–1776), an American soldier and spy, before being hanged by the British spring to mind: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country” (Essex Journal, 1777; Independent Chronicle, 1781). Thus, across the whole Atlantic World the key concept associated with masculinity became the citizenship, closely associated with republican democracy (Dudink, Hagemann & Clark, 2007). 
CONCLUSION 
I claim that there was a common British Atlantic hegemonic masculinity in the early modern era which has so far been largely neglected by historians. Since there was one more or less firmly knitted political and cultural community, there was a distinct sense of common British identity in the “first” British Empire, and consequentially also one hegemonic masculinity in the British Atlantic world. It was only in the War of Jenkin’s Ear (1739–1748) that the distinct terms, “Americans” and “Europeans”, were first used to distinguish between the British soldiers from the colonies and mother country (Drake, 2004). However, after the war ended, the colonists on the eastern coast of North America still did not feel more connected to each other than they did to the mother country (Fischer, 1989). 
The Albany Plan of (Defensive) Union (of the Eleven Colonies!) was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in July 1754 to protect against the French and Native Ameri­
cans. The plan itself predicted the highest post of “President-General, to be appointed 
and supported by the crown” (Albany Plan, 1754). They sent the Plan to each of the colonial assemblies and to the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations in London, which had originally recommended a meeting. Both, the colonial legislatures’ and the British representatives, rejected the Albany Plan (Tucker, 1982, 81–82). The Albany Plan was not the origin of American independence movement, but it was part of Britain’s eighteenth-century Atlantic empire building (Shannon, 2002). 
Even Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) clarified at the time “that by such a union the people of Great Britain and the people of the colonies would learn to consider themselves as not belonging to a different community with different interests but to one community with one interest, which, I imagine, would contribute to strengthen the whole and greatly lessen the danger of future separations” (Franklin, 1754, 526). Little did he knew that he would be one of the leading Founding Fathers of a new “nation.” Even in 1789 he reflected that if the Plan “had been adopted and carried into Execution, the subsequent Separation of the Colonies from the Mother Country might not so soon have happened […] so that the different Parts of the Empire might still have remained in Peace and Union” (Franklin, 1789). 
Despite the neglect of the common British Atlantic identity in the early modern era, the historians of the British Atlantic in their respective "united political entities" have rather quickly and successfully appropriated the concept of masculinity and masculinities from sociology. They recognized many different types of masculinity in early modern England and colonial America. Some of the most important parameters they took into account were gender, class, age, and, in the case of America, race. Historians have also successfully broadened the scope and acknowledged the struc­tures that affect the male identity in different Atlantic communities; from the slave community in Virginia to the pirate community in the Caribbean. 
However, there is still the potential for the histories of masculinities in the British Atlantic world. In particular, we lack a truly common view on the American and British masculinity at the time, i.e. the British Atlantic hegemonic masculinity. Historians also, generally, emphasize the differences and dismiss the similarities between different periods and cultures. To take an obvious example, age was always important to the notion of manhood, so it was not specific to the early modern era, let alone the British Atlantic. The notions of strength and wealth have always been perceived as masculine. Thus, we can question the basic tenets of sociology and anthropology, which rightly state that gender roles have cultural background. Yet, one might recognize some common deep structures, if I may use anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss’s term. One can certainly question whether there were and are some universal elements or continuities of manhood across different cultures and times (strength, wealth, courage). 
ZGODOVINA MOŠKOSTI V BRITANSKEM ATLANTIKU 
Izidor JANŽEKOVIČ 
Central European University, Oddelek za zgodovino, Nador u. 9, 1051 Budimpešta, Madžarska 
e-mail: izidor.janzekovic@gmail.com 
POVZETEK 
Članek govori o konceptu moškosti v britanskem Atlantiku in preuči, kako uspe­šno so ga zgodovinarji doslej uporabljali. Članek je razdeljen na tri dele. Prvi del predstavi kratko zgodovino raziskav moškosti v Veliki Britaniji in njenih ameriških ter karibskih kolonijah v zgodnjem novem veku. Drugi del pojasni ključne antropo­loške in sociološke koncepte: moškost oziroma moškosti. V tretjem delu se posveti delom zgodovinarjev, ki so uporabljali te pojme med raziskovanjem britanskega Atlantika. Avtor trdi, da zgodovinarji doslej niso izkoristili vseh socioloških orodij primerno in je še veliko potenciala za nadaljnje raziskave. 
Zgodovina moškosti je relativno mlado raziskovalno polje. Seveda je bilo ogro­mno del o zgodovini moških od Herodota naprej, toda ni bilo del o izkušnjah, kaj pomeni biti moški. Spoznanje o posebnih izkušnjah moških je nastalo v okviru dru­gega feminističnega vala v 1960-ih in 1970-ih, a se ni takoj preselilo iz političnih insocioloških razprav v zgodovinske kroge. Šele konec 1970-ih so zgodovinarji najprej v ZDA prevzeli in sprejeli sociološki pojem moškost, medtem ko se je pravi preboj v Združenem kraljestvu in ZDA zgodil konec 1980-ih in v 1990-ih z zgodovinarji, kot so Toby L. Ditz, Ann M. Little, Thomas A. Foster, Anthony Fletcher, Elizabeth Foyster, Alexandra Shepard, Philip Carter, Karen Harvey, John Tosh, Michael Roper in mnogi drugi. 
Koncept moškosti je sicer nastal iz temeljnih ugotovitev sociologije in antropo­logije. Razlike med spoloma namreč niso le naravne, univerzalne in ahistorične, čeprav so pogosto predstavljene kot take. Moškost večinoma ni bila »uzakonjena,« ampak je bila privzgojena, naučena in utrjena v vsakokratni družbi. Moškost je (bila) kulturno občutljiva konstrukcija, ki je le redko avtonomno osnovana, ampak je neločljivo povezana s svojim »drugim.« Moškost je namreč pogosto definirana glede na druge parametre, kot so ženskost, druge moške, starost, raso, nacionalno pripadnost, razred, telo, poklic, bogastvo, itd. Tako je hitro postalo jasno, da ne gre samo za dihotomije, ampak je v določenem času obstajalo več hegemonih moškosti v več družbah, pa tudi sodelujočih, podrejenih in marginaliziranih moškosti. 
Zgodovinarji britanskega Atlantika so relativno uspešno prevzeli koncept mo-škosti. V zgodnjenovoveški Veliki Britaniji in njenih severnoameriških kolonijah so zgodovinarji prepoznali različne vrste moškosti glede na številne parametre, predvsem spol, razred, starost in v primeru ZDA tudi rasa. Zgodovinarji so tako tudi razširili domet in prepoznali različne strukture, ki so vplivale na moško identiteto v različnih atlantskih skupnostih, od suženjske do piratske skupnosti. Trdim, da je v zgodnjem novem veku obstajala skupna britanska atlantska hegemona moškost. 
Ker je bil britanski Atlantik bolj ali manj politično in kulturno povezana skupnost, je bila določena ideja skupne britanske identitete v »prvem« britanskem imperiju. Problem pri britanskem Atlantiku je namreč tradicija osredotočenosti na razlike ali »ekskluzivnosti,« zato so skupne točke in tradicije prezrte. 
Ključne besede: moškost, možatost, zgodnji novi vek, sociologija, britanski Atlantik, 16.–18. stoletje 
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Albany Plan (1754): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/albany.asp (7. Sep­tember 2019). 
Aristotle (1943): Politics. New York, Modern library. 
Blaeu, W. J. (1662): Nova Virginia Tabvla. In: Blaeu Atlas Maior or Cosmographia Blaviana, Vol. 11: America. Amsterdam, Blaeu. 
Bruneau, M. F. (ed.) (1998): Women Mystics Confront the Modern World: Marie de l’Incarnation (1599–1672) and Madame Guyon (1648–1717). New York, SUNY Press. 
Bush, S. (ed.) (2001): The Correspondence of John Cotton. Chapel Hill, NC, Univer­sity of North Carolina Press. 
Daily Mail (2015): https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/boxing/article-3046166/Jeff-Pow­ell-s-Greatest-Fights-Jack-Johnson-v-James-Jeffries-July-4-1910.html (8 November 2019). 
Essex Journal (13 February 1777). Newburyport, Mass., J. Mycall. 
Evelyn, J. (1882): Diaries and Correspondence. 4 vols. London, George Bell and Sons. 
Exquemelin, A. O. (1678): De Americaensche Zee-rovers. Amsterdam, Jan ten Hoorn. 
Exquemelin, A. O. (1684): Bucaniers of America, or, A true account of the most re­markable assaults committed of late years upon the coasts of the West-Indies, by the bucaniers of Jamaica and Tortuga, both English and French. London, William Crooke. 
Filmer, R. (1680): Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. London, Richard Chiswell. 
Franklin, B. (1754): The Problems of Colonial Union. In: The Annals of America. Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1976, 525–526. 
Franklin, B. (1789): Letter to Matthew Carey, 9 February 1789. In: Smyth, A. H. (ed.): The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. III. New York, The Macmillan Company, 1907, 226–227. 
Fundamental Orders (1639): http://www.constitution.org/bcp/fo_1639.htm (14 January 2018). 
Gibbon, E. (1796): Memoirs of My Life and Writings. London, A. Strahan, T. Cadell, Jr. & W. Davies. 
Gisborne, T. (1797): An Enquiry into the Duties of the Female Sex. London, T. Cadell jun. and W. Davies. 
Hobbes, T. (1642): Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Tertia de Cive. Paris, Jean Matheus. 
Hobbes, T. (1650): De corpore politico; or The Elements of Law, Moral & Politic. London, J. Martin & J. Ridley. 
Hobbes, T. (1651): Leviathan: or The Matter, Forme & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill. London, Andrew Crooke. 



Independent Chronicle and the Universal Advertiser (17 May 1781). Boston, Mass., Powars & Willis. 
Johnson, S. (1755): A Dictionary of the English Language. London, J. and P. Knap-ton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Miller, and R. and J. Dodsley. 
Oxford English Dictionary (2019): http://www.oed.com/ (5 March 2019). 
Rousseau, J. J. (1762): Émile, ou De l’éducation. Paris, Jean Néaulme. 
Rousseau, J. J. (1763): Emile, or On Education. London, John Nourse and Paul Vaillant. 
Smith, J. (1612): A map of Virginia with a description of the countrey, the commodi­ties, people, government and religion. Oxford, Joseph Barnes. 
Smith, J. (1624): The generall historie of Virginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles. London, Michael Sparkes. 
Tocqueville, A. de (1838): Democracy in America. New York, George Dearborn & Co., Adlard & Saunders. 
Venn, H. (1763): The Complete Duty of Man: or, A system of doctrinal and practical Christianity. London, J. Newbery, R. Baldwin, S. Crowler, J. Coote. 
Alexander, S. & B. Taylor (1981): In defence of “patriarchy”. In: Samuel R. (ed.): People’s History and Socialist Theory. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 364–374. 
Aries, P. & G. Duby (eds.) (1992–1998): A History of Private Life, 5 vols. Cam­bridge, Mass., The Belknap Press, Harvard University Press. 
Armitage, D. & M. J. Braddick (eds.) (2002): The British Atlantic World, 1500– 1800. New York, Palgrave. 
Arnold, J. H. & S. Brady (eds.) (2011): What is Masculinity? Historical Dynamics from Antiquity to the Contemporary World. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. 
Bagemihl, B. (1999): Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. New York, St. Martin’s. 
Bailyn, B. (2005): Atlantic History: Concept and Contours. Cambridge, MA, Lon­don, Harvard University Press. 
Bates, C. (1936): Were the Fundamental Orders a Constitution? Connecticut Bar Journal, 1, 43–50. 
Beauvoir, S. de (2009 [1949]): The Second Sex. Translated by Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. New York, Alfred A. Knopf. 
Bederman, G. (1995): Manliness and Civilization: A Cultural History of Gender and Race in the United States, 1880–1917. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. 
Benjamin, T. (2009): The Atlantic World: Europeans, Africans, Indians and Their Shared History, 1400–1900. New York, Cambridge University Press. 
Bock, G. (1989): Women’s History and Gender History: Aspects of an International Debate. Gender and History, 1, 1, 7–30. 
Boulware, T. (2011): “We Are Men”: Native American and Euroamerican Projec­tions of Masculinity During the Seven Years’ War. In: Foster, T. A. (ed.): New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York, NYU Press, 51–70. 
Breitenberg, M. (1996): Anxious Masculinity in Early Modern England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Brown, K. M. (1996): Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and Power in Colonial Virginia. Chapel Hill and London, Omohundro Insti­tute of Early American History and Culture, University of North Carolina Press. 
Brown, K. M. (2011): “Strength of the Lion... Arms Like Polished Iron”: Embodying Black Masculinity in an Age of Slavery and Propertied Manhood. In: Foster, T. A. (ed.): New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York, NYU Press, 172–192. 
Cadden, J. (1993): Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages: Medicine, Sci­ence, and Culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Capp, B. (1996): Separate Domains? Women and Authority in Early Modern Eng­land. In: Griffiths, P., Fox, A. & S. Hindle (eds.): The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England. Basingstoke, Palgrave, 117–145. 
Capp, B. (2014): ‘Jesus Wept’ But Did the Englishman? Masculinity and Emotion in Early Modern England. Past & Present, 224, 1, 75–108. 
Chevannes, B. (2006): The Role of Men in Families in the Caribbean, A Historical Perspective. In: Bannon, I. & M. C. Correia (eds.): The Other Half of Gender, Men’s Issues in Development. Washington, D.C., World Bank Publications, 73–91. 
Connell, R. W. (2005): Masculinities (2nd Edition). Cambridge, Polity Press. 
Curzan, A. (2014): Fixing English: Prescriptivism and Language History. Cam­bridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Digby, T. (ed.) (1998): Men Doing Feminism. New York, Routledge. 
Drake, J. D. (2004): Appropriating a Continent: Geographical Categories, Scientific Metaphors, and the Construction of Nationalism in British North America and Mexico. Journal of World History, 15, 3, 323–357. 
Dubert, J. L. (1979): A Man’s Place. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. 
Dudink, S., Hagemann, K. & J. Tosh (eds.) (2004): Masculinities in Politics and War: Gendering Modern History. Manchester, Manchester University Press. 
Dudink, S., Hagemann, H. & A. Clark (eds.) (2007): Representing Masculinity: Male Citizenship in Modern Western Culture. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. 
Eastman, C. (2011): “Blood and Lust”: Masculinity and Sexuality in Illustrated Print Portrayals of Early Pirates of the Caribbean. In: Foster, T. A. (ed.): New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York, NYU Press, 95–115. 
Edley, N. & M. Wetherell (1996): Masculinity, Power and Identity. In: Mac an Ghaill, 
M. (ed.): Understanding Masculinities. Buckingham, Open University Press, 97–114. Edley, N. & M. Wetherell (1997): Jockeying for Position: The Construction of Masculine Identities. Discourse and Society, 8, 2, 203–217. Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000): Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York, Basic Books. Fischer, D. H. (1989): Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Fletcher, A. (1995): Gender, Sex and Subordination in England, 1500–1800. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press. 
Foster, T. A. (2006): Sex and the Eighteenth-Century Man: Massachusetts and the History of Sexuality in America. Boston, Beacon Press. 
Foster, T. A. (ed.) (2011): The New Men: Manliness and Early America. New York, 
NYU Press. 
Foucault, M. (1976): Archaeology of Knowledge. New York, London, Routledge. 
Foucault, M. (1988–1990): The History of Sexuality, 3 vols. New York, Vintage. 
French, H. & M. Rothery (2012): Man’s Estate: Landed Gentry Masculinities, c. 1660–c. 1900. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Friedman, D. M. (2001): A Mind of Its Own: A Cultural History of the Penis. New York, Simon & Schuster. 
Gallagher, C. & T. Laqueur (1987): The Making of the Modern Body: Sexuality and Society in the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley, University of California Press. 
Gero, J. & W. Conkey (eds.) (1991): Engendering Archaeology. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. 
Godbeer, R. (2009): The Overflowing of Friendship, Love between Men and the Creation of the American Republic. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. 
Goldenberg, D. M. (2003): The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Juda­ism, Christianity, and Islam. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 
Gramsci, A. (1971): Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York, International Publishers. 
Harvey, K. (2005): The History of Masculinity, Circa 1650–1800. Journal of British Studies, 44, 2, 296–311. 
Hirschmann, N. J. & J. H. Wright (eds.) (2012): Feminist Interpretations of Thomas Hobbes. University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania State University Press. 
Hodes, M. (1997): White Women, Black Men, Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. 
Hyde, M. (1970): The Love That Dared Not Speak Its Name: A Candid History of Homosexuality in Britain. Boston, Little Brown. 
Isaac, B. H. (2004): The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press. 
Jones, M. J. A. (1988): The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. Hartford, CT, U.S. Constitution Bicentennial Commission of Connecticut. 
Joyce, R. A. (2008): Ancient Bodies, Ancient Lives: Sex, Gender, and Archaeology. London, Thames & Hudson. 
Kahn, C. (1981): Man’s Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare. Berkeley, Uni­versity of California Press. 
Kane, B. (2015): Masculinity and Political Geographies in England, Ireland and North America. European Review of History, Revue européenne d'histoire, 22, 4, 595–619. 
Kimmel, M. & T. Bridges (2011): Masculinity. Oxford Bibliographies, Oxford. 
Kimmel, M. (2012): Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
King, H. (2013): The One-Sex Body on Trial: The Classical and Early Modern Evi­dence. Farnham, Ashgate. 
Kirby, M. (2011): The sodomy offence: England’s least lovely criminal law export? 
Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law, I, 22–43. 
Kirshner, A. M. (ed.) (1977): Masculinity in a Historical Perspective: Readings and Discussions. Washington, D.C., University Press of America. 
Laqueur, T. (1990): Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cam­bridge, Harvard University Press. 
Lindman, J. M. (2011): “Play the Man ... For Your Bleeding Country” – Military Chaplains as Gender Brokers During the American Revolutionary War. In: Fos­ter, T. A. (ed.): New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York, NYU Press, 236–255. 
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1976): Towards a Homosocial Theory of Sex Roles: An Expla­nation of the Sex Segregation of Social Institutions. Signs, 1, 3, 15–31. 
Little, A. M. (2007): Abraham in Arms: War and Gender in Colonial New England. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. 
Lombard, A. S. (2003): Making Manhood, Growing up Male in Colonial New Eng­land. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. 
Lyons, C. A. (2006): Sex among the Rabble: An Intimate History of Gender and Power in the Age of Revolution, 1730–1830. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Cul­ture. 
Malik, K. (1996): The Meaning of Race: Race, History and Culture in Western Soci­ety. Basingstoke, Macmillan. 
Marcus, S. (2005): Queer Theory for Everyone: A Review Essay. Signs, 31, 1, 191–218. 
McCurdy, J. G. (2011): Gentlemen and Soldiers: Competing Visions of Manhood in Early Jamestown. In: Foster, T. A. (ed.): New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York, NYU Press, 9–30. 
Miller, C. & K. Swift (1976): Words and Women: New Language in New Times. New York, Anchor Press. 
Miller, C. & K. Swift (1980): The Handbook of Non-Sexist Writing: A Practical Guide for Writers and Editors. New York, Women’s Press. 
Mills, S. (2008): Language and Sexism. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Morgan, P. D. & J. P. Greene (eds.) (2009): Atlantic History: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Mosse, G. L. (1982): Nationalism and Respectability: Normal and Abnormal Sexual­ity in the Nineteenth Century. Journal of Contemporary History, 17, 2, Sexuality in History, 221–246. 
Mosse, G. L. (1985): Nationalism and Sexuality: Respectability and Abnormal Sexu­ality in Modern Europe. New York, Howard Fertig. 
Mosse, G. L. (1996): The Image of Man: The Creation of Modern Masculinity. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Murphy, P. F. (2004): Feminism and Masculinities. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Norton, M. B. (1996): Founding Fathers & Founding Mothers, Gendered Power and 
the Forming of American Society. New York, Knopf. 
Norton, M. B. (2011): Preface. In: Foster, T. A. (ed.): New Men: Manliness in Early America. New York, NYU Press, ix–x. 
Owen, N. (2013): Men and the 1970s British Women’s Liberation Movement. The Historic Journal, 56, 3, 801–826. 
Pateman, C. (1989): ‘God Hath Ordained to Man a Helper’: Hobbes, Patriarchy, and Conjugal Right. British Journal of Political Science, 19, 445–463. 
Pauwels, A. (1998): Women Changing Language. London, Longman. 

Pleck, E. H. & J. H. Pleck (eds.) (1980): The American Man. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. 
Raveenthiran, V. (2017): Penis in History. In: Congenital Anomalies of the Penis. Cham, Springer, 15–31. 
Reeser, T. W. (2006): Moderating Masculinity in Early Modern Culture. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 
Roper, M. & J. Tosh (eds.) (1991): Manful Assertions: Masculinities in Britain since 1800. London, Routledge. 
Roper, M. (2005): Between Manliness and Masculinity: The ‘War Generation’ and Psychology of Fear in Britain, 1914–1950. Journal of British Studies, 44, 2, 343–362. 
Rotundo, A. E. (1993): American Manhood: Transformations in Masculinity from the Revolution to the Modern Era. New York, Basic Books. 
Rowbotham, S. (1981): The Trouble with Patriarchy. In: Samuel, R. (ed.): People’s History and Socialist Theory. London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 364–369. 
Sarson, S. (2005): British America, 1500–1800: Creating Colonies, Imagining an Empire. London, Hodder Arnold. 
Scott, J. W. (1986): Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis. The American Historical Review, 91, 5, 1053–1075. 
Scott, J. W. (1988): Gender and the Politics of History. New York, Columbia Uni­versity Press. 
Scott, J. W. (2001): Millennial Fantasies: The Future of Gender in the 21st Century. In: Honegger, C. & C. Arni (eds.): Gender – die Tken einer Kategorie. Zich, Chronos, 19–37. 
Shannon, T. J. (2002): Indians and Colonists at the Crossroads of Empire: The Albany Congress of 1754. Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press. 
Shepard, A. (2003): Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England. New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Shepard, A. (2005): From Anxious Patriarchs to Refined Gentlemen? Manhood in Britain, Circa 1500–1700. Journal of British Studies, 44, 2, 281–295. 
Shepard, A. (2006): Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England. Oxford, Ox­ford University Press. 
Small, C. M. (1998): Reinventing Sex: The Construction of Realistic Definitions of 
Sex & Gender. The American Biology Teacher, 60, 8, 590–593. 
Smith, B. R. (2000): Shakespeare and Masculinity. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 
Smith-Rosenberg, C. (2004): The Republican Gentleman: The Race to Rhetorical Stability in the New United States. In: Dudink, S., Hagemann, K. & J. Tosh (eds.): Masculinities in Politics and War: Gendering Modern History. Manchester, Man­chester University Press, 61–76. 
Smith-Rosenberg, C. (2010): This Violent Empire: The Birth of an American Na­tional Identity. Williamsburg, Virginia, Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, University of North Carolina Press. 
Sensen, M. L. S. (2000): Gender Archaeology. Cambridge, Polity Press. 
Sreedhar, S. (2019): The Curious Case of Hobbes's Amazons. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 57, 4, 621–646. 
Stolberg, M. (2003): AWoman Down to her Bones. The Anatomy of Sexual Differ­ence in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. Isis, 94, 274–299. 
Tosh, J. (1994): What Should Historians Do with Masculinity? Reflections on 
Nineteenth-Century Britain. History Workshop, 38, 179–202. 
Tosh, J. (2004): Hegemonic Masculinity and the History of Gender. In: Dudink, S., Hagemann, K. & J. Tosh (eds.): Masculinities in Politics and War: Gendering Modern History. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 41–58. 
Tosh, J. (2011): The History of Masculinity: An Outdated Concept? In: Arnold, J. 
H. & S. Brady (eds.): What is Masculinity? Genders and Sexualities in History. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 17–34. Traister, B. (2000): Academic Viagra: The Rise of American Masculinity Studies. American Quarterly, 52, 2, 274–304. 
Tucker, R. W. & D. C. Henderson (1982): The Fall of the First British Empire: Origins of the War of American Independence. Baltimore and London, The Johns Hopkins University Press. 
Vickery, A. (1993): Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English Women’s History. The Historical Journal, 36, 2, 383–414. 
Wells, R. H. (2000): Shakespeare on Masculinity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 
Wetherell, M. & N. Edley (1999): Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imagi­nary Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9, 3, 335–356. 
Wilkins, J. S. (2011): Species: A History of the Idea. Berkeley, CA, University of California Press. 
Wilkins, J. S. & M. C. Ebach (2013): The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. London, Palgrave Macmillan. 
Wilson, L. (1999): Ye Heart of a Man, The Domestic Life of Men in Colonial New England. New Haven and London, Yale University Press. 
Yudell, M., Roberts, D., Desalle, R. & S. Tishkoff (2016): Taking Race out of Hu­man Genetics. Science, 351, 6273, 564–565. 
Zemon Davis, N. (1976): ‘Women’s History’ in Transition: The European Case. Feminist Studies, 3, 83–103.