Diana Garzón
While the works of William Shakespeare have gained wide acclaim throughout the years, critics have not ignored the problematic concept of misogyny present in his literature. I will examine Hamlet (c. 1599), Othello (c. 1603), and Measure for Measure (c. 1603)to establish that Shakespearean tragedies channeled conventional qualities of the tragedy genre coupled with the subordinate characterization of female characters to criticize the Elizabethan and post-Elizabethan patriarchy. Through Ophelia, Desdemona, and Isabella’s lack of autonomy, Shakespearean tragedies addressed the ongoing personal and political crises regarding the lack of female agency encompassed within Elizabethan society.
The conventions in Shakespearean tragedies do not entirely deviate from those of classic tragedies, as the plays of both eras included tragic heroes and their downfalls, the dichotomy of good and evil, and many other common elements. Their differences lie in the intersections and blend of multiple genres demonstrated by Shakespeare’s work. Measure for Measure is a notable example of Shakespeare’s genre-blending, and the play cannot be classified strictly as a comedy because it includes darker and heavy elements, particularly themes of corruption and sexual violence. The play’s comedic, romantic, and tragic aspects have led scholars to question whether this is a tragedy, romcom, tragicomedy, or all three.[1] Shakespeare’s distinctive genre results from his creative liberty and ability to utilize other conventional works. As Robert Ornstein details, Shakespeare, through imitation, channeled the influence of contemporary works like The Spanish Tragedy (c. 1587) into his individual treatment of the genre (258). This ability to incorporate multiple genres and adapt them to the contemporary context was a hallmark of Shakespeare’s work. It allowed him to create tragedies that inserted his political and social commentary while concurrently drawing on the traditions of earlier works. This “genre mixing” allowed Shakespeare to incorporate varying narratives to shift what was usually seen on the Elizabethan stage and subvert potential complications that arise from outspoken behaviors.
Moreover, Shakespeare further adheres to, as well as subverts, the conventions of the tragedy genre by depicting a sense of inferiority between female and male characters throughout his tragic plays. An inferiority complex––the feeling of being inferior or inadequate to others––is present in each of these plays between the female and male characters. The dynamic between these counterparts illustrates the dearth of female agency––a female character’s free will or autonomy––in Elizabethan society. With the social norms and misogynistic nature of the period, Shakespeare’s works challenge the era’s predisposition, criticizing the period’s lack of female autonomy instead of adhering to social norms. Claire McEachern emphasizes the connection between Shakespearean works and the prevalent patriarchy:
Shakespeare’s experience and understanding of the pressures that patriarchy exerts upon its members enabled him to write plays that interrogate those patriarchal systems. He developed this understanding by engaging with his artistic fathers and the cultural authority they represent and embody. To empower his writing, Shakespeare rebels against the archetypes he inherits. His refusal to replicate the assumptions of the patriarchy––while obviously not part of any specifically feminist agenda––originates in his inquiry into the nature of power, particularly as it is manifested in the imitative pressures of the patriarchy. (272)
The ability of Shakespeare to “rebel” against the contemporary ideas of the period distinguished his tragedies. Shakespeare analyzes and criticizes the patriarchy in his plays through an intentional characterization of tragic female characters, for example, through Ophelia, Desdemona, and Isabella’s lack of autonomy. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s portrayal of his female characters––through imitation of the patriarchy––makes it challenging to confine “female agency” within a box. Much like genre, character agency is not simply black and white. Desdemona, the female protagonist in Othello, can be said to have gained intellectual autonomy by marrying against her father’s wishes. However, she is devoid of physical agency, and this is emphasized as she meets her demise at the hands of Othello. It is essential also to consider the magnitude of a character’s agency; if we compare Lady Macbeth––one of Shakespeare’s most agentive female characters––to Desdemona, we notice a stark difference in their social or individual power throughout the play. Lady Macbeth wields significant power and influence over her husband, whereas Desdemona lacks agency and is subject to the whims of those around her. For this reason, we must not get lost in the confines of female agency but instead examine the presence of the female-to-male inferiority complex.
To better contextualize the discussion of misogyny and the patriarchy throughout Shakespearean tragedies, we must first consider the social order of Elizabethan England. In this era, traditional values regarding gender roles remained prevalent throughout society. English women were expected to maintain unwavering loyalty to their fathers and, if married, to their husbands. The concept of obeying the husband or father of the family came from the belief that men were “superior to women […]. Wives, children, and servants were expected to yield to the authority and wisdom of the male head of the family” (Peddle 312). The patriarchy was realized throughout this society and consequently affected the social perceptions of women concerning power and autonomy. As a result, women were perceived as dependent figures since their lack of control disallowed them from taking charge of their actions or decisions. These patriarchal ideas were consistently conveyed by playwrights of the era. As in the tragedy genre, Elizabethan works often include complex, subordinate female characters that meet their end at the hands of men. In Shakespearean tragedies, the ongoing social and political crises regarding women’s societal position reflected the misogynistic condition in Elizabethan England.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the prevalence of misogyny is criticized through the characterization of Ophelia. From the beginning of the play, it is evident that Ophelia has no voice regarding her personal life. As her male family members Laertes and Polonius denounce Ophelia’s relationship with Hamlet, there is no room for her opinion or feelings. Even as Polonius forbids her from interacting with Hamlet, the scene ends with her saying, “I shall obey, my lord” (1.4.135). Her response to Polonius is not a rarity in Elizabethan society––it is actually how Ophelia was supposed to respond. This interaction, however, leaves a sour taste with Hamlet’s audience. Clearly, Ophelia cannot recount her feelings regarding Hamlet and, instead, relies on her male family members to influence what she should think and how she should act. The lack of Ophelia’s agency goes beyond her personality or behavior and presents as the inability to defend herself. The mistreatment she faces from Hamlet is startling and delves into the conventional image of Elizabethan women: “I have heard of your paintings well enough. God hath given you one face and you make yourselves another. You jig and amble and you lisp, you nickname God’s creatures and make your wantonness ignorance. Go to, I’ll no more on’t. It hath made me mad” (3.1.141–46). As Hamlet says “God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another,” he inflicts judgment on the female tendency to use cosmetics and therefore create a fallacious presence in society. Hamlet’s apparent criticism of women, indicated by “yourselves” (l. 142), presumably contributes to her eventual madness, granting us insight into his version of the female social crisis. He fails to see, though, that his apparent hatred for Ophelia or women in general is the result of the social and political crises of the patriarchy, illustrating the profound impact of societal gender roles on Hamlet’s beliefs and behavior. The lack of Ophelia’s voice and her eventual death result from the expectations of society and the male characters in her life. Her characterization “[echoes] concern about the vulnerability of girls and the potential dangers they face growing up” (Gonick 12). It is precisely Ophelia’s vulnerability and fragility that Shakespeare’s Hamlet exaggerates to criticize the patriarchal norms of the era. If we consider Ophelia’s actions throughout the play, she has no autonomy to make her own mistakes or act according to her beliefs. Consequently, Ophelia remains voiceless until her tragic demise, leaving no room for being responsible for her own death. Ophelia’s tragic suicide does not sit well with audiences, perhaps because she is nothing more than a product of her environment.
In Othello, Desdemona’s agency has garnered much more scholarly disagreement. Although women in this period were expected to obey their fathers’ wishes, Desdemona disobeyed her father’s preference concerning her marriage to Othello. Her decision has scholars arguing that she does have agency and labels her as a “warrior” throughout the play (Holmer 132). This perspective, however, ignores a more significant portion of Desdemona’s characterization. While she does disobey her father’s wishes, Desdemona quickly places her loyalty on the subsequent male figure in her life––Othello. The willingness to express loyalty to Othello so quickly indicates Desdemona’s awareness of the period’s gendered expectations. Ironically, as she abides by the era’s norms in her new role as a wife, Desdemona falls into an inevitable, misogynistic cycle that leads to her demise. Even in her most vulnerable time, the moment of her suffocation, Desdemona does not relinquish her dedication to Othello:
EMILIA: O, who hath done
This deed?
DESDEMONA: Nobody. I myself. Farewell.
Commend me to my kind lord –– O, farewell! (5.2.121–23).
As quickly as Desdemona takes self-blame for her death, she could have accused Othello. Desdemona’s final decision to spare Othello could be interpreted as a moment that illustrates her agency and ability to think for herself. This interpretation, again, ignores how her “first concern is not to pray but to clear her name, that is, to reaffirm her innocence of adultery to her lord while she properly defines his attempted ritual sacrifice as actual murder” (Holmer 140). Joan Ozark Holmer’s use of “lord” perfectly expresses the energy of Desdemona’s commitment to Othello; she ignores the chance to save herself from God, clearing the notion that she committed adultery, and instead dedicates her last moments to Othello. The lack of concern illustrates the depth of her dedication to her husband. Desdemona’s final words and energy are not dedicated to bringing herself literal salvation––but salvation in the eyes of Othello. Ironically, it is the expectation of this unwavering obedience that leads to her death. Desdemona, whose name is Greek for “ill-fated” or “unfortunate,” perfectly portrays the flaws in patriarchal values (142). The political crisis of social and personal misogyny is criticized through Desdemona’s unavoidable damnation. Although Desdemona is not disrespectful of Othello, Iago’s interference catalyzes Othello’s mistreatment of her. She is damned if she does and damned if she does not––leaving her life to balance in the hands of the husband. With her lack of agency and naiveté, Desdemona’s downfall is the fault of her male counterpart, Othello, despite all her efforts to follow her role in Elizabethan tradition.
In upholding the gendered expectations during the Elizabethan period, Measure for Measure’s Isabella similarly loses her agency due to societal pressures. Given that Isabella is a sister––soon in both meanings of the word––she finds herself at a divide when Angelo pressures her for sexual reciprocation. As he says, “You must lay down the treasures of your body / To this supposed, or else to let him suffer” (2.4.95–96). Here, Isabella must decide whether to abandon her chastity in exchange for having her brother’s life sparred. In either situation, as sister or sister of the cloth, Isabella must act within the confinements of each position’s social expectation. As she undergoes an internal battle because of the period’s patriarchy, it becomes clear that Isabella lacks an independent voice in society, especially toward her male counterparts. This lack of independence is especially revealed at the play’s end when the Duke asks for Isabella’s hand in marriage. Although it is unclear how she reacts or if she accepts, it is clear that she is under the “control of a man she has no choice but to obey––a man whose orders are highly questionable––and as a consequence her character is markedly diminished” (Riefer 159). Because of the power dynamic between the Duke and Isabella, she has no autonomy to decline or accept his proposal; as the Duke is a man of power, it is assumed that Isabella only has one choice. Accepting the Duke’s proposal contradicts the convictions she expresses earlier with Angelo. As she firmly stands by her morals and declines Angelo’s sexual advances, Isabella appears to have voice and agency (ll. 99-103 ff). However, if she accepts, she succumbs to societal pressures and loses the powerful convictions she once held, illustrating how Isabella’s agency is determined by the men surrounding her and society’s misogyny. Otherwise, Isabella would never lose her voice or standing as an individual and free-thinking woman who acts according to her convictions. Once again in the case of Isabella, the social and political crisis of the patriarchy is inflicted upon the subordinate female character in Shakespearean tragedies.
While critics may argue that Shakespearean tragedies contributed to the patriarchal Elizabethan culture, this argument ignores the characterization of Shakespeare’s tragic female characters. If we carefully examine Ophelia, Desdemona, and Isabella, we will notice that eachcharacter follows the traditionally gendered norms of English society. If Shakespearean tragedies were meant to continue the misogynistic narrative of the era rather than criticize it, female characters would thrive and be rewarded for their behavior. Instead, each is confined by her lack of agency and meets her demise accordingly. Richard Levin argues against this position, disagreeing that the patriarchy has anything to do with Shakespeare’s tragic finales: “It is even hard to see how [Shakespearean tragedies] could be conducting an inquiry into patriarchy, when the actions they focus on are clearly meant to be atypical” (127-28). Considering the imbalance between female and male dominance in Shakespearean tragedies, how could the misogynistic behaviors not be an attempt to represent a group? Levin disregards the trend in female destiny throughout Shakespeare’s tragedies; the demise of female characters throughout the plays is derived from oppressive behavior inflicted on them. Even in the case of Isabella, although she does not physically die, we can infer that her spirit is not alive in a forced marriage.
Furthermore, the relationship between Elizabethan society and Shakespearean tragedies is too apparent not to acknowledge. Because misogynistic values were pervasive in English society, it is logical that female oppression is normal in the works of the period. Beth Rose establishes a connection between oppressive culture and Shakespearean works: “Elaborating the well-documented silencing of women in the patriarchal culture of Renaissance England, these contributing factors from the theatrical, legal, and demographic domains, along with their implications, all command attention when considering the representation of [womanhood] in Shakespeare’s drama” (294). Rose’s observation further exposes the relevance of considering Elizabethan women in society and Shakespeare’s works: if women did not face oppression during the era, would they maintain such characterization throughout Shakespearean tragedies? The social and political crises of the era’s patriarchal society allowed Shakespearean tragedies to criticize the inequality women faced. As subordination in female characterization is a staple in the genre, Hamlet, Othello, and Measure for Measure reflect the period’s adversities concerning women’s agency.
England’s social and political climate during the 1600s created an unsettling societal environment for women. Shakespearean tragedies produced during the Elizabethan and post-Elizabethan eras incorporated female characters who criticize the ongoing societal difficulties. Through well-known works such as William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Othello, and Measure for Measure, social and political criticism is embedded in the plays’ stories and depicted through the exaggeration of female fragility. The lack of female agency in Ophelia, Desdemona, and Isabella’s characters reflected the reality within Elizabethan audiences and supported the argument criticizing the profound societal limitations of female positionality reflected in Shakespearean works.
[1] See, for example, Tony Martin, for an overview of identifying the genre of the play.
Bibliography
Braunmuller, A. R., and Robert N. Watson, editors. Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare, 3rd Series, The Arden Shakespeare, 2020.
Gonick, Marnina. “Between ‘Girl Power’ and ‘Reviving Ophelia’: Constituting the Neoliberal Girl Subject.” NWSA Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, Summer 2006, pp. 1–23. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4317205.
Grennan, Eamon. “The Women’s Voices in Othello: Speech, Song, Silence.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, Autumn 1987, pp. 275–292. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2870503.
Holmer, Joan Ozark. “Desdemona, Woman Warrior: ‘O, These Men, These Men!’ (4.3.59).” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England, vol. 17, 2005, pp. 132–164. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24322724.
Honigmann, E. A. J., editor. Othello by William Shakespeare. Introduction by Ayanna
Levin, Richard. “Feminist Thematics and Shakespearean Tragedy.” PMLA, vol. 103, no. 2, Mar. 1988, pp. 125–138. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/462429.
Martin, Tony. “What Kind of Play Is Measure for Measure? Comedy, Tragedy or Tragi-comedy? […].” The English Review, vol. 21, no. 1, Sept. 2010, pp. 14+. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A236567710/LitRCu=chic13716&sid=bookmark-LitRC&xid=08dea484.
McEachern, Claire. “Fathering Herself: A Source Study of Shakespeare’s Feminism.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 3, Autumn 1988, pp. 269–290. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2870927.
McKewin, Carole. “Shakespeare Liberata: Shakespeare, the Nature of Women, and the New Feminist Criticism.” Mosaic: A Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, vol. 10, no. 3, Spring 1977, pp. 157–164. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24778870.
Montrose, Louis Adrian. “‘Shaping Fantasies’: Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture.” Representations, no. 2, Spring 1983, pp. 61–94. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2928384.
Newman, Jane O. “‘And Let Mild Women to Him Lose Their Mildness’: Philomela, Female Violence, and Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3, Autumn 1994, pp. 304–326. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2871233.
—. “Feminism.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2012, pp. 268–290. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0268.
Ornstein, Robert. “Can We Define the Nature of Shakespearean Tragedy?” Comparative Drama, vol. 19, no. 3, Fall 1985, pp. 258–269. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41153181.
Peddle, Karen S. “In the Name of the Father: The Elizabethan Response to Recusancy by Married Catholic Women, 1559–1586.” Feminist Legal Studies, vol. 15, 2007, pp. 307–328, doi:10.1007/s10691-007-9063-0.
Riefer, Marcia. “‘Instruments of Some More Mightier Member’: The Constriction of Female Power in Measure for Measure.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 2, Summer 1984, pp. 157–169. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2869924.
Rose, Mary Beth. “Where Are the Mothers in Shakespeare? Options for Gender Representation in the English Renaissance.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, Autumn 1991, pp. 291–314. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2870845.
Thompson, Ann, and Neil Taylor, editors. Hamlet by William Shakespeare. 3rd Series, Revised Edition, The Arden Shakespeare, 2016.