Werner Chelsea Werner Dr.

Eustace Palmer ENGL 4970 19 April 2013 Turned her obedience, which is due to me: Gender Relations in Shakespeares Plays The plays of William Shakespeare are continuously relevant to all societies and cultures

because of the way in which he excels in the depictions of the human experience (Palmer). The exceptional playwright gave life to numerous dynamic characters, and through his depiction of their relationships as presented on the stage, Shakespeare subsequently preserves the way in which sixteenth-century English peoples interacted. Be it heated arguments, romantic and witty banter, or bawdy jokes and jests, the Bard of Avon captures the complexities of human relationships through these character interactions. Within Shakespeares broad corpus of plays, the most reiterated conflicts between characters are those between men and women. A Shakespearian female can be cunning, witty, or mild; but however different these women may be, they hold one thing in common: a male character attemptsand sometimes succeedsto exert control over them. The females connection to the male who attempts to constrain them include their fathers, brothers, and even political figures. Whatever the relationship, the women in Shakespeares plays are constantly being oppressed and suffocated by their male counterparts. If the celebrated playwright does, as previously mentioned, depict social interaction true to its nature, then it can be assumed that he portrays gender relations in an honest manner as well. In this way, modern researchers are able to utilize these works in order tounderstand fully the dynamics of the male/female relationship in Elizabethan England. Although each one of the works in Shakespeares corpus of plays is substantially different from one another, they share

Werner

one similarity: they each contain at least one instance in which a male character attempts to exert absolute dominion over a female. To fully explore the many instances in which this is evident, a selection of plays have been chosen in order to demonstrate the broadness of this social injustice. Within recent years, with the advent of feminist criticism, some scholars criticize Shakespeare as sexist towards females in his presentation of gender relations. However, in his works, the playwright is actually mirroring the way men and women interact in his own society at the time. Additionally, to argue against the contention of Shakespeares sexism, many male characters do indeed attempt to control women, but not all of them succeed in doing so, as the playwright created some strong female characters. One can extrapolate then, that if Shakespeare was the master of stating the human experience, this male exertion of power over women must have been abundant in Elizabethan England. Five of the playwrights works have been chosen in which gender conflict is most evident. Four of theseA Midsummer Nights Dream, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Romeo and Juliet, and King Learexemplify the relationship between the controlling father and his daughter. Two works demonstrate the oppressive husband and his wife: A Midsummer Nights Dream and The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, while two signify a male political leader exerting authority over a female citizen: A Midsummer Nights Dream and Measure for Measure. This broad selection of works effectively exhibits a multitude of instances in which female characters are exploited by males, and are reflected in Elizabethan England. Even though Shakespeares womenas strong as he may have penned themdesire to live a life free of restraint, certain male characters attempt to dictate them, echoing the state of the womans condition in England during the sixteenth century. This is most apparent in: A Midsummer Nights Dream, Measure for Measure, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Romeo and Juliet, and finally, King Lear.

Werner

The Abuse of Patriarchal Authority in Athens and the Fairy Domain in A

Midsummer Nights Dream

In A Midsummer Nights Dream (c. 1590), the relationship between Hermia and her father, Egeus, is one of many instances in which a male character attempts to subdue his female counterpart in a work of Shakespeares. In fact, the entire play seems to revolve around the very theme of female enslavement. This gender conflict is reiterated throughout the work with Hermia and Egeus, Oberon and Titania, and Theseus and Hippolyta. As previously stated, however, Shakespeare formats this play to allow some of the female characters to successfully defy their respective male authorities, a situation that would be quite unheard in sixteenth-century England. Academic Regina Buccola contends, Shakespeare is able to present sociocultural and politicoreligious scenarios that pose direct challenges to British social convention and state mandate in A Midsummer Nights Dream largely by virtue of the fairy lore he invokes in conjunction with the subversive aspects of the plays plot, along with its ostensible setting in preChristian Athens (Buccola 61). In using fanciful settings and fairy characters, Shakespeare is able to present direct confrontations to Englands traditions in an indirect way. The male figures in this play intend desperately to exert control over the females, but some of the women are successfully able to defy the masculine authorities. Critic Louis A. Montrose argues, In A Midsummer Nights Dream, the interplay among characters is structured by an interplay among categoriesnamely, the unstable Elizabethan hierarchies of gender, rank, and age (Montrose 218). Although rank and age conflicts are evident within the text, the most observable divergence is between the genders, with male characters demanding submission from their woman counterparts. Shirley Nelson Garner agrees that Shakespeares male figures in the work forcefully attempt to control the female characters, but believes that the demand for

Werner submission stems from a psychological desire: The movement of the play toward ordering the fairy, human, and natural worlds is also a movement toward satisfying mens psychological

needs, as Shakespeare perceived them, but its cost is the disruption of womens bonds with each other (Garner 127). Garner explains that in satisfying the males need for control, they force the women to sacrifice their ties to one another, hurting their kindred relationships. This problem play begins with Hermia and Egeus argument being heard by Theseus, the Duke of Athens, who acts as a sort of judge, hearing each side of the argument from all parties involved. The conflict, seemingly archaic to the modern reader, involves Hermias lack of submission to her fathers choice of future husband; Egeus has chosen Demetrius to wed his daughter, a young man who is identical to Hermias beloved Lysander in age, wealth, and social stature. Egeus attacks Lysander, claiming, With cunning thou hast filchd my daughters heart; / Turned her obedience, which is due to me, / To stubborn harshness (Shakespeare 4). Egeus choice of words is extremely telling of his true objection; he is not upset that Hermia wants to marry a man that does not fulfill the proper requirements for a good husband, he is his daughters obedience has swayed from himself to another man. Egeus claims that Hermias obedience is due to him, as if some sort of slave, not capable of making any decisions. Garner continues, As Shakespeare depicts the two lovers who compete over Hermia, he is careful to draw them so that Egeuss choice is irrational and not in Hermias best interests (Garner 134). In Shakespeares depiction of the two lovers as identical to one another, Egeus true motives behind his objection come into light: he is upset that his daughter is no longer submissive to him. In front of the two suitors, Egeus continues to appeal to Theseus: I beg the ancient privilege of Athens, / As she is mine I may dispose of her: / Which shall be either to this gentleman [Demetrius] / Or to her death (Shakespeare 4). Egeus claims that Hermia is his possession that may be disposed of if she

Werner does not submit to her fathers will; in his eyes, she is not a human being with rights and opinions. Hermias father would rather his own daughter suffer the punishment of death than

disobey his will, a selfish and unloving stance. The duke of Athens, Theseus, shares Egeus ideal view of the completely submissive daughter, and replies: be advisd, fair maid: / To you your father should be as a god; / One that composd your beauties: yea, and one / To whom you are but as a form in wax, / By him imprinted, and within his power / To leave the figure, or disfigure it (Shakespeare 4). Theseus explains to Hermia that not only should she be as submissive to her father as she would be to the gods, but also imagine that Egeus is the very being that created her, and in doing so, has the power to disfigure her form, a very threatening statement, and a reference to her possible death sentence. Literary critic James L. Calderwood explains the deep implications within Egeuss statement: In Thesus account of [the creation], however, no mother was present at Hermias conception. Egeus was there as a god, but the womans part disappears, or as best it appears in the metaphor of the wax. Somewhat confusedly, Hermia herself has now become the wax on which the paternal seal was imprinted, and it is she who is now being asked to assume the feminine passivity associated with her conception by allowing herself to be imprinted again with what Lacan calls le nom du pre, a phrase which in the English loses the pun on nom (name/No): It is in the name of the father that we must recognize the support of the symbolic function, which, from the dawn of history, has identified his person with the figure of the law. (Calderwood 8) According to Calderwood, Egeuss statement exemplifies his desire for the passivity of his daughter, for in his use of wax as a metaphor, reminding her that she bears his paternal seal. In the disregard of the mother from the account of Hermias creation, Theseus has successfully denied the life-giving function of pregnancy from the female, further building up mans advantages over their counterparts. Scholar Christy Desmet comments, As it turns out, Egeus is only like a God, Hermia like a form in wax. The sign of patriarchal power is no more than a trope, a simile weaker even than its root metaphor (Desment 301). By the end of the play,

Werner Egeus unsubstantiated grip on Hermia is loosened, and it becomes evident that the father is, actually, no more than a self-proclaimed false god to Hermia, as she is able to marry the man of her desire. Eventually, Theseus creates a solution for the situation: Either to die the death, or to abjure / For ever the society of men / if you yield not to your fathers choice, / You [will] endure the livery of a nun (Shakespeare 5). With this proclamation, Theseus decides that if Hermia continues to disregard her fathers authority, she will either be put to death or forced to become a cloistered nun. Garner contines, As a ruler, [Theseus] will enforce the law, which gives Egeus control over Hermias sexuality and embodies patriarchal order (Garner 132). Theseus inadvertently describes precisely the nature of this culture, a society of men, while allowing his fellow man a way to govern the young womans sexuality. Demetrius, Egeus choice for Hermias hand, then speaks and in doing so, it becomes all the more evident that the desire for submissive women is a culture-wide issue. He says, Relent, sweet Hermia;and, Lysander, yield / Thy crazd title to my certain right (Shakespeare 6). With these words, Demetrius makes it known that he views Hermia not as an equal partner, but as an entitlement;

additionally, he asks not his intended wife for permission to marry, but the man whom which she is in love, proving his stance on a womans right to choice of husband. Egeus following words reiterate the concept of Hermia as property or an asset: And she is mine; and all my right of her / I do estate unto Demetrius (7). Shakespeares use of the word estate implies an almost business-like deal, once again mirroring the subject of Hermias marriage to that of the bequeathing of property. Further exemplifying Egeus obsession with controlling his daughter just for the sake of exerting his dominance is that of the similarities between Lysander and Demetrius. It would be assumed that Lysander must be either low in social stature or very poor for Egeus to object so vehemently to Hermias preference of him. However, it is discovered that

Werner

Lysander is, in fact, a worthy gentleman and an honorable man, equal in every way to Demetrius. Lysander explains himself, I am, my lord, as well derivd as he, / As well possessd; my love is more than his; / My fortunes every way as fairly rankd, / If not with vantage, as Demetriuss (7). Lysander explains that not only is he just as wealthy, but he also loves Hermia more than Demetrius does; these qualities should put him as the forerunner for the marriage. Garner explains further, As Shakespeare depicts the two lovers who compete over Hermia, he is careful to draw them so that Egeus choice is irrational and not in Hermias best interests (Garner 134). Shakespeare is unmistakable in his depiction of the foolish and manipulating father; he makes it clear to the audience that this conflict is juvenile at best. What is paramount for his daughter is not at the center of Egeus actions; he objects to Lysander purely because Hermias complete submission to him has been compromised, and he wants to prove he still holds power holds over her. If Egeus had his daughters wellbeing at heart, he would allow her to choose between the two more-than-capable suitors. Garner further delves into Egeus logic, explaining, By insisting that she marry a man whom she does not love and one who may be unfaithful to her besides, if his present conduct is a gauge, Egeus assures that she will always love her father; that she will never really leave him (Garner 135). This man believes that if his daughter does not love her husband, he will forever be the sole owner of her. Buccola contends: Lore regarding fairy guardianship over true love matches, for example, provided a sociocultural safety net for women who successfully defied patriarchal laws governing whom they married and how the marital arrangements were made. Characters such as Helena and Hermia in A Midsummer Nights Dream are thwarted in their bold attempts to secure the spouse of their choice in the defiance of the men socially positioned to deny the matches until they enter the fairy wood on the margins of their community. (Buccola 61) Shakespeare uses the pretend fairy world as a stage for the mortal woman to successfully defy male influence. Upon the entering of this fictitious world, the young lovers are eventually able to

Werner defy Theseus and Egeus, but only upon leaving the patriarchal, human world. In A Midsummer Nights Dream, Hermia is not the only female character that is forced into

submission by a male counterpart: Oberon mercilessly manipulates and bridles his wife, Titania. The King and Queen of the fairy forest and their conflict stems over a young changeling child; Titania feels responsible for him as she made his mother a promise to provide care, while Oberon desperately wants the child for his fairy army. The king of the fairy realm, Oberon, mirrors the duke of the human world, Theseus, with regard to their desire to have complete control over every aspect of their wives. When Titania denies her husband the changeling child, Oberon realizes his dominion over his wife has waned, and he then devises a plan. Titania says to her husband, What, jealous Oberon! Fairies, skip hence; / I have forsworn his bed and company, to which Oberon replies, Tarry, rash wanton: am not I thy lord? (Shakespeare 24). When Titania withholds sex from Oberon, he realizes his loss of dominance and reacts angrily, reminding his wife that he is her superior. While the fairy queen tries her hardest to do what she believes is right by keeping her promise to the childs mother, Oberon eventually defeats her by slipping her a magic potion, removing her free will and heavily humiliating her. Garner explains further Oberons obsession with gaining the changeling: Oberons passionate determination to have the child for himself suggests that he is both attracted to and jealous of him Oberons need to humiliate Titania in attaining the boy suggests that her love for the child poses a severe threat to the fairy king (Garner 129). Oberon, like Egeus, desires to have power over their wife and daughter, respectively, in order to be the sole recipient of her love and obedience. Garner continues, Oberon can offer ritual blessing at the plays end because he has what he wanted from the beginning: Titania obedient and under his control and the beautiful Indian boy in his bower (131). Titania suffers shame and degradation at the hands of Oberon because she refused

Werner to relinquish her free will to her husband; Oberon made her fall in love with a human man who was bewitched to have the head of a donkey. Under the potions influence, the queen becomes suffocatingly infatuated with this awkward-looking man, forgetting entirely about the changeling; her will compromised. Titania and Hermia are not the only two women in this play who are the victims of a males attempted absolute regulation; Hippolyta, the betrothed bride to Theseus, is also manipulated. Theseus, a character from Greek mythology, comes alive in A Midsummer Nights Dream, reflecting the sociocultural traditions of England at the time the play was written.

According to Greek mythology, Theseus had stolen Hippolyta from her home in the Amazon and brought her to Athens with the intention of marrying her, most likely without her consent. Garner has important insight into Hippolytas forced submission when she says: Though most directors play Hippolyta as a willing bride, I once saw San Franciscos Actors Workshop bring her on stage clothed in skins and imprisoned in a cage. The texts invites such a rendering, for almost immediately it sets her apart from Theseus by implying that she sides with Hermia and Lysander against Egeus and Theseus, when he sanctions Egeuss authority. (Garner 132) This depiction of Hippolyta from a modern viewpoint exemplifies exactly the way Theseus sees his bride: imprisoned, subjugated, and enslaved. Theseus, although not as obviously demanding for a womans submission as Oberon or Egeus, could be considered the most controlling. Under her future husbands dominion, Hippolyta is unable to voice her preference towards the union; the duke of Athens is going to marry her whether she sanctions the matrimony or not. Theseus not only demands obedience from Hippolyta but also Hermia; as a ruler, he has the power to grant Lysander her hand, but he sides with Egeus in order to keep this young woman under her fathers control. Theseus uses his advantage over the law to allow his fellow man keep his hold on the daughter, keeping the male authority over females intact and unarguable.

Werner 10 Although this play is set in ancient Athens, Shakespeare detailed the setting to have all the societal hierarchies of Elizabethan culture, especially between the genders. However, as previously stated, Shakespeare is not trying to convey that he believes women should be subjected to the limitation of men; he is merely emulating the gender relationships from his own time period in his plays. Additionally, he allows many female characters, especially in A Midsummer Nights Dream, to successfully break away from male dominance. For example, Hermia does marry the man she loves and not the choice of her fathers. Buccola explains, Given the plays interrogation of sociopolitical structures, it is significant that the realm to which Helena and Hermia fly is a matriarchy, albeit one in the throes of a temporary period of Saturnalian misrule by its king. For her part, Hermia finds her voice before she ever leaves Athens, publically defying father and duke in boldly expressing her desire to marry Lysander (Buccola 65). It is no coincidence that the very place where Hermia and Helena gain victory over male control is in fact a matriarchy; the conflict between genders is solved in this womancentered place. Additionally, Buccola contends that: both women [Helena and Hermia] play the matchmaker for themselves (67). Helena and Hermia do indeed play their own matchmakers, successfully choosing the men of their liking, and eventually, marrying them. These overlooked pieces of evidence suggest that Shakespeare was very aware of and sympathetic towards the womans condition in Britain at the time. Although Titania is given a mind-altering substance, forcing her into submission, Buccola realizes that Shakespeare allows the women to prevail against the male figures by the end. She says, Although Titania is drugged for the duration of the plays action, womans power pervades the play. As soon as he has dispensed with his utterly ungovernable wife, after all, Oberon places himself at the disposal of the desperately lovelorn Helena, chasing the object of her desire through the fairy wood with no moral guardian in sight

Werner 11 (61). Buccola makes another excellent point; even though Titania is forced to be completely submissive to her husband, Shakespeare allows Helena to defy the male influence, both in Oberons servitude towards her, and Demetriuss spellbound love. In the next work, Measure for Measure, the male desire for female submission is entirely too evident with the character of Angelo.

Male Hypocrisy and Dominance in Measure for Measure

In Shakespeares Measure for Measure (1604), male tyrannical rule is also evident, at the government level like with Theseus, and within the family, like Egeus. When the overly strict and stubborn Angelo agrees to temporarily govern Vienna for the Duke, he begins the play with noble intentions. But as soon as he encounters the one thing he cannot have, the nun-to-be Isabella, his agenda quickly turns sinister, and it is discovered that the noble Angelo is not above coercion, lust, and blackmail. Isabella is additionally forced into subservience two more times in the play: with her brother Claudio, and the Duke of Vienna. Furthermore, scenes from the streets of Vienna including a brothel owner, Mistress Overdone, also give an insight into the thought-provoking attitudes towards the rights of women, reflecting the sentiment of men in London in 1604. When Isabella first meets Angelo, she is appealing for her brother Claudios life, for he has just been sentenced to death on the grounds of engaging in sexual relations before marriage. After seeing Isabella for the first time, Angelo decides that he must engage with sexual intercourse, no matter the implications for this young woman. As critic J.W. Lever explains, Before their second encounter, he is aware of having fallen from grace. Prayer and thought are disjoined; the state, his social position, has grown sere and tedious; personal dignity no longer matters; the one remaining reality is desire (Lever lxxvii). Lever brings to attention Angelos

Werner 12 complete disregard for personal dignity, a common occurrence when it comes to male tyranny over women. Angelo is aware he has fallen into sin and lust, but he is willing to hurt Isabella emotionally as well as destroy her ability to be a nun in order to satisfy his desires. When the audience first meets Isabella, her great sense of morality and life plan to become a nun are made quite clear. She seems perfectly at home in the nunnery, where she plans on spending the rest of her life as a sister. Her first few lines are most telling: Isabella: And have you nuns no further privileges? Francisca: Are not these large enough? Isabella: Yes, truly; I speak not as desiring more, But rather wishing a more strict restraint Upon the sisterhood, the votarists of Saint Clare. (Shakespeare 24) Isabella is not only at ease in this strict lifestyle, but desires a more stringent one than is already asked of her. Soon after, Lucio arrives in place of Isabellas brother Claudio, begging her to appeal to Angelo about Claudios recent incarceration and death sentence. Lucios plea reflects the male tyranny in this play, when he says to Isabella, Go to Lord Angelo, / And let him learn to know, when maidens sue, / Men give like gods; but when they weep and kneel, / All their petitions are as freely theirs / As they themselves would owe them (27). Lucio reminds Isabella that when a maiden is submissive to a male authority figure on bended knee, her plea is heard. Then, when Isabella meets Angelo for the first time to plead for Claudios life, Lucio once again reminds her to make herself more submissive. He says, Givet not oer so; to him again, entreat him, / Kneel down before him, hang upon his gown; / You are too cold: if you should need a pin, / You could not with more tame a tongue desire it. / To him, I say (38). Lucio suggests that the only way Isabella can convince Angelo is if she submits to him fully by prostrating herself before him, and hang upon his gown. This scene acts as evidence for the overwhelming male tyranny subjected upon women in this work. After Angelo refuses to release Claudio, Isabella

Werner 13 makes a very ironic statement: I would to heaven I had your potency, / And you were Isabel! Should it then be thus? / No; I would tell what twere to be a judge / And what a prisoner (39). Isabella states that if she were in Angelos position, she would know what it would be like to be both judge and prisoner, foreshadowing the events that will occur shortly that will indeed make her a prisoner, for she will soon be stripped of her rights and free will. A revealing soliloquy of Angelos reveals the sense of blame and hypocrisy towards the female sex by men. He says, From thee; even from thy virtue! / Whats this, whats this? Is this her fault or mine? / The tempter or the tempted, who sins most? (42-43). Angelos lack of responsibility for his own feelings turns into blame for the innocent Isabella; he even goes so far as to ask who is more at fault, the tempteralthough one could hardly call Isabella a tempteror the tempted. By rationalizing himself as the victim, and Isabella as the perpetrator, Angelo is able to manipulate this young woman without any guilt. Critic Jonathan Dollimore explains, the low are to blame; they are held responsible for the laxity of the high, much as man might (then as now) blame a woman for tempting him sexually whereas in fact he has coerced her (Dollimore 183). Angelo does indeed put the blame upon the innocent Isabella, using her as a scapegoat for his sexual feelings. Upon their following meeting, Angelo takes the first steps in attempting to dominate, both mentally and physically, the virtuous Isabella. He says: Say you so? Then I shall pose you quickly. Which had you ratherthat the most just law Now took your brothers life; or, to redeem him, Give up your body to such sweet uncleanness As she that he hath staind? Answer to this: I, now the voice of the recorded law, Pronounce a sentence on your brothers life; Might there not be a charity in sin To save this brothers life? (Shakespeare 48)

Werner 14 With these words, Angelo has put Isabella in the most manipulative situation he possibly could; on one hand, Isabella saves her brother, but gives up her lifes choice to be a nun and suffer the shame and emotional devastation of forcibly giving up ones body. And on the other hand, Isabella could save her chastity and virtue, but know her brother will die a painful death at the hands of Angelo. This temporary duke wants to control and dominate Isabella because he realizes that she is perfectly content with being without men for the rest of her life, in fact, it is the lifestyle that she welcomes in becoming a sister. In response to Angelos disgusting proposition, Isabella laments the sad condition of women when she says, Women, help heaven! Men their creation mar / In profiting by them. Nay, call us ten times frail; / For we are soft as our complexions are, / And credulous to false prints (50). Isabella deplores the domination of women by males, and realizes that Angelo has forced her into a position of torment. Dollimore continues: [Isabella] conceives her weakness half in terms of womens supposed intrinsic frailness, half in terms of exploitive male coercion. Further, we see in Isabellas subjection a conflict within the patriarchal order which subjects: the renunciation which the Church sanctions, secular authority refuses. The latter wins and it is Isabellas fate to be coerced back into her socially and sexually subordinate positionat first illicitly by Angelo, then legitimately by the Duke who takes her in marriage. (Dollimore 186) In Isabellas lamentation of the female condition, she describes the womans supposed frailness, even though her sad situation is not the fault of her frailness, it is brought about by Angelos sexual exploitation. When Isabella threatens Angelo by saying she will inform Vienna of both his proposition and his true nature, he reminds her that he is a man of great power, and his word will be believed over hers. Attempted male domination over female in this work is epitomized with Angelos response: Who will believe thee, Isabel? My unsoild name, th austereness of my life,

Werner 15 My vouch against you, and my place i th state, Will so your accusation overweigh That you shall stifle in your own report, And smell of calumny. I have begun, And now I give my sensual race the rein: Fit thy consent to my sharp appetite; Lay by all nicety and prolixious blushes That banish what they sue for; redeem thy brother By yielding up thy body to my will; Or else he must not only die the death, but thy unkindness shall his death draw out To lingring sufferance As for you, Say what you can: my false oerweighs your true. (Shakespeare 51-52) Angelo can use not only his high rank but also his gender as a way to testify against his actions, against the truth. Additionally, if Isabella refuses his disgusting proposition, this evil man will not only kill Claudio, but he will execute him in a painful way. As if coercion into sex is not enough for Angelo, he now stoops to petty threats to constrain Isabella. Academician Donna Freitas says, When degrading and threatening Isabella, he mocks her with his male persona of impeccable virtueWho will believe you? he responds to her warnings of exposure (Freitas). With this exchange, contends Freitas, Angelo mocks Isabella, flouting his male authority over her desperate situation. After setting eyes upon Isabel, Angelo views her as less of a person with rights and dignity, and more of an item to be controlled and manipulated. Unfortunately, Angelo is not the only male figure in the play who attempts to control Isabella; her own brother selfishly begs his sister to sacrifice her intended life path as a nun as well as her spiritual well-being so he can live. When Isabella informs her imprisoned brother Claudio of Angelos horrible proposition, he begs her to sacrifice her honor and chastity to correct his own mistake. Lever comments on the injustice, For Isabella, this is the second male solicitation in a short space of time. Angelos arguments for charity are now complemented by Claudios plea for kindness. Both men require her to exercise virtue, spiritual or natural: both

Werner 16 would drive her over the brink into insupportable shame (Lever lxxx). Lever points out that, although Claudio is about to die at the hands of Angelo, this is the second occasion in which a she is asked to sacrifice her lifes planas well as her honorin one day. The critic Pater pointed out in 1874, With that instinctive clinging to life, which breaks through the subtlest casuistries of monk or sage apologising for an early death, he welcomes for a moment the chance of life through his sisters shame, though he revolts hardly less from the notion of perpetual imprisonment so repulsive to the buoyant energy of youth (Eccles 429). Pater points out the injustice this womans plight, brought about by male influence. However awful her situation may be, Shakespeare penned Isabella to be a strong and noble woman. Isabella does her best throughout the play to continue with her lifes choices and rise above the male dominance. Although Angelos sole desire in life becomes to control Isabella in every aspect of the word: sexually, physically, and mentally, he does not succeed in forcing her to sleep with him. However, Isabella is eventually forced to publicly announce that she did indeed sleep with Angelo, although he actually unknowingly slept with Mariana, his former fiance. Angelos tyranny over women extended past Isabella into Mariana, as his past becomes relevant to the situation. Critic Robert Seymour Bridges explains: Reminded, as we are at this juncture, of his conduct to Mariana, we believe that he has been a solid hypocrite all along; that, having no virtue to fall from, he never fell; that the spiritual conflict of his temptation could not have occurred: and, as there was nothing in his first character to respond to the call to crime, so now, in the revelation of his second phase, there is,--except his demoniacal passion for Isabella,--nothing left of him to be pardoned and married to Mariana. (Bridges 422) Bridges reminds us that with the entrance of Mariana, it becomes evident that Angelo has been a hypocrite all along; this assault on Isabella was not just a fluke. The Duke, under the guise of a monk, assists Isabella out of her situation and into his own grasp by bringing the truth behind

Werner 17 Mariana, Angelos former fiance, into the light. Angelo, upon having learned many years ago that Marianas dowry has sunk to the bottom of the ocean, removes himself from the engagement promptly and without question; the epitome of his morality and lack of virtue. Isabellas free will is compromised by three men: her brother Claudio and Angelo, and the Duke and in the end, she gives up her life choice of chastity to be the wife of the Duke. So while she does not have to succumb to sacrificing her virginity to save her brother, she will become the Dukes wife. The Duke is a rather interesting character, for as he is not the most obviously controlling male, he is still a dominating figure over Isabella. As mentioned, the Duke acts as both a secular and religious leader in his donning of monk attire and playing the part of a clergyman. In this way, the Duke uses both the law and religion in order to manipulate both Isabella and Mariana. At any point in time, the Duke could have set matters straight, saving both Claudio and Isabella pain. However, he chooses to draw the situation out, in order to not only manipulate the female Isabella, but also come across as the savior to all parties involved. Eventually, Angelo is made to marry Mariana through the bed-trick, after he is pardoned from capital punishment at the hands of Isabella. Critic Marliss C. Desens explains the tricks implications: Isabella and Mariana act only after a male authority figure, who they believe to be a friar, proposes the course of action that includes the bed-trick. This approach makes the female characters more passive than Helena, and it shifts the responsibility for the bed-trick onto the citys ruler. In doing so, Shakespeare avoids the difficult issues that would be raised by having women invert accepted gender roles, but he introduces some equally complex questions about whether [The Dukes] political power gives him the right to manipulate the intimate details of other peoples lives. (Desens 224) This is important to recognize, because it sheds light on the condition of male and female relations at the time of Shakespeares writing, and proves him unlike other males at the time, with regard to misogyny. According to Desens, the manipulation of a males sexual encounter is

Werner 18 not actually in the hands of two females, because it was the plan of the disguised duke, a male figure. In asking for Angelos pardon, Shakespeare is acknowledging the strength of the female sex through the maturity and mercy of the victim Isabella. The scholar Anna Jameson explains further, Isabellas confession of the general frailty of her sex has a peculiar softness, beauty, and propriety. She admits the imputation with all the sympathy of woman for woman; yet with all the dignity of one who felt her own superiority to the weakness she acknowledges (Jameson 72). As previously stated, Shakespeare did not necessarily agree with the way the genders related to each other in his time, he merely emulated the way the males and females interacted in England in his plays. Dollimore reiterates, The play addresses several social problems which had their counterparts in Jacobean London (Dollimore 180). Shakespeares plays, although technically set in different places and times, have their grounding in what was happening at the present in London. By the end of the play, the heroine is under the control of the Duke when he asks for her hand in marriage, with no regard to her life choice as a celibate nun. He says, If he be like your brother, for his sake / Is he pardond; and for your lovely sake, / Give me your hand and say you will be mine, / He is my brother too. But fitter time for that Whats mine is yours, and what is yours is mine (Shakespeare 122). The Duke does not ask for Isabellas hand, he says phrases like Give me, and you will be mine, implying a sense of ownership to this woman, something that cannot be possessed. Now, instead of being Angelos sex slave, Isabella will have to trade in her nuns habit for a wedding veil. Male hypocrisy and gender bias are exemplified fully in the comic scenes that include Mistress Overdone and Lucio, friend of Claudio. Although Lucio does not attempt to force a

Werner 19 female character into submission, he demonstrates the male hypocrisy present in the sixteenth century, at the time the play was written. Feminist scholar Kay Stanton explains: Lucio then comments, Why, tis good. It is the right of it, it must be so. Ever your fresh whore and your powdered [pickled] bawd; an unshunned consequence, it must be so (III.ii.56-60). Showing his hypocrisy and lack of a sense of his responsibility in the maintenance of prostitution, Lucio denies Pompeys request for bail, further implicating him to the officers as bawd-born (III.ii.68): consumable objects for satisfaction of appetite, sec workers are born to be punished; the solicitors of the services are not. (Stanton 87) Lucio, a friend to Claudio and frequent brothel-goer, exemplifies his complete hypocrisy by agreeing the act of prostitution is despicable, but offers no sense of responsibility for partaking in it himself. Lucios lecherous lifestyle is reflected in one of his very first lines, when he says, Behold, behold, where Madam Mitigation comes! I have purchasd as many diseases under her roof as come to- (Shakespeare 16). Lucio, bragging to his other male friends, openly admits he spends a great amount of time at Mistress Overdones establishment; yet believes he plays no part in the continuation of the profession. Stanton goes on to say: A few lines later, Lucio adds that Marrying a punk [prostitute], my lord, is pressing to death, whipping, and hanging (V.i.533-4). The social hypocrisy represented by Lucio is not thoroughly exposed and punished, however; on the contrary, it is precisely what made Vincentio a duke, as in the process of regaining his political authority, Vincentio has been made a lawful bawd, in facilitating the coupling of Angelo and Mariana, and an attempted unlawful hangman, in trying to kill Barnardine before his scheduled time to save Claudio. (Stanton 88) Additionally, an early scene between Mistress Overdone and Pompey also serves as a way for Shakespeare to reiterate the social hypocrisy that was overwhelmingly present at the time of the plays debut. Mistress Overdone and Pompey are discussing Angelos recent proclamation that all brothels in Vienna are to be closed by law, and Mistress Overdone questions what will become of her after her establishment will be taken away. Pompeys response is most telling:

Werner 20 Come, fear not you: good counsellors lack no clients (Shakespeare 18). Pompey implies that, although brothel regulation will become more strict, there will always be customers. Although in Measure for Measure Isabella is unable to choose her own life path, Shakespeare subtly gives the audience his own opinion on the heroines imminent marriage to the Duke; the lack a response from Isabella to the Dukes proposal suggests her inability to voice her opinion of the union. In fact, Isabella has no more lines for the rest of the play.

Frailty, thy name is woman!: The Use of Gertrude and Ophelia as Pawns in Hamlet: Prince of Denmark
The father daughter relationship of Polonius and his daughter Ophelia in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (c. 1600) is similar to that of Egeus and Hermia, in the sense that the father desires absolute acquiescence from his daughter; however, Polonius is quick to use Ophelia to his benefit, while Egeus merely desires Hermias unconditional paternal compliance. Irene G. Dash describes Ophelia, Daughter, sister, beloved, and then rejected woman, Ophelia faces a more searing moral choicebetween obedience to father and honesty to loved one (Dash 111). Ophelia is forced to choose between obedience to her father and loyalty to her beloved, Hamlet, and she chooses to obey Polonius, much to Hamlets anger. Additionally, both Egeus and Polonius believe they have the right as fathers to ask of their daughters anything, even if their happiness is at stake. Polonius is not the only male figure in this work that demands subservience from a woman; Gertrude, queen to her late husbands brother, is absolutely obedient to Claudius. These instances do not prove that Shakespeare himself was a misogynist; he imitates the sentiments towards womens rights in that period in his work. Scholar Ernest Jones contends, [Hamlet] probably expresses the core of Shakespeares philosophy and outlook on life as no other work of his does (Jones 24). Jones maintains that this work does indeed

Werner 21 reflect the personal values and beliefs of the playwright himself, but contrary to popular belief, does not condemn Shakespeare as a misanthrope or chauvinist; he is actually bringing to light the problems and concerns found within a patriarchy. When the audience first encounters Ophelia, she is being lectured and instructed not by her father, but her brother, Laertes. Bound for France, the young Laertes believes it is his place to instruct his sister on how to manipulate and tease Hamlet. He tells his sister to trifle his favor, toy with him, and be Forward, not permanentsweet, not lasting (Shakespeare 28-29). Perhaps the most insulting line of Laertes advice is when he says, Then if [Hamlet] says he loves you, / It fits your wisdom so far to believe it (29). Laertes openly considers his sister a nave and gullible little girl; he assumes that her undeveloped wisdom allows for her to believe what any man, including Hamlet, tell her. When it comes to Laertes, unlike to her father, Ophelia is subtly defiant. She responds to Laertes lengthy advice: I shall th effect of this good lesson keep As watchman to my heart. But, good brother, Do not as some ungracious pastors do, Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, Whiles, like a puffd and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads And recks his own rede. (30) In this bold passage, Ophelia is essentially telling her brother not to be a hypocrite; she says that he can preach advice all he wants, but at the end of the day, he needs to follow his wisdom as well. This is both bold and true, one of the only glimpses of Ophelias strength as a woman in the entire play. Her sense of strength has fleeted, however, after Laertes says, remember well / What I have said to you, and Ophelia replies, Tis in my memory lockd, / And you yourself shall keep the key of it (31). After a reminder from her brother that she is to submit to him, she dutifully responds with a very compliant and obedient reply. Following Laertes long lecture

Werner 22 regarding Hamlet, Ophelia then must talk with her father about the same subject. Jameson comments on the character of Polonius: Again, in the father of Ophelia, the Lord Chamberlain Poloniusthe shrewd, wary, subtle, pompous, garrulous old courtierhave we not the very man who would send his son into the world to see all, learn all it could teach of good and evil, but keep his only daughter as far as possible from every taint of that world he knew so well? (Jameson 156) Polonius is the type of man that would send his son to France on his own, while manipulating every aspect of his daughters life, as she stays bound to him within Denmark. When they converse about Hamlet, he tells her, I must tell you / You do not understand yourself so clearly / As it behooves my daughter and your honor (Shakespeare 32). According to her father, Ophelia does not understand [her]self, and he insults her, telling her she does not have the capacity to understand the situation, and then proceeds to manipulate her to his will. Polonius insults Ophelia's ability to comprehend the situation, but, more importantly, his diction reveals his sense of possession and his concern for social appearances to serve his own interests. Although he is speaking to Ophelia, he refers to her as my daughter, claiming ownership and dominance over her (Brown). When Ophelia informs Polonius that Hamlet has made his affections for her clear, Polonius asks her if she believes the young prince does indeed have affections towards her. Ophelia states that she does not know what to think, and Polonius replies arrogantly, Marry, I will teach you! Think yourself a baby / That you have taen these tenders for true pay, / Which are not sterling. Tender yourself more dearly, / Or (not to crack the wind of the poor phrase, / Running it thus) youll tender me a fool (Shakespeare 32). Polonius is requesting Ophelias complete, infant-like submission to this matter, desiring that she hand herself over completely. Scholar Heather Brown comments on Polonius words, Again, Polonius protects his own interests rather than Ophelias: she should tender [her]self more

Werner 23 dearly or else she'll tender [him] a fool. The language, once more, suggests Polonius' possession of Ophelia, for he speaks of her in terms of monetary value, tender. (Brown). He clearly shows no interest in Ophelias opinion of the situation, and even worse, he assumes she does not have the intellect to even comprehend the circumstances. Polonius exerts his control over his daughter in every sense of the word, like Egeus, but unlike Hermia or Isabella, Ophelia consents immediately to the male figures will. Polonius demands of Ophelia, I would not, in plain terms, from this time forth have you so slander any moment leisure as to give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet, to which Ophelia replies, I shall obey, my lord (33). Polonius, like Egeus, has no reason to keep his daughter and her beloved apart. It seems that he fears losing his only daughters undivided obedience, and will do whatever he can to keep her submissive to him. In Act II, when Polonius asks his daughter if she has spoken to Hamlet, and she replies, No, my good lord; but, as you did command, / I did repel his letters and denied / His access to me (50). Ophelia has been obeying her father without question; she has left Hamlets letters to her unreturned, and even refused him when he comes to call. It is evident that Polonius reason behind his daughters ban from Hamlet is because of his fear of losing her obedience when he says, I feard he did but trifle / And meant to wrack thee; but beshrew my jealousy! (50). Polonius jealousy should have nothing to do with the situation, but because he mentions it, the audience knows he is concerned. Later, when Polonius speaks to Claudius and Gertrude concerning Hamlets melancholy behavior, he uses very possessive language when regarding his daughter. He says, I have a daughter (have while she is mine), / Who in her duty and obedience, mark, / Hath given me this [letter] (54). Claudius and Gertrude are quite aware of who Ophelia is, yet Polonius feels the need to reiterate the fact that she is his and he has possession of her. Polonius then offers Claudius an opportunity to spy on a conversation between Ophelia and

Werner 24 Hamlet, using his own daughter as bait. Polonius says, At such a time Ill loose my daughter to him. / Be you and I behind an arras then. / Mark the encounter. If he love her not, / And he not from his reason falln thereon / Let me be no assistant for a state, / But keep a farm and carters (57). Brown comments, Polonius plans to loose Ophelia as if she were an animal rather than his daughter. Polonius molds Ophelia's identity to fit his own needs, taking advantage of her relationship with Hamlet to improve his own relationship with Claudius [Ophelia] literally becomes a pawn to the men (Brown). Both Polonius and Claudius do not take into consideration Ophelias feelings, and Polonius never imagines she would refuse him. Additionally, the term loose is a connotation of prostitution; Polonius is literally prostituting out his own child (Palmer). He deliberately exerts dominion over his daughter in order to gain personal benefits. When the time comes for Ophelia to be loosed out to her fathers will, Hamlet has overheard the entire conversation, and knows that Ophelia is acting as a pawn for her father and the king. Hamlet tests her alliance, seeing if she will betray him or her father, when he asks, Wheres your father? to which Ophelia replies, At home, my lord (Shakespeare 78). This is a lie, and Hamlet is aware of her false statement. Ophelia chooses obedience to her father, the man who uses her to his benefit, over her beloved. After Polonius is mistakenly killed by Hamlet, Ophelia lapses into a psychological breakdown, speak[ing] much of her father in her incoherent phrases. After he died, she has no one to make decisions for her, and she loses her sanity. Dash explains, Having forsaken self-identity, she then loses all when she loses her father, for she has adopted her perceptions of her and of women (Dash 152). With Polonius death, Ophelia abandons her reality, unable to cope with losing this man. Dash continues, In this play, Shakespeare explores some of the ways in which male dominance and patriarchal expectations can warp womens lives (153). Ophelias tragic lapse in to insanity as well as her death stem

Werner 25 from the manipulation that Polonius exercised over his daughter. In exploring this, Shakespeare is making a social comment on the way in which women were regarded in his time. Queen Gertrude is the second and final female character in Hamlet who is also completely dutiful and obedient to a male character, in this case her husband, the newly crowned Claudius. In her first scene, Gertrude is very obviously under the complete authority of her new husband. Her lines to Hamlet, Let not thy mother lose her prayers, Hamlet. / I pray thee stay with us, go not to Wittenberg, directly reflect and mimic the previous lines of Claudius: And with no less nobility of love / Than that which dearest father bears his son / Do I impart towards you. For your intent / In going back to school in Wittenberg, / we beseech you, bend you to remain (Shakespeare 22-23). One would think that Gertrudes blinding infatuation with her new husband would cause her to desire Hamlets departure from Elsinore, for Hamlet is the living, breathing reminder of her recently deceased previous husband. So when she chooses to reinforce and agree with Claudius, she is being absolutely compliant. Gertrudes total submission is exemplified yet again in Act II, when Claudius says, Thanks, Rosencrantz and gentle Guildenstern, and the queen adds, Thanks, Guildenstern and gentle Rosencrantz (51). The way Gertrude mimics her husbands just-spoken line of gratitude is almost comical; it is entirely evident that the queen no longer thinks upon her own accord, she has forgone any individuality she may have had and given it up to Claudius. In one of her most telling lines, Gertrude forsakes her own son in obedience to her new husband; in Act III, when discussing the mental health of Hamlet, Claudius desires to be alone with Polonius in order to create a plan. When he asks his wife to leave them, she replies, I shall obey you, and then expresses her desire for Ophelias virtue to cure Hamlet of his madness; Ophelia agrees (75). Irene G. Dash contends: Before the scene is over, that happy reliance on mens judgmenttheir better wisdomis shown to be an ordinary weakness of these women. More

Werner 26 particularly, the scene reveals the flaws in the patriarchal system when womens compliance to the directives of men overlooks the humanity of the women themselves. Their value systems are supposed to be non-existent, or, if existent, easily jettisoned in order to obey the rules of a male society. (Dash 119) Dash explains that both Ophelia and Gertrude do not question Claudius and Polonius actions because theirs is the better judgment. Gertrude is Hamlets mother, the person that knows him best, and yet she forgoes any hand in helping her son in order to obey her husband, when all Hamlet needs is her allegiance and trust. In the second scene of Act III, the visiting players, upon Hamlets direction, mimic Gertrudes submission to her husband in a play presented to the nobility of Denmark. The stage directions read: Enter a King and Queen very lovingly; the Queen embracing him and he her. Se kneels, and makes show of protestation unto him (Shakespeare 86). It is worth noting that the Gertrude-like characters attribute is submission to her husband. It is evident that the queen has forsaken any alliance to her previous husband, the true king, when she says to Hamlet, Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended (101). It has been two months since the death of the man she was married to for many years, and in referring to Claudius as Hamlets father, Gertrude aligns herself fully under the dominion of Claudius, as he is not Hamlets blood at all. After Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius, his mother immediately attests for her sons guilt in the matter, once again choosing her newly married husband over her blood. When Claudius asks about Hamlet, the queen cries: Mad as the sea and wind when both contend Which is the mightier. In his lawless fit Behind the arras hearing something stir, Whips out his rapier, cries A rat, a rat! And in this brainish apprehension kills The unseen good old man. (110) Gertrude has absolutely no hesitations when it comes to affirming his guilt in Polonius death, obeying truly and fully her husband. It seems as though the queen wants her son to leave her

Werner 27 sight, so that she might forget totally her first husband and live without guilt with Claudius. Gertrudes abandonment of her son is reiterated when Laertes, having returned from France, asks where his father is. When Claudius informs him that Polonius is dead, Gertrude quickly inserts But not by [Claudius]! (126) Although Laertes would have eventually discovered the true murderer of his father; Gertrude does not make the slightest attempt to shield her only son from Laertes imminent revenge. She sacrifices Hamlet without question, just in case Laertes would thoughtlessly slay Claudius. Interestingly enough, the one time Gertrude does defies Claudius, it ends up being the last thing she does. In her final scene, Gertrude reaches for Claudius poisoned cup (intended for Hamlet), and the king commands her not to drink it. The queen replies, I will, my lord; I pray you pardon me (166). This act of defiance is the one and only time in the entire play in which Gertrude does not obey Claudius, and she is poisoned as the result. Although it seems as though Shakespeare is condemning those women who disobey their husbands, he is actually commenting on the danger of late action. Gertrude finally decides to act upon her own accord, but it is too late; if she had not been so blindingly obedient to Claudius, she would not have been accidentally poisoned. Dash defends the queen when she explains, Shakespeares Gertrude, in the last scene, seems to know who she is and refuses to comply with Claudiuss wish She will exert power over herself. But, like Hamlets actions, hers come too late (Dash 128). Gertrudes late action mirrors that of Hamlet; the queens death is not a criticism of a wifes disobedience, it is a comment on continued inaction. In defense of Gertrude, the society she lives in is hinged around male dominance. Most likely married to Hamlets father at a young age, submission to ones husband is the only way she knows how to move through life. Shakespeare did not intend to define Ophelia and Gertrude as weak, dependent creatures. He is commenting on the condition of the English woman in the sixteenth century. Dash

Werner 28 explains, [Gertrude and Ophelia]s struggles are interwoven with their socially assigned roles and with their attempts, whether consciously or not, to extricate self from role. In these characters, hedged about by a patriarchal society, Shakespeare shows not only that womens lives are hinged to those of the men but also that ultimately such a dependency hampers individual growth (Dash 112). According to this literary scholar, Shakespeare uses Hamlet to exemplify the need for womens personal growth; or else the consequences with be insanity or death. Additionally, in Shakespeares most well known play, Romeo and Juliet, there exists yet another father, like Polonius, unnecessarily exerting control over his daughter. In this tragedy, patriarchal dominance is a prominent theme, and even more obvious and somewhat disturbing is the way Lord Capulet exercises his control over his thirteen-year-old daughter, Juliet.

Absolute Filial Command as the Eventual Murderer of Juliet in Romeo and

Juliet
The masculine command of father over daughter in Romeo and Juliet (c. 1595) bears a resemblance to that of Polonius and Ophelia Hamlet, but is most striking in similarity with Egeus and Hermia in A Midsummer Nights Dream. This is exemplified in the sense that a father plans to force his daughter to marry a man that she does not consent to, after which the father callously attempts to exert his power over her. Romeo and Juliet, of course, has a much different ending than A Midsummer Nights Dream. When the audience first encounters Lord Capulet, Juliets father, he seems to be a loving and wise man. A suitor for his daughter has just expressed his immediate desire to wed, but Capulet wishes to prolong the wedding day, as he thinks Juliet is still too young. However, when this father changes his mind and agrees Juliet will be married to the suitor Paris in a few days time, the audience witnesses a completely different man. Capulet is so very different from Shakespeares other controlling fathers because he is the most verbally

Werner 29 abusive; his words drip with devastating insults and he lacks absolutely any understanding. Additionally, this attempted male control is the impetus for the females death. Critic Cedric Watts describes Lord Capulets character, This is another strong cameo role, the outlines of the character being clear but with plenty of variety within the basic parameters of the ageing, willful, proud paterfamilias. The character, in its semi-comic headstrong vigour, is established at once (Watts 86). If indeed this character is semi-comic, he is certainly not by the middle of play. This fathers destructive words and actions are what ultimately kill his daughter; his overbearing control takes away any choice for Juliet, and she and her Romeo feel forced to end their lives. The womans condition represented in not only this work but also sixteenth-century London is summed up within dialogue from the opening scene when Sampson, a man from the house of Capulet, says to his companion, Tis true; and therefore women, being the weaker vessels, are ever thrust to the wall. Therefore I will push Montagues men from the wall and thrust his maids to the wall (Shakespeare 5). Sampson, in a bawdy interchange with his friend Gregory, epitomizes the attitude towards the female sex at the time. Although the line is delivered in a humorous way, there is a great deal of truth in his statement; men believe women to be the weaker gender, and therefore will be thrust to the wall, as Sampson is implying a forced sexual encounter. When compared with the previous line of Gregorys, [Taking the wall] shows thee a weak slave; for the weakest goes to the wall, women are now aligned with not only weakness and frailty but also enslavement (Shakespeare 5). This opening banter is utilized by Shakespeare to set the tone and attitude towards women, specifically Juliet, for the rest of the play. When Lord Capulet first appears on stage, he seems to be a considerate and affectionate father; but this is only because he believes himself to be fully obeyed by his daughter. Jameson

Werner 30 describes this man as a self-willed, violent, tyrannical father,--to whom his daughter is but a property, the appanage of his house, and the object of his pride, and this is overtly evident throughout his actions and words throughout the work (Jameson 110). When the suitor Paris asks Capulet for Juliets hand in marriage, the father declines, stating that his daughter needs two more years until she is ready to wed. He says to Paris, But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart; / My will to her consent is but a part. /An she agree, within her scope of choice / Lies my consent and fair according voice (Shakespeare 14). With these lines, Capulet admits that his consent is only part of the deal; Paris must also win her love in order to marry her. Here, this father appears to be a fair and just man; he is conscious of his daughters affections and aware of her youth, as she is far too young to be married. When Juliet says in the same scene, [Marriage] is an honour that I dream not of, her uneasiness towards being a wife is known by both her parents (20). However, in Act III, all consideration for Juliet is disregarded. After Tybalts death at the hands of Romeo, Lord and Lady Capulet exchange words with Paris. At this point, Capulet takes a different stance on Juliets readiness for marriage entirely, when he says: Sir Paris, I will make a desperate tender Of my childs love. I think she will be ruld In all respects by me; nay more, I doubt it not. Wife, go you to her ere you go to bed tell her She shall be married to this noble earl. (79) With these words, Capulet has stated openly, in front of Paris, that his daughter is expected to obey his will and more. Gone is the consideration for Juliets tender age and her choice in the matter; now her hand in marriage is used as proof of her obedience to Capulet. When Juliet is informed of her fathers intentions, she politely declines the offer, for as Capulet said earlier to Paris, An she agree [to wed you], within her scope of choice / Lies my consent and fair according voice (14). According to his previous statement, the man Juliet marries is the man

Werner 31 that she chooses; her fathers permission is only a part of the process. However, he never dreamt that his daughter would actually defy his wishes. When Juliet announces to her parents that she does not want to marry Paris, her father explodes into a verbally abusive rampage, doing everything he can to force his one daughter to obey him. He accosts his thirteen-year-old daughter, go with Paris to Saint Peters Church, / Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither. / Out, you green-sickness carrion I out, you baggage! / You tallow-face! (85). Capulet, outraged at his daughters lack of subordination, threatens her with physical violence and verbal lashings. This is probably the most outrageous and unsettling example of a Shakespearian male character exhibiting his control over a female character. When Capulet tells Juliet he will drag her to the church, he uses the term hurdle, which here means, a conveyance on which criminals were dragged to execution. The word choice employed here by Shakespeare is used to describe how Capulet will get Juliet to the church; it is quite telling of how he views his own daughter. Additionally, this father uses the term baggage, meaning hussy, to insult his daughter after she respectfully declines the union (No Fear Shakespeare 199). These insults beg the question, if Capulet wants Juliet to marry Paris in order to pull her out of sadness over the death of Tybalt, but she declines, why does her father respond with such violence and abuse? When Capulet uses the phrase disobedient wretch! to refer to his daughter, his motive becomes evident; this father is not angry that his daughter is not ready for marriage, he is furious at the defiance of his will. He threatens physical violence on Juliet when he says, My fingers itch. Wife, we scarce thought us blest / That God had lent us but this only child; / But now I see this one is one too much, / And that we have a curse in having her (Shakespeare 85). With these words, Capulet has given his daughter the ultimate verbal abuse, and because she, for the first time in her life, disobeyed her fathers will. The relationship is only mended (as far as Capulet knows) after Juliet, on

Werner 32 bended knee, admits her fathers dominion over her, and accepts the marriage offer. She cries to her father, I have learnt me to repent the sin / Of disobedient opposition / To you and your behests (Shakespeare 94). Juliet tells her father exactly what he wants to hear: that he reigns supreme over every aspect of her life, even marriage. Capulet replies, This is ast should be, showing his approval of her submissive lamentation (94). Even after his daughter is found in the family tomb, this time truly dead, this overbearing man exemplifies his opinion of his daughter. He cries, Death is my son-in-law, Death is my heir (100). Capulet, even though his daughter is dead, somehow manipulates the effect of the situation to reflect the male. With these words, it is evident that Capulet is more upset about the loss of an heir than he is the death of his daughter. Juliets intended betrothed, Paris, reveals his opinion of women in an exchange between he and Friar Laurence; further exemplifying the way in which men attempt to dominate females in Shakespeares works. Friar Laurence says to Paris, You say you do not know the ladys mind. / Uneven is the course; I like it not, to which Paris replies that it is the way his future father-in-law wants it (89). With no consideration for the preference of his future wife, Paris is obedient to only another male, Capulet. When Juliet arrives at Friar Laurences, Paris makes another telling statement when he says to her, Thy face is mine, and thou hast slandred it (90). By referring to Juliets tear-stained face as his, he is demonstrating the type of husband he would have been to Juliet: dominating, controlling, and possessive. With regard to the playwrights opinion of female independence, some scholars maintain that because Shakespeare ended this work with the suicides of these young lovers, he is commenting on the consequences of rebellious women. However, Watts explains, [The end] is seen as a reproach to the intolerance of the rival patriarchs, and even to the Prince who had failed to curb that patriarchal power (Watts 96). This is evidenced in the fact that Juliet, although

Werner 33 unable to spend a long life with her Romeo, did truly succeed in defying her father; she married the man that she wanted while avoiding a union with Paris. Even though the play ends tragically, Juliet was able to free herself from the binding constraints of the smothering patriarchy as instituted by her father. After the scene where her father verbally abuses and threatens her, Jameson explains, Juliet undergoes a transformation. Jameson says, This scene is the crisis in the character; and henceforth we see Juliet assume a new aspect. The fond, impatient, timid girl puts on the wife and the woman; she has learned heroism from suffering, and subtlety from oppression (Jameson 114). Through the attempted oppression at the hands of her father, Juliet has learned to liberate herself, choosing her own actions. Jameson continues, In the mind of Juliet there is no struggle between her filial and her conjugal duties, and there ought to be none (114). For the rest of the play, Juliet will act upon her own accord, and even sacrifices her life over being imprisoned by a male figure.

King Lears Desire for the Absolute Control of his Daughters as his Downfall
In Shakespeares King Lear (c. 1603), a fathers need for the total submission of his daughters is most evident. In fact, this selfish desire is essentially Lears downfall in the play, and it causes the death of not only the king but also his daughters and numerous others. In his need for control, Lear pushes away the only daughter who actually loves him, a choice he comes to regret. The play begins with the announcement of Lears desire to retire, as it were, before his death. He assembles his three daughters and their husbands to divide up the kingdom. The way in which he divides the kingdom, however, is absolutely ludicrous: he gives portions of the land to each daughter, based on their answer to his question of how much they love him. Lear says, Tell

Werner 34 me, my daughters / (Since now we will divest us both of rule, / Interest of territory, cares of state), / Which of you shall we say doth love us most? (Shakespeare 12) Lears desire to know which of his daughters loves him the most is a ploy for them to announce their subservience to him, especially over their husbands. Scholar Jay L. Halio explains the kings actions, What prompts him to engage his children in this sham contest is evidently nothing more than vanity (Halio 39). He wants to be reassured of his importance in their lives, and in doing so, makes his tragic error. Goneril, the eldest daughter, engages flattery and exaggeration in order to please her father, as it will be known later in the play that she does not love her father at all. Regan, the second daughter, does the same. When it comes to the third and only unmarried daughter, good Cordelia, truth and logic are spoken. When answering her fathers question, Cordelia says, I love you Majesty / According to my bond; no more nor less (Shakespeare 14). Cordelia admits the truth: that she loves her father the way a daughter should, not engaging in the use of any sycophancy or adulation. Scholar Allison Findlay adds, As Cordelia knows, Lear does not wish to hear the hard truth that he does not have the exclusive love of his daughters, especially when the youngest is about to leave him for a husband (Findlay 83). Lears youngest daughter is aware that she is not appeasing her father, but she would rather speak the truth than submit to his authority. Literary critic Lynda E. Boose comments, instead of justly relinquishing his daughter, Lear tries to effect a substitution of paternal divestitures (Halio 72). Cordelia then goes on to say, You have begot me, bred me, lovd me; I / Return those duties back as are right fit, / Obey you, love you, and most honour you (Shakespeare 14). This declaration of true and daughterly love is exactly as it should be; Goneril and Regan are wives, and in their marriage, their obedience to their father would have changed to their husbands. She explains to all, Why have my sisters husbands, if they say / They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed, / That lord whose

Werner 35 hand must take my plight shall carry / Half my love with him, half my care and duty. Sure I shall never marry like my sisters, / To love my father all (14). Cordelia logically explains that if her sisters truly love Lear as much as they say, the two should not have taken husbands, as their duty is to them. However, the king is furious by Cordelias lack of obsequiousness. He announces, Here I disclaim all my paternal care, / Propinquity and property of blood, / And as a stranger to my heart and me / Hold thee from this for ever (15). Lear denounces Cordelia as a daughter, as well as takes away any inheritance. Jameson explains the kings opinion of his youngest daughter: [Cordelia] had been his best object (Jameson 235). In referring to her as an object, Lear overtly expresses his view of the young woman: his possession. Because Cordelia did not express absolute fidelity to Lear like her sisters did, she is punished, and this is evidence of the kings desire for total control over his daughters. He continues, With my two daughters dowers digest this third; / Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her (Shakespeare 15). Lear denounces Cordelia for being prideful, when truly no one could be more full of self-pride. He continues later, Better thou / Hadst not been born than not t have pleasd me better (19). This is the pinnacle of Lears insults and insanity. He states that he would have been happier if Cordelia had never been born, and because she admitted to loving him the way a daughter loves a father. After the king of France decides to still marry Cordelia even though she no longer possesses any dowry or honor, Lear says his final words to his youngest child, be gone / Without our grace, our love, our benison (30). This unusual amount of cruelty and selfishness by Lear is wrought on his youngest daughter because she did not comply with his desire for complete subservience, which he received with Goneril and Regan. Lears obsessive desire for submission from his daughters and their lack of this drives Lear to insanity later in the work. When residing for the first part of his retirement at Gonerils

Werner 36 estate, her servants and soldiers, upon her orders, are rude and disobedient to Lear and his men. When the king confronts Goneril about this, she not only refuses to submit to his will, but also takes the upper hand away from her father, by informing him he must send away half of his one hundred soldiers. Realizing his lack of power over his daughter, Lear laments giving her authority. He cries, Ingratitude, thou marble-hearted fiend, / More hideous when thou showst thee in a child / Than the sea-monster! (41). Instead of valuing traits like honesty and rejecting flattery, Lear chose exaggeration over logic, feeding into his desire for total control over his daughters. Upon arriving at Regans estate, she too defies obedience to her father, and eventually locks Lear out of her residence. Eventually, Goneril and Regans lack of subordination to the king drives him mad, and outside Regans estate he holds a trial for the treason of his daughters, believing that they are truly there. In the final act, Cordelia is tragically put to death, to the horror of her father. Scholar Janet Adelman researches in her 1992 article what lead to Cordelias death. She explains, Lear himself is behind the fatal complot, for having been emasculated by his daughters Cordelias own death by choking enacts a talion punishment, the terrible recuperation of male individuality from the threat of the overwhelming mother within (Kahan 52). From this viewpoint, Lear not only attempts to force Cordelia into submission, but he also is the impetus behind her untimely death. In choosing to portray King Lear with the desire for dominion over his daughters, Shakespeare has once again commented on gender relations in his work. Blindly demanding submission from women causes Lears downfall, and the only daughter who defied her fathers insistence for control would have treated him with respect and dignity, unlike Goneril and Regan. Eventually, Lear realizes his fault but it is too late, and Cordelia, as well as her other sisters and the king himself all die by the end of the play. Because Goneril and Regan take

Werner 37 advantage of their father, some contend that Shakespeare is commenting on the dangers of women in power. Although they do indeed manipulate Lear and exert control over him, the only true and good character in the play is a woman, Cordelia. Even though she was rejected and hurt by her father at the beginning, she still returns to attempt to protect him and reinstate him as leader. In doing this, Shakespeare is exemplifying the pure nature of the female, contrasting sharply with and cancelling out the horrible actions of Goneril and Regan. Findlay explains, Cordelias love is demonstrated in her return to restore his kingdom to him, a tender care for his physical restoration, and an exchange demonstrating her unqualified love and forgiveness of the parent who previously banished her (Findlay 83). In returning to assist the father that endeavored to rule her, Cordelia proves her strength and maturity as a woman, a comment by the playwright on the intrinsic power of the female sex. Some feminist critics, like Kate McLuskie, maintain that Cordelias role serves less as a redemption of womankind than as an example of patriarchy restored (Halio 70). However, I completely disagree; I would argue that Cordelias return to help her estranged father and subsequent death are a comment by Shakespeare on the strength of women.

Conclusion: Shakespeares Mirroring of Gender Relations in Elizabethan London

Certain male characters surveyed in each of these plays do not just ask for dominion over the female characters, they demand it. It is important to note, however, that four of the fives plays examined in the research contained conflicts between a father and his daughter. However, regardless of the type of relationship, it is evident that the male figures constantly demanded lifechanging actions from the females. For example, Angelo wants Isabella to spoil her virtue, Egeus and Lord Capulet want their daughters to marry someone they do not, and Polonius wants to use

Werner 38 Ophelia as an instrument to gain favor with the new king. As a great amount of the conflicts portrayed in Shakespeares plays have their foundations in gender differences, one must conclude that the playwright was either a misogynist or he was merely reflecting (and commenting) on the state of the relationship between the sexes in Elizabethan London. In fact, I contend that, at the time, men did indeed attempt to dominate every aspect of the females daily life. For example, education in Elizabethan England was reserved mainly for boys (Wagner 12). In reserving advanced schooling for males, women were perpetually kept in the dark, allowing for their easy manipulation and control. Historian John A. Wagner continues, In sixteenth-century England, married women were considered to be under the guardianship of their husbands, and their legal rights were largely subsumed in their spouses. Even the Queen, who could inherit the Crown, was expected to marry so that her husband could help her govern, if not rule for her (13). This poor state of womens rights is reflected entirely in the works of Shakespeare; in A Midsummer Nights Dream, Titania, wife to Oberon, is expected to bequeath her ownership of the changeling child to her husband. When she does not comply, Oberon manipulates her free will in order satisfy his need for control over his wife. Emanuel van Meteren said in his 1575 Account of English Wives, Wives in England are certainly in the power of their husbands, their lives only excepted (20). This absolute lack of female power within marriage is mirrored in Hamlet with Queen Gertrudes blind obedience to Claudius, as well as her submission of individual thought and action. Historian Kathy Lynn Emerson explains, Sixteenth century England was scarcely a paradise for anyone by modern standards, and women in particular had few rights. At birth their fate was in the hands of their fathers and after marriage everything they had belonged to their husbands (Emerson 5). This tradition of fathers controlling the lives of their daughters resounds throughout the selection of Shakespeares plays

Werner 39 discussed previously; King Lear demands unconditional submission from his three daughters, even though two are married, and they legally belong to their husbands. In Romeo and Juliet, the modern audience would be shocked at not only Juliets lack of choice in her impending marriage with Paris, but also the young age in which she is considered ready to wed by her father. Watts explains, In Elizabethan England, the legal ages of consent were twelve for a female and fourteen for a male; but, among noble and wealthy families, marriages were often contracted for younger children (Watts 90). In setting the female age for marriage two years younger than the males, this patriarchal society further exercises dominance over women, for the younger the bride, the more easily manipulated and impressionable she would be. Considering the state of womens rights in sixteenth-century England, Shakespeare most evidently used his plays as a way to mirror gender relations he witnessed daily. The reason gender conflict is such a prominent theme in Shakespeares works is because the playwright observed female suppression regularly. However, unlike most feminist scholars would contend, this does not mean that he was a misogynist, or even agreed with the lack of womens rights at the time. As previously stated, Shakespeare allows two of his female characters in A Midsummer Nights Dream to successfully break away from male dominance; both Hermia and Helena are able to choose their own husbands, especially against the will of Egeus. Additionally, in depicting the controlling father, Egeus, as a ridiculous fool of a character, Shakespeare is able to present the flaws of his patriarchal society under the guise of comedic exaggeration. Isabellas over loss of her free will in Measure for Measure is another way Shakespeare draws sympathy from his audience for the plight of the sixteenth century woman. Under the cover of an Austrian setting, the playwright is able to comment on the need for womens rights in England without criticism from his male audience members. The most

Werner 40 important piece of evidence for Shakespeares sympathy towards the female condition is Isabellas lack of lines for the rest of the play after the Duke proposes marriage; in her absolute silence, the playwright manifests the absence of the womans voice or opinion in matters such as marriage. Ophelias descent into insanity in Hamlet after the man who controls every aspect of her life is murdered, is another instance is which Shakespeare aligns himself with the female cause. In presenting Ophelia in a sympathetic manner, the audience would empathize with this female character, resenting the man, her father, who used her as a pawn in order to benefit himself. Although Romeo and Juliet ends with the double suicide of the main characters, Juliet does in fact defy the demands of her abusive father; she was able to marry the man she loved. Marrying a man of ones choosing would have been considered a great feat of female independence to an Elizabethan audience. Shakespeare did not have to allow Romeo and Juliet to be married; but in doing so, his version of Juliet is able to break free from the patriarchal society in which she belongs. Finally, in King Lear, Shakespeares depicting of Cordelia as savior and sacrificial lamb demonstrate the female characters strength and selflessness. In fact, some scholars have recently viewed Cordelia as a Christ figure: In the final scene, Lears bending over the body of Cordelia would have reminded the audience, too, of the Deposition from the Cross, depicted in so many medieval paintings, a kind of inverted piet (Halio 88). Aligning a female character with Jesus Christ is not the act of a misogynist; in fact, this could be seen as Shakespeares ultimate glorification of the female. Conclusively, the numerous gender conflicts in Shakespeares plays serve as a social comment of the playwright. In a country so dominated by male influence, these works demonstrate the female condition in the time they were written. Most likely forced into a marriage with the pregnant Anne Hathaway, Shakespeare would have been entirely too aware of

Werner 41 the absence of womens rights in Elizabethan England. Considering this, the examples of the playwrights sympathy towards English females evidences the reason why his male characters demand control over the females: Shakespeare is making a comment on the destructive and unequal patriarchal state of England.

Werner 42 Works Cited Bridges, Robert Seymour. On the Influence of the Audience. Measure for Measure. Mark Eccles. New York City: The Modern Language Association of America, 1980. Print. Brown, Heather. "Gender and Identity in Hamlet: A Modern Interpretation of Ophelia." The Myriad. Westminster College. Web. <http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=2514>. Buccola, Regina. Fairies, Fractious Women, and the Old Faith: Fairy Lore in Early Modern British Drama and Culture. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 2006. Calderwood, James L. A Midsummer Nights Dream: Twaynes New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare. New York: Twanye Publishers, 1992. Print. Dash, Irene G. Womans Worlds in Shakespeares Plays. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1997. Print. Desens, Marliss C. The Bed-Trick in English Renaissance Drama. Measure for Measure: A Norton Critical Edition. Grace Ioppolo. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010. Print. Desment, Christy. Disfiguring Women with Masculine Tropes. A Midsummer Nights Dream: Critical Essays. Dorothea Kehler. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998. Print. Dollimore, Jonathan. Transgression and Surveillance. Measure for Measure: A Norton Critical Edition. Grace Ioppolo. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010. Print. Eccles, Mark. Measure for Measure. New York City: The Modern Language Association of America, 1980. Print. Emerson, Kathy Lynn. Wives and Daughters: The Women of Sixteenth Century England. Troy: Whitston Publishing Co., 1984. Print.

Werner 43

Findlay, Allison. Women in Shakespeare: A Dictionary. New York: Continuum Books, 2010. Print. Freitas, Donna. "Shakespeare and Feminism. March 2011. Web. <http://www.stjohnschs.org/english/shakespeare/feminism/feminism.html>. Garner, Shirley Nelson. A Midsummer Nights Dream: Jack Shall Have Jill; / Nought Shall Go Ill. A Midsummer Nights Dream: Critical Essays. Dorothea Kehler. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998. Print. Gless, Darryl J. Measure for Measure, the Law, and the Convent. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979. Print. Halio, Jay L. King Lear: A Guide to the Play. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2001. Print. Jameson, Anna. Shakespeares Heroines: Characteristics of Women, Moral, Poetical, and Historical. New York: AMS Press, 1967. Print. Jones, Ernest. Hamlet and Oedipus: A Classic Study in the Psychoanalysis of Literature. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1949. Print. Kahan, Jeffrey. King Lear: New Critical Essays. New York: Routledge, Inc., 2008. Print. Lever, J.W. Measure for Measure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965. Print. Montrose, Louis A. A Kingdom of Shadows. A Midsummer Nights Dream: Critical Essays. Dorothea Kehler. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1998. Print. Palmer, Eustace. In-class lecture notes. Fall 2011. Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. World Library, Inc., 1993. Electronic version. ---. A Midsummer Nights Dream. World Library, Inc., 1993. Electronic version. ---. No Fear Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet. New York: SparkNotes, LLC, 2003. Print.

Werner 44 ---. Romeo and Juliet. World Library, Inc., 1993. Electronic version. ---. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. World Library, Inc., 1993. Electronic version. ---. King Lear. World Library, Inc., 1993. Electronic version. Stanton, Kay. Made to write whore upon?: Male and Female Use of the Word Whore in Shakespeares Canon. A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Dympna Callaghan. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 2000. Print. Wagner, John A. Voices of Shakespeare's England: Contemporary Accounts of Elizabethan Daily Life. Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press, 2010. Print. Watts, Cedric. Twaynes New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991.