Feminist critique towards Shakespeares drama emerged in the 1970s, and its focal concerns have developed alongside

the theory itself. The body of work started out as an attack on Shakespeares drama as displaying and reinforcing patriarchal ideology. R.S White claims that critics believed Shakespearean drama to reproduce the status quo and says, Some feminists mounted a similar argument on gender grounds. Shakespeare was a man who wrote for men perpetuating a tenacious hold on a patriarchal system that subjugated women, inveterately heterosexual in inclination.[1] Yet criticism developed to a study of what Shakespeare was actually saying about gender through his writings, as Jean. E Howard says of this style of criticism: their aim is to understand just how thoroughly and in what specific ways Shakespeare shared the gender assumptions of his own time and the ways, as well, in which his plays have disrupted those assumptions.[2] Rather than viewing his drama as a method or reproducing the dominant patriarchal ideology of the time, the focus shifted to a study of whether his work was actually a critique of the ruling ideology; after all, what he had his characters say was not necessarily what he himself believed to be true. I too will be studying what Shakespeare is actually saying about gender in King Lear and Macbeth and how his presentation of female characters challenges pre-held assumptions on gender. Most critics argue that in these two plays we have presentation of female characters at polar opposites of the spectrum: on the one hand, we have the evil Lady Macbeth, and Regan and Goneril; whilst on the other we have the celestial and angelic Cordelia. Peter Erickson claims King Lear elaborates further the dramatic possibilities of the two versions of women which Othello shuttles.[3] If one takes the view that in Othello we are presented with the extremes of femininity that women can embody, i.e. either the whore Bianca or the pure and innocent Desdemona, then one can see that a common belief held by the likes or Erickson is that King Lear makes these binaries of what a woman can be even clearer. I, however, seek to argue that the binary opposite categories that Shakespearean women supposedly fall into, in fact do not exist. I will be concentrating on the presentation of the characters Lady Macbeth, Regan and Goneril, who, in rather sweeping statements are often tarred as evil female characters. The aforementioned characters in King Lear and Macbeth in fact challenge the idea that women can be either the binary of the Madonna or the whore; they are all strong characters and no matter how diabolical we may view their actions, there are still aspects of their characters that assert their humanity, forcing us to sympathise with them. As Valerie Traub says, the pressure of women pushing against patriarchal strictures can be felt throughout Shakespearean drama.[4] This body of thought, of Shakespeare pushing the boundaries is what I shall be basing my study on. Firstly, Shakespeare highlights the importance of women and the danger of over looking them as second-class citizens in society by forming the entire plot structure around women and their actions. (Critic name) describes the female characters as being defined by men and in relation to men meaning that womens identity is

precarious.[5] Often critics do define the female characters of Shakespeare in relation to the males in the drama; yet I do not believe Shakespeare intended his females to be portrayed as merely sidekicks. Arguably, without the Witches premonition and Lady Macbeths fervent encouragement, we would have no action in Macbeth; certainly, if the plot were left to the unmotivated Macbeth, there would be nothing worth watching at all. Whilst in King Lear, even though the eponymous Lear is foolish enough to believe that giving his kingdom away is a good idea, the action of the play revolves around Cordelias staunch defiance to what he has asked of her, and Regan and Gonerils ambitious plotting. With no female characters, we would have no action in either play; they are shown as omnipotent characters in the lives of the men. Although the action in the plays is not always positive or ideal, the main factor is that we are presented with an array of dominant women who, Shakespeare shows us, are too powerful, ambitious, and intelligent to be pigeon-holed or overlooked by men. As well as their omnipotent role in the plot, Shakespeare also imbues his females with being omniscient. They have power over the lives of the men because they understand them and know what they are to do, better than the men know themselves. Lady Macbeth knows that Macbeth will have the desire to be king, yet understands that he lacks the ambition and motivation to actually do this for himself. As she herself asserts on the nature of his character:

Glamis thou art, and Cawdor, and shalt be What thou art promised. Yet I do fear thy nature: It is too full othe milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way. Thou wouldst be great, Art not without ambition, but without The illness should attend it. What thou wouldst highly That wouldst thou holily, wouldst not play false, And yet wouldst wrongly win.[6]

She understands that her husbands nature is to full othe milk of human kindness to actually do the murderous deed to make himself king. Not only does she know this, she also knows exactly how to make him do as she desires. As Johnson argues, The arguments by which Lady Macbeth persuades her husband to commit murder, afford a

proof of Shakespeares knowledge of human nature.[7] Shakespeare passes on this understanding of human nature that he himself possesses, not to Macbeth, his leading male, but to Lady Macbeth, the leading female in the drama. In act I scene 7 when Macbeth shifts from a determined We will proceed no further in this business to an I am settled in regards to murdering Duncan, this is simply because Lady Macbeth knows exactly how to get him to do the deed: she insults his manliness and questions his love for her. This is manipulative perhaps, yet one cannot question her intelligence and understanding of the nature of humans, particularly that of her husband, in regards to her husbands ignorance. Cordelia, Regan and Goneril are also shown as characters possessing more knowledge, understanding and intellect than the men around them. Unlike Lear, Cordelia sees through her sisters behaviour, and Regan and Goneril appear to understand the Kings mind better than he does. This is evident in their plotting in act 1 scene 1:

Goneril. The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash; then must we look from his age, to receive not alone the imperfections of long-engraffed condition, but therewithal the unruly waywardness that infirm and choleric years bring with them.[8]

One can see from this almost prophetic speech that Goneril understands Lears rash character and how age and illness will render him susceptible to their plot. The two sisters know the Kings mind inside out: they know that he loves their younger sister best, they know that he is in a state of deterioration and, most importantly, they know him so well they know exactly how to exploit this for their own gain. Like Lady Macbeths actions, such behaviour is again manipulative; yet it is unquestionably intelligent in comparison to the men in the play, particularly the blind Lear who understand neither nothing nor no one. As well as showing the folly of disregarding women and forcing them into subservient roles, by presenting them as the driving force of the plays, Shakespeare also highlights the fact that they are not one-dimensional characters who can be deemed as one or the other of the culturally defined extremes of womanhood. Most critics will tend to despise Lady Macbeth, and Regan and Goneril, viewing them as manifestly evil. While at the other end of the spectrum we have Cordelia viewed as the celestial angel due to her

unquestioning subservience and obedience. As (Critic name)says When speaking of Cordelias virtue, literary critics tend to enjoy superlatives that are usually reserved for the Bard himself.[9] Yet the commonly held view of the sisters is that shared by Edward A. Block who states that the two daughters are the blackest of black, while Lear, a suffering, tormented, persecuted old man, is the purest of white.[10] Even Anna Jameson, who provides a very compelling sympathertic argument on the overlooked positive nature of Lady Macbeth, describes the two sisters as vile.[11] However, each one of the females mentioned offers more than a one-dimensional reading of them as either a daemon or a goddess, possessing positive and negative attributes. This is most notable with the supposedly evil characters whose qualities move us from admiration to fear, despisement to sorrow and pity. Regan and Goneril, often dismissed as Cordelias evil sisters, are denied the credit to which they are due. As stated, they know their father better than he knows himself; and they are in fact two very intelligent, ambitious and motivated young women. The are fully aware of their subservient position in a patriarchal society, as one that is utterly reliant first on their father and secondly, and later in life, on their husbands. They know what they have to do to advance out of this condition and they have the ambition and ability to actually go through with this. How much they themselves can be blamed for their actions is questionable: they know their father loves their younger sister the most so their future is uncertain. What they do is secure themselves in the patriarchal world; and they do this in the way they have learnt from the patriarchal society they have grown up in, a cold and ruthless manner. As Block says of Lears actions: It is impossible to deny the conclusion that dividing up the land on the basis of his daughters speeches is a mere form, a childish device to gratify Lears love of absolute power and his hunger for public assurance of his daughters love. The two daughters understand their fathers childish need for an outward display of affection. They, like Cordelia, may not agree with gratifying it, yet unlike her, their defiance rests in first tricking Lear into believing they have obeyed him. They are, in fact, extremely positive female role models: they fight their subservient position in an unequal society and usurp the patriarchal ruler using the masculine societys own means to do so. Cordelias character is never actually questioned by critics, and I certainly intend to do nothing by way of tarnishing her name. Yet what does appear to transpire as the image the critics propagate is that of a daughter who is at the other end of the spectrum to her sisters: she is celestial because her faith and dedication to her father never wavers. Yet this is a character who would serve as reproducing the dominant ideology that a good female is one who is subservient and obedient to men. I do not intend to argue that she is a negative female role model or possesses negative characteristics; she is, in fact, deserved of more credit for her character than she is given. Like Regan and Goneril,

she knows exactly what is occurring throughout the play. She defies her father because she does not believe she should have to profess her love to him, even though that means she will not get a share in his inheritance. Yet what most critics fail to point out is the fact that her failure to speak up is a theme throughout the entire play, and as mentioned previously, she is one of the female characters controlling the action in the play: events might not turn out so terrible if she did in fact speak out. She fails to speak at two points in the play when she could have prevented the wicked outcome: firstly she fails to say anything at all when Kent is banished due to his dedication to her cause, when, as her fathers favourite, she most probably could have prevented such an action being taken; and secondly, she believes her sisters to be evil and could have prevented their success by forewarning her father about them. This is evident in her speech to her sisters when she says:

Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides; Unto who covers faults, at last with shame derides? Well may you prosper![12]

Cordelia knows that her sisters will not prosper; and she knows they are plotting and cunning and this could surely only end badly. Instead of warning her beloved father and saving her sisters, whom as her siblings she must surely care for, from such fate, she remains silent.. It would be a push to say she enacts revenge, but in her refusal to talk we see that she is no angelic female to be dominated by males or others, rather she is a strong-willed character who believes in justice and thus wants others punished for their wrongful behaviour towards her. Akin to Regan and Goneril, Lady Macbeth is renowned for being the evil wife who, for her own gain, spurs her innocent husband onto his destruction. This one-sided reading of her character omits many important factors in terms of her character. As Jameson points out, Macbeth is renowned for being considered one of Shakespeares most complex dramatic characters, whilst on the other hand, the character of Lady Macbeth resolves itself into a few and simple elements.[13] She goes on to say that generally speaking, the commentators seem to have considered Lady Macbeth with reference to her husband, and as influencing the action of the drama, than as an individual conception of amazing power, poetry and beauty.[14] Yet through Lady Macbeth, Shakespeare again presents us with a character who is unsatisfied with her role in a male dominated society and does what she can to elevate

herself from this sub-standard position, thus securing herself within the patriarchal strictures of society. Admittedly, she is fiercely ambitious, yet in comparison to Macbeths lack of ambition, this is surely a positive thing. Macbeth cannot decide what he wants to do, continually changing his mind, if he does make a decision, he lacks the motivation to actually go through with it. Lady Macbeth, on the other hand, embodies a strong role, knowing exactly what she wants and never considering not obtaining it. Shakespeare presents us with a positive female role model who, by dominating her husband, subverts the belief that a wife is a weak character to be dominated. As Jameson points out we must then bear in mind, that the first idea of murdering Duncan is not suggested by Lady Macbeth to her husband: it springs within hismind. [15] I have already asserted Lady Macbeths important role in the play in persuading her husband; yet one could potentially view this persuasion as exactly what Macbeth wants: he desires the role of king, but requires somebody to tell him how and when this should be done, and also somebody to blame his actions on. Jameson also points out that she is ambitious less for herself that for her husband[16], by pointing out the fact that Lady Macbeth never actually mentions being queen, she refers only to her husband as a ruling monarch. She knows she will reap the benefits from Macbeth taking the role of King, but she wants what is best for her husband. This is because she loves her husband and throughout the play we see examples of this as she caringly helps him, without her he would surely fail at every obstacle. In act 2 scene 2 we see her soothing him from his worries of not being able to say Amen, when she tells him to Consider it not so deeply. While in act 3, scene 4, she is the one to maintain the peace and calm at the dinner party with her extremely quick thinking:

Lady (descends from her throne). Sit, worthy friends. My lord is often thus; And hath been from his youth. Pray you keep seat. The fit is momentary; upon a though He will again be well. If much you note him, You shall offend him and extend his passion.[17]

We see that she is the more intelligent, powerful and controlling of the relationship; without her Macbeth may well have inadvertently confessed to the murder ofDuncan. Admittedly neither Lady Macbeth nor Regan or Goneril display excessive amounts of virtue, kindness and wholly-good characteristics; yet we do see that what has spurred

them on to such evil deeds has been a necessity in a male dominated society; and also their own positive characteristics of ambition and passion. Surely, if we can being to understand and forgive Lears and Macbeths actions, then we too can identify with the plight of their female counterparts. Not one of the female characters are wholly evil or inhuman. Regan and Goneril emote our sympathies through their unrequited love of Edmund:

Regan. Now, sweet lord You know the goodness I intend upon you: Tell me, but truly, but then speak the truth, Do you now love my sister? Edmund. In honourd love. Regan.But have you never found my borthers way To the forfended place? Edmund. That though abuses you. Regan. I am doubtful that you have been conjunct And bosomd with her, as far as we call hers. Edmund. No, by mine honour, Madam. Regan. I shall never endure her: dear my Lord, Be not familiar with her.[18]

Through this Shakespeare reminds us that the sisters are human beings competing for the attentions of a somewhat disinterested male; they share the same emotions as us. It is only in seeking their own happiness and security in a cruel, oppressive and male dominated world, they have, not single handedly, left a trail of destruction in their wake. Lady Macbeth even more shows her humanity and in turn appeals to our sympathies. Edith Whitehurst argues that to evaluate the character of Lady Macbeth in terms of her expressed intention before the murder of Duncanwithout regard for the radical alteration afterward is to misread the character. [19] She argues that Lady Macbeths moment of remembering the dead Lady of Fife speaks of a conscience far from dead.[20] Unlike Macbeth, who goes on mindlessly murdering, Lady Macbeth is driven mad by the murder ofDuncan and the turn of events; Macbeths is the conscience that is lacking in

humanity. In Lady Macbeths action and final suicide, there is no question that she repents her actions and feels immense guilt. The positive characteristics mentioned are unparalleled by the central male characters in both of the plays: as mentioned Macbeth shows cowardice, lack of ambition, and lack on intelligence while Lear shows his foolish nature by splitting his land up and being blind to what his daughters are actually thinking or feeling, and also his selfish and childish nature in needing assurance from his children. It is also worth nothing that Shakespeare always has the males as the physical perpetrators of the heinous crimes. None of the female characters truly embody the stereotypical binaries of what a woman can and should be. Each character does her best to assert herself in a patriarchal society; and if their actions should be deemed as wrong, then that is the fault of the said society for putting them in such a position. Not only does it preach such ruthless behaviour, it only offers this behaviour as a means of escape. Shakespeare shows that in women, as in men, there are a range of characteristics, good and bad, and that these women are powerful enough to command the entire action of his plays.