Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thea Olson
12/5/17
Prof. Moss
It is difficult to imagine a time when the masses were unfamiliar with William
Shakespeare and his vast canon of iconic works. For this reason, it is entirely typical for
scholars and mere fans alike to speculate about his personal life, tastes, and beliefs with
only the evidence that his works provide; unfortunately, most of the arguments made
about Shakespeare’s personal tastes and intentions are just that, conjecture. One of the
whether or not Shakespeare was a feminist. My aim is not to attempt to prove or disprove
this theory, but is rather to examine a variety of the popular texts we have discussed in
class, especially those which feature powerful and/or headstrong women, and extract
from them what is representative of the feminist agenda, and explain how his works may
from making assumptions about Shakespeare’s motivations and intentions with particular
characters and plots when talking about the topic of feminism in the Renaissance, and so,
means of setting himself apart from other playwrights, and as an individual in general.
The fact that Shakespeare is “a staple ingredient in all curricula,” can possibly be
traced back to the Shakespeare Ladies’ Club of 1736, which played an enormous part in
bringing him back to popularity (Eger, 127). Around this time, feminist literary critics,
Olson 2
like that of Virginia Woolf, began textual revision and adaption to accompany the
budding “dramatic trends of the English stage”(128). In fact, it is undeniable that “by the
considered integral to the English character,” and this is all due to the efforts of female
scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries (128). The role women have played in
While most female writers have struggled to have their important contributions to
the literary canon (which has predominantly consisted of work written by men)
acknowledged, “few have considered women’s role in forming that canon at its first
inception” (Eger, 129). This sad truth is substantiated by the fact that so many women
wrote under male pseudonyms, like that of the Bronte Sisters, and Louisa May Alcott, as
a means of gaining greater notoriety in a time where the intellectual sphere was entirely
dominated by the male population. Two women in particular who contributed a great deal
contributions as literary critics Shakespeare’s canon of works and their merit contributed
a great deal to his growing fame at the time. Montagu’s critical essay argues for the bards
“originality and natural genius,” while Griffiths work formed a “zealous defense of
vehement patriotism began to be associated with the study his sonnets and plays, which
has survived even today. Their recognition of his genius nearly singlehandedly was the
rather unusual practice of the times, which is the reason many claim that Shakespeare
Olson 3
himself was a feminist. While it was not unusual to praise a woman for her beauty in a
sonnet or a ballad, it was uncommon for women to be recognized in any kind of creative
work for anything other than their beauty during the Renaissance. Specifically in
Shakespeare’s works Much Ado About Nothing, Macbeth, and Twelfth Night strong
female characters are at the forefront of the driving action that occurs. Although it is
undeniable that these strong females, for reasons that will be discussed in detail, were
somewhat ahead of their time, this was a device used to stir debate and provoke thought,
rather than to make any kind of radical political statement. Although, it is at the same
time, slight evidence that Shakespeare was sympathetic to inequality among men and
women.
feminism, and “the result is the situation we see today: feminism has been turned into the
unspeakable F-word, not just among students but in the media too” (Moi, 1739). Many
shrink at the mention of the word because of the manner in which feminist extremists
have corrupted it. Those radicalists who claim to be feminists in the public sphere, made
it into something that many of the general population don’t want to identify as, or
conversely, identify as, without really understanding what they are stating about
become murky and altered. Many have weaponized the term, which, in turn, has caused it
feminism and making the assertion, “I am a feminist” less of a credible statement and
more of an absurd one. Knowing this is important for our discussion, because
“developments in the area of political ideas influence artistic practice,” and in this case
Olson 4
the artistic practice is playwriting, the playwright is a man, and the time period is early
1600 (Wandor, 90). Some of the feminist ideals that are exemplified in Shakespeare’s
plays are so momentous purely because they were so ahead of their time.
Just as Simon Beauvoir asserts that a woman is not born but is made, a person’s
identity is not something that they are born with, but is something shaped through
experience and exposure to culture. Gloria Jean Watkins, otherwise known as bell hooks,
a feminist scholar and social activist, clarifies that feminism should not be associated
with identity at all because it is a political practice, and identifying yourself as either
feminist or anti-feminist merely creates a greater chasm between the disparities. There
are too many things associated with feminism as a commodified identity that it is no
longer clear what being a feminist really means. Shakespeare’s plays, in specific cases,
exemplify feminism in its purest form, that being a presentation of women as full,
intelligent characters, and as deserving of love and happiness as their male counterparts.
Proclaiming oneself a feminist without comprehending all that it entails is dangerous and
rather unnecessary, which is why Shakespeare and many others who have contributed to
the development of feminist ideals and by extension equality, have never made it a point
work today “produces only tediously predictable lines of argument,” which is why many
are becoming disenchanted with feminism (Moi, 1735). Advocating for feminist politics,
not feminism as an identity is Bell Hooks’ philosophy, and I think this can be applied to
nearly any identity or platform. There is little need to claim or proclaim it in the public
Olson 5
sphere, but is rather better to demonstrate it in your actions, and Shakespeare used his
A great deal of things in nature exist in binary. So much so, that many are lead to
suppose that it also exists in societal constructs and conventions, and has even been
extended to dogma and politics. As a result of this close-minded way of seeing the world
and its parts, many assume if they do not conform to one specific ideal, then they must
automatically belong to the opposite view, when really most things, especially those
associated with identity, exist as a spectrum. Despite this fact, many characters in
Shakespeare’s plays fall prey to this false binary logical fallacy. In the case of Posthumus
in Cymbeline, this is especially true as he jumps from believing his betrothed Imogen to
be a faithful lover to believing she has betrayed him at the slightest shred of evidence.
Posthumus does not stop to consider that there may be some scenario that he is excluding
or failing to recognize. Another case where this false binary is employed occurs in
Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night where the character Viola, who also assumes the role of the
pageboy for Duke Orsino, makes the fluidity rather than the mutual exclusivism of
gender clear. It would possibly make understanding the world much easier, if this so
called black and white view were accurate, but as his been illustrated, only problems arise
for those individual that view the world through this black and white lens.
Lady Macbeth is yet another character who falls prey to these false binaries. She
assumes that because she does not posses the submissive and gentle qualities assumed to
belong to that of the typical woman, that she then must be “unsexed” to be able to better
reflect the desire for power and dominance that she undoubtedly feels more drawn to.
This unquestioning submission to this idea is what causes her demise. She assumes this
Olson 6
false binary in herself, only to realize that neither completely ascribing to one or the other
of the contrasting behaviors will satisfy her needs and desires while at the same time
permitting hers mental health to remain stable. Lady Macbeth is driven to madness
because she surrenders herself wholly to one ideal. If she had recognized early on the
danger that assuming she embodied one extreme set of ideals, simply because she didnt
identify with those on the opposite end of the spectrum, she may have survived.
problematic.
Lady Macbeth is the mastermind behind all of the schemes that the power hungry
couple undertakes. Masculinity is linked to ambition and violence in the play as Macbeth
remarks to Lady Macbeth, “For thy undaunted mettle should compose/Nothing but
males”(83-84). She manipulates her husband throughout the play and demonstrates a
great thirst for power and control. Both she and the three witches are some of the most
powerful characters of the play, which implies that women are often times as ambitious
and brutal as men. However, the fact that Lady Macbeth is reduced to a mad woman
scrubbing the imagined blood from her hands, is not a criticism of the woman’s inability
to assume a more masculine role, but is rather a criticism of binaries and what happens
“simply telling people that there were two groups and they were in one of them—could
provoke discrimination” (Oaks, 811). This is the same with feminism, as what is
Olson 7
commonly believed to be feminism, i.e. those beliefs and practices upheld by feminist
extremists, have strayed a great deal from how feminism originated. Of course it must be
acknowledged that institutions change with times and trends; this is unavoidable, but
what can be avoided is allowing these false binaries to exclude some and include others.
This is a poor and flawed foundation for equality to be built on, and those truly rallying
for it would be mislead in their attempts, if creating more of a division was their agenda.
Setting aside the use of binaries, the play Twelfth Night perceptibly possesses a
great deal of feminist philosophies as well. Shakespeare uses the character of Viola to
shed light on the predicament of women at the time. Viola makes the choice to dress as a
man in order to be able to find work after being shipwrecked in Illyria. Without explicitly
saying so, the bard draws attention to the fact that women can and are capable of doing
what men can do, but because of societal limitations, are simply not given the
opportunities to do so. I have no doubt that this idea was favorable among women of the
time, especially seeing as the Renaissance era was a main contributor to the patriarchal
ideals that have been adopted in contemporary society. It was indisputably easy for
women of the time to identify with Viola’s plight, especially because of the dramatic
irony involved at the onset of the play, where only the audience is privy to Violas true
identity. This device is a technique intended to cause the audience to more intimately
quick whited character. The idea that despite her intelligence and strength, that she is
Olson 8
limited because she is a woman, (specifically in the instance where she seeks revenge on
those who have slandered Hero) is a device used to both conjure sympathy for her from
the audience, and to highlight the inequality among men and women at the time. Beatrice
is anything but a shallow character, and the fact that she declares at the onset of the
comedy that “[she] would not [marry]… / lest [she] should prove the mother of fools,”
sets her apart from women at the time (280-281). This assertion she makes is albeit half-
hearted, but is probably motivated by the idea that marriage is either unappealing to her,
or that she feels she may never find someone suitable enough, which merely serves to add
more depth to her as a character. A female character reacting adversely to the idea of
marriage is another subtle hint Shakespeare plants to indicate that women are both
capable and intelligent creatures. When it is revealed that Beatrice is actually open to the
idea of marriage, but simply desires to do so for love, is yet another illusion to the plight
of women at the time and further highlights the injustice of Beatrice’s inability to fight
the difficulty female playwrights are having in the present day to get there work out to the
masses as well as the rise in female actors. She explains that the plight of women in
theater is greatly due to “the way in which the traditional education system practices
favors boys over girls”(90). Another avenue in which women have struggled for equality
is entertainment. It is the belief of many, that in order to get its agenda across, feminism
has retreated to cinema, which has proved to dilute its power as a movement. Similarly,
cinema being a feminist renaissance, however, are rather short sighted, because the
problem with this “pop feminism” is that “it signals not a rebirth for women of the new
idea that media often over sexualizes women. (261). The more recent 90’s film adaptions
of Shakespeare plays are often set apart as having a feminist agenda not because they are
analyzed on a deeper level, but because they portray women in positions of power and get
their points across by being over the top. This is just one of the many examples of how
feminism has been sullied over time and how Shakespeare has even been dragged into it.
Shakespeare sought to present, not necessarily always what was popular (although
this was sometimes the case), but rather what was important. He has been known to draw
attention to important issues through the use of either drama, humor, satire, or sometimes
a combination of all three, and gender equality was merely one of those important issues.
Whether he was what could be categorized today as a feminist or not is irrelevant, what is
rather more important is how, in many ways, aspects of his plays represent feminist
ideals, and therefore lobby for equality in veiled ways. An important distinction to make,
motivations. It is left up to the audience to glean meaning from his works, and the very
fact that he examined issues so ahead of his time is what has caused them to be popular
topics of discussion even today. Those things that rouse debate are the most intellectually
valuable, and those things that manage to continue to do so over great spans of time are
Overtime, theater, and the arts in general, have been influenced by women and
feminism alike. Many authors, playwrights, and poets have been influenced by
Olson 10
Shakespeare, the most notable of them being one of the foremothers of feminist thought,
Virginia Woolf. She was an early recognizer of binaries and the need to abolish them.
She believed it was more effective to attempt to fuse the male and female identity into a
single person, as a means of eliminating gender roles. Seeing as she was a pioneer of
progressive thinking, it was only natural that she found herself influenced by another
forward thinker. She once remarked that she felt, at various times, “oppressed” by
Shakespeare’s work, while at the same time, intermittently criticized its structure and
form. In connecting the works of Shakespeare to more modern works, Robert Sawyer
Woolf “felt conflicted towards Shakespeare”, which she attributes to her unorthodox
education, as women were not permitted to attend university at the time. She was almost
entirely self-educated. She felt that the trouble she sometimes had with relating to
Shakespeare’s works most likely stemmed from this and from, what she felt, were
In many Woolf’s literary works, including one of the most famous, Mrs.
Dalloway she makes illusions to Shakespeare. In this particular case of Mrs. Dalloway,
Septimus Warren Smith (one of the principle characters) pronounces, “he would not go
mad,” which is a clear echo of King Lear’s plea “O let me not be mad, not mad, sweet
heaven / Keep me in temper; I would not be mad!” (Sawyer, 8). Later in life, Woolf
accurately states that it was merciful and convenient that Shakespeare was a man not a
woman. The fact that he was a man made him an effective vehicle to lobby for change in
Olson 11
subtle ways, because it is both an obvious and a sad fact that if he were a woman, he
would have been completely rejected by his generation. She saw the “English bard
presence that is both inspiration and threat…both desired and dangerous” (Sawyer, 10).
In short, Woolf, as I am sure did many other female intellectuals, grappled with
Shakespeare’s poetry and dramas in such a way that her writing functioned as a praise of
and a reaction to his work, and in this way, his influence on modern feminism began.
At the other end of the spectrum, there is of course the argument that
Shakespeare, rather than lobbying for equality, presented patriarchal ideals in his works.
There is evidence for both of the disparate arguments, but I assert that in those instances
where the patriarchal argument appears to have more merit, as many assert is the case
with King Lear, that Shakespeare allows this to happen not because it was something he
sympathized with, but rather as a commentary—to point out the flaws in this type of
thinking. For those critics whose ideas align with the feminist critical perspective,
“Shakespeare is not free of his culture, but is locked within it” (McEachern, 270). Rather
than being an earthshattering interpretation, this simply misses the mark, because
“Shakespeare’s experience and understanding of the pressures that patriarchy exerts upon
its members enabled him to write plays that interrogate those same patriarchal systems”
(McEachern, 272). This makes him a double agent of sorts in the cause of feminism.
The part Shakespeare plays in the development of feminism was not deliberate,
which is another main hole in the argument suggesting he has anti-feminist tendencies.
His aim was merely to emphasize and criticize problematic societal practices. One of the
chief devices he uses in his plays to comment on patriarchy the depiction of the father-
Olson 12
daughter relationship. In the case of Much Ado About Nothing those of the opposing view
patriarchy is principally preoccupied with the father being in control of the household and
having stewardship of all other members of his family, this analysis would seem to fit,
however, upon deeper analysis, Leonato becomes a father whose authority we question,
as we see he him quick to doubt his blameless daughter. When Hero is slandered by Don
John at the alter no less, the fact that she faints is an indication that, “she cannot bear the
weight of the accusation directed against her,” and as a result, “her subservience works to
de-idealize Leonato’s fatherhood” (McEachern, 290) Leonato abuses his authority when
he doesn’t trust in his daughter, and in this way, “Shakespeare, in letting us see such a
290). As is apparent by the evidence, Shakespeare, rather than resigning himself to the
problematic practices of the times, seeks instead to demystify, and expose them for what
setting himself apart as a forward thinking artist rather than on political identification, he
transforms into an accidental activist for equality, and for this very same reason, he was
an effective one. It is both interesting and surprising that a great deal of Shakespeare’s
fame must be attributed to the female scholars who so captivatingly reviewed his work
and helped produce it for the masses. When it is understood that what is at the heart of
feminism is not identification, but is rather empowering ideals, it becomes clear that
various aspects of Shakespeare’s plays, although at first glance may appear to rally
Olson 13
Work Cited
Eger, Elizabeth. “‘Out Rushed a Female to Protect the Bard’: The Bluestocking Defense
of Shakespeare.” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 1/2, 2002, pp. 127–
151. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3817983.
Lehmann, Courtney. “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda: How Shakespeare and the
Renaissance Are Taking the Rage out of Feminism.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol.
53, no. 2, 2002, pp. 260–279. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3844077.
Moi, Toril. “‘I Am Not a Feminist, but...": How Feminism Became the F-Word.” PMLA,
vol. 121, no. 5, 2006, pp. 1735–1741. JSTOR, JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/25501655.
Sawyer, Robert. “Virginia Woolf and the Aesthetics of Modernist Shakespeare.” South
Atlantic Review, vol. 74, no. 2, 2009, pp. 1–19. JSTOR, JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/25681364.
Wandor, Michelene. “The Impact of Feminism on the Theatre.” Feminist Review, no. 18,
1984, pp. 76–92. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1394862.