Savannah Woods

Dr. Rufleth
Shakepeare
24 February 2015
Shakepeare's Strong Women
At the age of eighteen William Shakepeare married Anne Hathaway, a
woman eight years his senior. Six months after they were married, Anne
gave birth to their first daughter, Susanna. Hugh Richmond, author of
Shakespeare's Theatre: A Dictionary of His Stage Context, suggests that this
precipitate marriage lead to Shakepeare's preoccupation with marriage seen
in his plays (291). In her article "Marriage," Shakespearean historian Alison
Finlay shows just how preoccupied the bard was, saying, "More than 50
characters speak as married women, a further 36 are looking forward to
marriage or betrothal by the end of the text, and a further 15 speak as
widows (257). In the mid 1500s it was uncommon for a playwrite to give so
much attention to female characters, who were widely deemed unimportant
and used almost exclusively for cross-dressing based humor or villainy.
However Shakespeare is widely considered to be one of the earliest feminist
writers of Europe, because his plays and poetry feature numerous positive
portrayals of women of equal importance, value, and ability as men. It is
likely that his realization of the inequality of the institute of marriage arose
from this feminist mindset, and William Shakespeare fought against the
injustice with the strongest weapons he posessed: his words. Using his plays

as a platform for social commentary, Shakespeare uses his strong female

characters to provide voices for the women of his time and illustrate both the
injustice of gender inequality and the strengths of femininity in order to
critique the oppressive institute of marriage in Elizabethan England.
While marriage was certainly a central theme to Shakespeare's works,
the institution of marriage was even more central to the women of his time.
The most anticipated moment of a sixteenth century woman's life was the
day she would become a wife (Jajja 233; Marriage 257). Marriage was not
simply a rite of passage; it was an expectation that must be fulfilled to
maintain your family's honor and place in society. From the time they were
children, these women were trained to become proper wives to their future
husbands, often using marriage handbooks that held a sacred place in many
middle class libraries (Heffernan 6). Weddings were the event that
transformed girls into women, stealing them away from their childhood
homes to become mistresses of their own households. However, marriage
also has a dark side: the shift in a woman's social position comes at the price
of her identity being subsumed into her husband's.
In the late sixteenth century, women's inferiority to men was not
simply the opinion of bigots, rather it was a matter of scientific fact. Because
Christian canon described Eve's creation from Adam's rib as the creation of
womankind, the world accepted this fact with little questioning (Kahn n.
pag.). Around this time, other theories emerged to justify treating women as
secondary citizens. One of these theories is referenced in the title of

Shakespeare's play Much Ado About Nothing. Nothing is a play on words

referring to noting (gossiping) and to the "o-thing", an early modern slang
term for the vulva, which according to the beliefs of the day was also
symbolized by nothingness. Women were believed to be aberrations of men,
because they lacked the phallus, thereby making them unfinished beings,
serving only as receptacles. In order for a female to achieve wholeness she
had to be linked to a male through marriage (Langis 45). Once married, the
woman transformed from her position as a feme sole who was supposedly
equal to men to a feme covert who was now subsumed under the identity of
her husband (Marriage 257). This is seen in Shakespeare's plays when
married women are sometimes known only by their husband's name. Though
Shakespeare featured unnamed women to illuminate the loss of identity
accompanying marriage, he more often featured strong women with distinct
identities.
Not every woman in the sixteenth century was subservient or focused
soley on marriage, and Shakespeare uses his many independent female
characters to speak to these women and encourage them. In fact, a sizable
portion Shakespeare's fans were single, freethinking, autonomous women of
the middle-class who would come to his plays to see these positive
portrayals of womanhood (Richmond 238; Clement, et. al. n. pag.). In these
plays, dominant women tend to prosper and submissive women usually
prove to be victims: Blanch in John, Hero in Much Ado, Ophelia [in Hamlet],
Octavia in Antony, ect (Richmond 501). These women serve as examples of

the danger of too much submission especially in situations involving love and
courtship; if these women were more assertive, they all could have
prevented their fates. Shakespeare also uses these characters as foils for his
many strong women, who often acted as protagonists or antagonists in his
works. In marriage, these characters are autonomous and confident and
often are forced to rescue the husband in emergencies (Richmond 237).
While there are at least twenty-five distinct female characters who deserve
to be analyzed, this paper will focus on three women (and their female foils)
whose stories act as unique parables of marriage: Beatrice from Much Ado
About Nothing, Portia from Merchant of Venice, and Emilia from Othello.
One of Shakespeare's favorite methods of employing strong women is
the Shrew. While Taming of the Shrew provides a fine example in its titular
character Kate, Much Ado's Beatrice is a better example of the multifaceted
nature of Shakespearean shrews. Because she was the most well fleshed out
of the women discussed, she will be the main focus of this essay. Shrews
have a long history in theare and were often used as stock characters in
medieval plays where they were already married to their pusillanimous
husbands and were shown as domestic tyrants (Kahn n. pag.). These
characters were completely one dimentional and only served to embody
men's fears of female freedom through their violent actions. Shakespeare
modifies the classic shrew by departing from tradition and showing them as
human with names, families, and distinct personalities. A Shakespearean
shrew overturns a hierarchy which men like to feel divinely sanctioned

rather than overturns a household in a tyrade (Brooks 351). Beatrice is a

prime example of this because although she uses her wits and charm to put
the men around her in their places, she never acts cruelly as a traditional
shrew would.
Although Beatrice is introduced as a callous and unwed woman, she
shows great depth of character. It is soon discovered that while she is tough,
Beatrice has a vulnerability that allows the audience to love her. Beatrice
shows her rebelliousness early, striking out at the patriarchal system around
her. When her cousin is asked about being married off, Beatrice audaciously
remarks, It is my cousin's duty to make curtsy and say, 'Father, as it pleases
you.' But yet for all that, cousin, let him be a handsome fellow, or else make
another curtsy and say, 'Father, as it pleases me' (Much Ado About Nothing
II.i.44-47). At a time when fathers essentially ruled their households,
Beatrice's flippant disregard for Leonatos wishes reveals herself to be a
woman fighting against the oppressive society in her own bold way. Much like
the man who writes her, Beatrice knows that her mind is her best tool when
fighting for equality. Beatrice thinks highly of herself and is confident of her
self-worth and autonomy. She explains later that she refuses to marry
because she knows that marriage in her society means subjegation and she
has not found someone worthy of that sacrifice of personal liberty (Much Ado
About Nothing II.i.50-54). If she is forced to be subservient, it will be because
the man deserves it for his character, not simply because he is a man.
When Beatrice softens because of love, she becomes less cynical, but

she does not change herself nor lose her identy. Beatrice symbolizes forwardthinking, unyielding women in the face of societal pressure to lose
themselves. Shakepeare uses her to critique the institution of marriage's
pattern of stripping women of their personal identity by showing a loving
couple composed of two complete entities and by comparing Beatrice and
Benedick's relationship to that of Hero and Claudio. Hero's weak nature and
willingness to lose her own identity make her unable to defend herself
against the accusations of infidelity made against her, used by Shakespeare
to warn woman against accepting mistreatment from others. Although her
honor is restored and Hero and Claudio are together, there is no romantic
love between them. It "does not matter to Claudio whether he marries Hero
or someone who looks like her, because society dictates that Hero's only
identity should be Claudio's wife. (Kubal n. pag; Much Ado About Nothing
V.iv.58-65). Shakespeare uses this scene to critique the emptiness of the
then common belief in courtly love and the need for personal identities in
marriage. Shakespeare's characters demonstrate his belief that romantic
love between two individuals should be valued more by society than the
courtly love of a merged entity.
While Beatrice softens her views of marriage by the end of her play,
Portia of Merchant of Venice grows throughout the play into a confident
woman who finds herself while married. Though Portia submits to her
husband early in the play, she progresses rapidly in ways that demonstrate
that this legal and emotional submission involves no loss of initiative or

autonomy (Richmond 237). When her new husband's best friend is in peril,
Portia does not cower in the position of a helpless wife. Instead, Portia saves
Antonio's life using her natural ingenuity and in the process saves herself. By
the end of the play Portia realizes that while she has truly surrendered all
her resources to his needs, that does not subject her rights to his mere
convenience(Richmond 237). Shakepeare uses Portia to symbolize the
power of femininity, further criticizing marriage for it's continual disregard of
the unique strengths possessed by women.
The last character to be discussed is Emilia from Othello. Although a
minor chararcter, in the few scenes she is present in Emilia presents herself
as intelligent, cynical, and opinionated. These qualities make her the perfect
foil for the obedient and romantic Desdemona. The character of Emilia is
most likely based upon Elizabethan feminist Emilia Bassano Lanier, who is
considered among the most likely women to be Shakepeare's Dark Lady
(Richmond 237). Shakespeare uses Emilia, moreso than any other of his
characters, to speak for women's rights and to outright accuse marriage of
it's treachery. In Act 4, Scene 3, while discussing their views on fidelity,
Emilia unabashedly states that she would commit adultery if it would lead to
a better life and blames husbands for the lack of mutual respect and equality
in marriage. This shocking reveal is followed by her monologue regarding
men who fail their duties as husbands:
If wives do fall: say that they slack their duties,
And pour our treasures into foreign laps,

Or else break out in peevish jealousies,

Throwing restraint upon us; or say they strike us,
Or scant our former having in despite;
Why, we have galls, and though we have some grace,
Yet have we some revenge. Let husbands know
Their wives have sense like them: they see and smell
And have their palates both for sweet and sour,
As husbands have. What is it that they do
When they change us for others? Is it sport?
I think it is: and doth affection breed it?
I think it doth: is't frailty that thus errs?
It is so too: and have not we affections,
Desires for sport, and frailty, as men have?
Then let them use us well: else let them know,
The ills we do, their ills instruct us so.
(Othello V.i.84-101)
It is in this yearn for equality that Shakespeare presents undeniable
proof of his position as a feminist, for no supporter of patriarchal domination
could have written this. The monologue often surprised visiting foreigners
who were unused to hearing women speak out against their oppressors, but
this scene was not meant fot them (Richmond 238, Brooks 352). Emilia is
Shakepeare's loveletter to womankind and her speech was obviously meant
for the independent women who came to see Shakepeare's works.

While Shakepeare's infidelity while married to Anne Hathaway may

cast doubt over his position as a feminist, he never denies that he is a flawed
human. However, it cannot be denied that Shakepeare's continuous use of
strong female characters in a time when this was essentially unheard of
proves his dedication to the cause of marriage equality. Using his female
characters, the Bard could easily critique the marriage inequality caused by
interpersonal relations and gender dynamics.

Works Cited
Brooks, Charles. "Shakespeare's Romantic Shrews." Shakespeare Quarterly
11.3 (1960): 351-356. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Clement, Ingleby, John J. Munro, Smith Lucy, and Furnivall Frederick. The
Shakespeare Allusion Book: A Collection of Allusions to Shakespeare from
1591-1700. S.l.: Chatto & Windus, 1919. Internet Archive. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Findlay, Alison. "Betrothal." Women In Shakespeare (2010): 35-39. Web. 18
Feb. 2015.
Findlay, Alison. "Marriage." Women In Shakespeare (2010): 257-262. Web. 18
Feb. 2015.
Heffernan, Carol F. "The Taming Of The Shrew: The Bourgeoisie In Love."
Essays In Literature 12.1 (1985): 3-14. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Jajja, Ayub M. "A Feminist Reading Of Shakespearean Tragedies: Frailty, Thy
Name Is Woman." Pakistan Journal Of Commerce & Social Sciences 8.1
(2014): 228-237. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Kahn, Copplia. "'The Taming of the Shrew': Shakespeare's Mirror of
Marriage." Modern Language Studies 1975: 88. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Kubal, David L. "Much Ado About Nothing." Masterplots, Fourth Edition
(2010): 1-3. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Langis, Unhae. "Marriage, The Violent Traverse From Two To One In The
Taming Of The Shrew And Othello." Journal Of The Wooden O Symposium 8.
(2008): 45-63. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Richmond, Hugh M. Shakespeare's Theatre: A Dictionary of His Stage
Context. London: Continuum, 2002. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.
Shakespeare, William. Much Ado About Nothing. The Norton Shakespeare.
Ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman
Maus, and Andrew Gurr. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. N. pag. Print.
Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed.
Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus,
and Andrew Gurr. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. N. pag. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Othello. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen
Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and
Andrew Gurr. New York: W.W. Norton, 1997. N. pag. Print.