 |
| A scene from the Utah Shakespeare Festival's 2004 production of The Winter's Tale. (Copyright Utah Shakespeare Festival. Photo by Karl Hugh.) Courtesy: http://www.bard.org/ |
In The
Winter's Tale by William Shakespeare, Queen Hermione is one of the most
important characters. Her importance is not only limited to the context of this
play in particular; rather Hermione is perhaps one among few strongest women
characters Shakespeare has ever created for/ in his plays. Paulina of this very
play can also be categorised as similar to Hermione. Yet, the overall
development of the play is not presented from her perspective. Although being
strong and heroic, the Queen's role is made subordinate, and the role of the
King Leontes is highlighted. From a feminist perspective, the point of view
which the Shakespearean drama is presented through thus can be called
patriarchal, for it presents women in submissive roles who always accept
decisions of their male counterparts. If the story is retold with the feminist
lens, the plot of the play will go to a completely different direction in which
women characters are decisive in themselves for their life.
In The
Winter's Tale, denouement is achieved when the Queen Hermione – who once
was thought and intended to be dead by King Leontes – is well received or
re-received by the King as his wife, after sixteen years of forced and planned separation.
In this act, the King has been an agent – who re-accepts the Queen - whereas
the Queen is merely a patient – she is accepted, not that she does accept him.
In this way, the resolution the play is ended with is essentially patriarchal
and androcentric in nature. But if the Queen too was made active and entitled
with various rights was made independent to make decisions about life; that
could lead the play toward a different ending.
The King's jealousy is the crux of the
plot and origin of that jealousy rests in a sense of patriarchal or masculine
pride in him. He is presented more like a man than a king. The base of his
jealousy is not concerned with governing affairs, but with manly pride and
desire to hold power over women as a man. Morse writes:
Indeed, Leontes can be read much more
coherently as a "man" than as a king, as a representation of the new
essentialist individual inscribed as a subject within a new discursive
practice. Whatever emotional claims Leontes makes on an audience stem not from
his metaphysical confrontation with fortune or destiny, but quite distinctly
from the character's confrontation with his own self-representation as a
subject. (289)
Hence,
it is no wonder that the play is designed by and full of patriarchal ideology
that men are agents/subjects and women are patients/objects in any kind of
transaction between two genders.
Many critics agree with Morse's point of
view. Cohen compares King Leontes with Othello of Othello by Shakespeare and finds that both men (Othello and
Leontes) have an utmost sense of patriarchal pride that moves the respective
plots (207). He comments that the King first asks the Queen to help him
convince Bohemian King Polixenes to stay more in Sicilia, but while she
succeeds to do so, he is frightened from that success of feminine strength,
thus develops jealousy: "He encourages Hermione to persuade Polixenes to
stay through the use of – what else? – her womanly arts. Her success,
paradoxically, is her undoing. The proof of her ability confirms his
misogyny" (Cohen 208). Thus, misogyny against the Queen is invited in the
play by masculine pride in the King. It is obvious that he is of the view that
women - if they are successful, strong and active – deserve no praise, but
criticisms and accusations.
In the play, everything happens because
of jealousy of the King Leontes. Out of jealousy, he accuses the Queen of
adultery and punishes her that she be dethroned from the position of the Queen
and imprisoned for entire life. There is subsequent rise and fall in jealousy
of Lenontes, but the Queen remains unmoving and static. Whatever is offered or
cursed to her, she easily accepts. She easily accepts the imprisonment and
taking away of her infant daughter (along with death of a young son). But,
thanks to her good friend Paulina –wife of a court lord Antigonus – she
succeeds to save her life and regain the royal position and respect again by
the end of the play.
Since the Queen accepts every decision
imposed on her by the King, one can say that she is not strong and active, but
weak, passive and submissive. In surface, it seems so. But, hiding oneself for
years as if one is already dead is not something anyone can dare. Yes, Paulina has
stronger role than Hermione in this act. But, then too, Hermione is the one who
never develops a feeling of getting retirement from that disrespectful life.
With Paulina, she has always kept hope and confidence that some better can
happen someday. She has not surrendered with the situations, but fought against
them in ways most beneficial and appropriate to her. That is why Aasand writes
that Hermione, Paulina and Perdita are characters of first significance "who function to restore societal order and the female
voice".
Nonetheless, her power is limited by the
patriarchal structure of the play. She is made to accept King Leontes with the
same love and trust as they had shared before the separation due to jealousy
that Leontes developed in him. Aasand writes again that many critics conclude
that the later restoration of these three women
(Hermione, Paulina and Perdita) is one that limits their voices within a
reconstituted masculine estate. The critics' conclusion is valid because even if
they are able to restore social order, that order will again be controlled by
patriarchy - the King will rule them even after this - and their female voice
is still not free from implicit and subtle patriarchal control.
Feminists thus may find the final act
too much submissive that conforms to patriarchal standards regarding gender
roles. They thus will to produce an alternative development of the entire
play. For them, Hermione should have
been able to present herself as strong and confident so that she could question
the King's motive regarding the reacceptance. The Queen should have been able
to teach the King a good lesson that baseless decisions lead one toward
self-destruction and endless pain throughout life. Or, even for some feminists,
she could have been able to take revenge on the King for his baseless jealousy
and consequent punishments imposed on her.
Hermione is shown as easily accepting
the King again as if nothing happened in those sixteen years. But, every reader
knows that everything happened in those sixteen years and those happenings have
decisive impacts on life of the Queen. Those events in between include the
King's order to desert the newly born child claiming her a daughter from
Bohemian King Polixenes and sentencing life imprisonment for Hermione. Thus,
from feminist perspective, it can be argued that Hermione should have
considered all those events while making a decision on whether to accept the
King and return their marriage to the same condition of faith and
fidelity.
There can be numerous reasons to justify
why Hermione should not accept the King in the same level of trust and love as
it was sixteen years ago. Logically, their marriage cannot return to the same
stage of faith because the King's accusation earlier is so grave and degrading.
In conversation with Camillo, the King accuses the Queen of adultery which he
cannot excuse at any cost: "Is whispering nothing? / Is leaning cheek to
cheek? is meeting noses? / Kissing with inside lip? … My wife is nothing; nor
nothing have these nothings / If this be nothing" (1.2). In this passage,
the King says Hermione is "nothing" for him, thus can never be
accepted as wife again, because she is, in his belief, in an extramarital
affair with Polixenes. He even questions the innocent young son, "…
Mamillius, Art thou my boy?" (1.2) suspecting Hermione's fidelity in the
past too.
Many critics have analysed that this
passage objectifies the Queen as a sexual object that is invented to satisfy
the King. Cohen argues "Leonets metonymises his wife. In a violent tirade
he reduces Hermione to a vagina" (217) and "His language… shows him
almost incapable of seeing Hermione as more or less than a vagina"
(217-18). According to him, the King treats the Queen as a woman is treated
reduced to her sexual function in a modern pornography (217). Here, the King is
of the view that the Queen lost all her feminine virtue and slipped to the
stage of infidelity. Rather she is taken
as a "nothing" who is not only debased from dignity of self, but also
is capable of reducing a man in her association (in this case, the King) down
to the same level of debasement. That is why, Leontes says, "There have
been / Or I am much deceived, cuckolds ere now… Should all despair / That have
revolted wives, the tenth of mankind / Would hang themselves" (1.2).
In this background, feminists question
how the Queen can accept the King with the same trust, faith and love as before
the onset of his baseless jealousy. Therefore they imagine that it is logically
impossible for Hermione to return to the marriage with equal trust and faith as
before the adultery accusation is imposed upon her. Rather she should have been
able to make the King feel and commit that he earlier made a grave mistake and
ensure that he would not repeat it in any way in the future. If she was able to
do so, it could also make their conjugal journey more balanced and just
afterward.
Also it can be imagined that if the
Queen's confidence and strength were not limited by patriarchal power from the
beginning, the play perhaps would not meet this point when the Queen accepts
the reacceptance. She could be able to ask for evidences while the King accuses
her of an adulterous relationship with the Bohemian King Polixenes, thereby
stopping other cruel deeds against her that are shown in later acts of the play.
If this was the case, an unequal power relationship could end in the family in
the very beginning and that would ensure that everyone – men and women
regardless of their sex – could get their human rights unrestricted. It may seem just a utopian fantasy, but given
the strengths of Hermione, along with Paulina, it is possible that the plot
could have taken a different path. It can, thus, be deconstructed and
reconstructed from feminist perspective as explained above.
Hermione is not a weak and submissive
character. It is proved in her very first appearance in Act I, Scene II. In the
act, she has been successful in convincing the Bohemian King Polixenes prolong
his stay and put off his departure. This is something that the King Leontes
fails to do. That means, Hermione is already proved to be stronger than her
husband Leontes in some respects. She manifestly asserts this feminine strength
in conversation with Polixenes, "You shall not go: a lady's 'Verily' 's /
As potent as a lord's. Will you go yet?" (1.2). Thus, it is not
unimaginable that Hermione, if she was made so, could argue with the King while
being accused of adultery. With this argument, she could question him regarding
bases of the accusation and prove him wrong, thus keeping all possible
challenges and hullabaloos at bay. From feminist point of view, thus, the author's
characterisation of Hermione can be questioned why she is made so weak whereas
she has already practiced her strengths and skills effectively to solve some
immediate problems in the past.
She could ask for reasons to justify the
accusation of adultery while she is accused by the King. She has enough
evidences that she is faithful in marriage with King Leontes. While the
indictment is read out to her by an officer, she remembers all her marital life
and finds is very pure. She says:
I
doubt not then but innocence shall make
False
accusation blush, and tyranny
Tremble
at patience. You, my lord, best know
Who
least will seem to do so, my past life
Hath
been as continent, as chase, as true
As
I am now unhappy; which is more
Than
history can pattern, though devised
And
play's to take spectators… (3.2).
As
she speaks in this passage, she has always been chaste, true and continent in
her marital life. This is very strong ground for her to stand firm during any
crises because for women in a patriarchal society, chastity and marital
faithfulness have supreme values. Thus, she could have been made able to ask
for justification with the King while she is accused of involving in an
adulterous relationship with the Bohemian King.
It seems that she has indeed tried to
ask such justification with the King Leontes. After being read out the
indictment, she actually talks with the King and asks for justification. She
says, "I appeal / To your own conscience, sir, before Polixenes / Came to
your court, how I was in your grace / How merited to be so; since he came /
With what encounter so uncurrent I / have strain'd to appear thus.."
(3.2). But the problem that feminists may point out here is that she is made a
kind of subaltern; she is not heard by the King. Or, he does not find her
worthy of answering it for she is a woman, not a man. Thus, it has been
meaningless if she does ask for justification or not.
Also questionable from the same ground
is characterisation of Paulina, friend of Hermione and wife to lord Antigonus.
She is presented braver and stronger than the Queen Hermione, yet is restricted
from some actions which could produce different, but positive, results in the
play. The playwright has made her able
to go in front of the King and dare to ask him to accept the newly born
daughter and thus also the Queen. It is very challenging task because the
Queen's marital faith and fidelity are already under a very big question. Yet,
Paulina dares. Notwithstanding orders from lords not to enter the King's court
for he is now very angry, Paulina goes there saying, "Fear you his
tyrannous passion more, alas / Than the queen's life?" (2.3). Then, at the
court, she does not hesitate to argue with the King, "The good queen / For
she is good, hath brought you forth a daughter" (2.3).
Paulina is unshaken by the King's cruel
order to leave the place. Rather, she challenges him more intense, "… you
are mad; which is enough, I'll warrant / As this world goes, to pass for honest"
(2.3). Leontes never accepts the newly
born baby as his daughter, and accuses Paulina of being traitor and deceivingly
presenting a child as his daughter to soften him. But, Paulina up to the end of
the very scene is very unmoved and adamant. Before leaving the court, she reminds
the King, "… this most cruel usage of your queen / Not able to produce
more accusation / Than your own weak-hinged fancy, something savours / Of
tyranny…" (3.2).
The point here being argued is that
Paulina is so strong that she does possess a confidence and power to convince
the King. There is no any reason from logical perspective why the King is not
convinced. Thus, if a feminist gets an opportunity to rewrite this play, she
will also change the plot and make it that the King is convinced with Paulina's
persuasion, thus accepts the daughter Perdita and also acquits the Queen of
adultery accusation. Following that, Hermione should have not faced the
situation in which she is made to accept the King as if nothing happened in
those sixteen years in which many important things have happened as said above.
Finally, as the play reaches to the
concluding act, Leontes is already softened. He has developed a sense of regret
for what and how he treated his wife and children (both Mamillius and Perdita)
and Paulina. In the very first scene of Act V, Leontes remembers Queen Hermione
and he cannot help remembering how he treated her earlier:
Whilst
I remember
Her
and her virtues, I cannot forget
My
blemishes in them, and so still think of
The
wrong I did myself; which was so much;
That
heiress it hath made my kingdom, and
Destroy'd
the sweet'st companion that e'er man
Bred
his hopes out of. (5.1).
This
could be a very useful opportunity for Hermione and Paulina to establish and
assert their power in the play. Feminists may find that the two women could
cash in on the King's regretting feelings and consequent softness to get
advantage for them. They could, even at this point of time, ask the King to
strongly commit that he would not repeat such mistakes in the future. But, the
women are presented submissive in the play that they fail to do so. Rather they
so naturally accept the reacceptance offered by the King, thereby submitting
themselves to further ruling of the King, and patriarchy to the large scale. A
feminist rewriting of the text can thus make Hermione and Paulina stronger
after this scene so that they could discuss with the King all details of the
reacceptance so that past mistakes could not be repeated.
What the play projects, however, is
exactly opposite of such a feminist reading. In that very final scene of
reacceptance (5.3), Hermione is revived to life. But that revival fails to
appease feminist expectation because she is not as active as she could be and
is wished to be. She does not speak with anyone, neither her protector Paulina
not the King Leontes, but only with her lost daughter Perdita. Immediately
after the revival of her life, she embraces the daughter and asks about where
she had been living up to this point of time, which the daughter never answers
by the end of the play. But, if the play could be rewritten from the feminist
point of view, her final speech here could be made more meaningful and rich so
that it could have an impact in the future as well. Thus, despite their potentials,
women are projected weak and submissive in the play in overall which cannot
satisfy feminist expectations.
Such
projection of women characters is similar in many other Shakespearean dramas.
There can be some exceptions and some variations in terms of degree of their
strengths or weaknesses, but in overall, women characters have not been
presented as being able to use their strengths as much as they could. The
characters are attributed with various kinds of strengths, but at the same time
there are many limits set for them. Cygan has observed, "Although it seems like Shakespeare used very strong-willed
women in his plays, he also gave them weaknesses, making them seem real and
easy to relate to" (1). Such weaknesses and limitations make those women
characters unable to exercise and foster the strengths they are provided
with. As for Hermione and Paulina in The Winter's Tale, many other women
characters have the same fate, a same role to play in respective plays.
Miranda of The Tempest can be comparatively
analysed, for example. As the only
daughter to magician Prospero, who is living alone in an island, she is kept
under the powerful authority and domination of her father. It seems that she is
made deprived of any of intellectual and physical strengths so that she can
always be put under the domination of her father. As a magician who can
manipulate even airy spirits for his service, Prospero designs each and
everything for Miranda. Thus, from feminist perspective, it can be questioned
if the play would be different if Miranda was characterised with some
intellectual as well as physical strengths.
Comparatively,
Miranda is not as victimised as Hermione by patriarchy. She is presented so
naïve that she cannot understand the play of patriarchy. The power politics of
gender is beyond comprehension of innocent Miranda. On the other hand, she is
separated from a human world where she could experience gendered behaviours and
treatments in society. But, if analysed from feminist perspective in depth,
this very making and manipulation of the woman character as naïve and innocent
are patriarchal in themselves as innocence can also be synonymous to lack of
knowledge and experience. Hence, the next question for them can be if the play
would be different if Miranada was not separated from human society with the
magical power of her father.
Despite that
separation, as soon as she meets Ferdinand, the first man she ever sees except
her father, she develops a capacity to go beyond the domination of the father.
The father expresses no any will that the daughter engage in a romantic
relationship with Ferdinand, the Prince of Naples. When Miranda asks the father
not to put Ferdinand on trial saying "He's gentle, and not fearful",
the father so angrily responds, "What? I say / My foot my tutor?"
(1.2). Even if she knows that being with the man is against her father's will –
"O my father / I have broke your hest to say so!" (3.1), Miranda
dares to spend good times with him in absence of the father. She freely shares
her love and affection with him. Thus, Miranda in a sense is able to challenge
the domination of patriarchy.
In a closer view,
however, the act of love is not any challenge to patriarchal control; rather a
submission to it, for everything is planned by Prospero. Ferdinand, in fact, is
brought to the island by Prospero's will because he wanted to let his innocent
daughter encounter a man. Though Prospero expressively threatens Miranda not to
spend time with Ferdinand, the father in reality is actually happy with it.
Appreciating their closeness and conversation, he says, "Fair encounter /
Of two most rare affections! Heavens rain grace / On that which breeds between
'em!" (3.1). Later, as the scene ends, he concludes, "So glad of this
as they I cannot be / Who are surprised withal; but my rejoicing / At nothing
can be more" (3.1). One of the most important purposes behind planning the
shipwreck and bringing Ferdinand to the island is to bring Ferdinand and
Miranda closer and let them marry.
This act is not
about getting rid of patriarchal domination, but another form of submission to
it, also because Miranda is not getting free by freeing herself from the
father, but she is just changing her guard who controls her. Ferdinand is not
an emancipator for Miranda, but just another man from another patriarchal
society. He too does have a sense of possession, control and domination toward
his woman. Therefore, Miranda has such a sense of submission toward him,
"I am your wife, if you will marry me / If not, I'll die your maid: to be
your fellow / You may deny me; but I'll be your servant / Whether you will or
no" (3.1).
The fact that everything –
including what seems against patriarchal control - is happening as per
Prospero's plan is already clear when Prospero asks the daughter to "Shake
it off" in a response of Miranda's complaint that "The strangeness of
your story put / Heaviness in me" (1.2). Here, the "story" can
be a metaphor for the discourse of patriarchal domination. As anti-colonisation
movements often begin under the influence of colonisers themselves, here too,
the dominating father not only inspires the daughter to break off his
domination, but also facilitates Miranda's journey toward wider freedom from
monopolistic control and domination of the father. Thus, Miranda's romance with
Ferdinand is also restricted, limited and manipulated by the patriarchal rules
and regulations apparently represented by an all-powerful father figure in the
play.
From feminist perspective,
hence, plot of the play can be retold in which the only woman character would
be free from such monopolistic control and domination of patriarchy. Rather she
would be free in each and every aspect of her life so that she can enjoy her
life to the fullest. For feminists, Miranda should have been made so active and
strong that she could question the father about why he is unnecessarily controlling
her. Whenever the father says, "'Tis time / I should inform thee
farther" (1.2), Miranda should have been able to ask when that time will
come and what kind of story the father will tell, for example.
But in the play, she cannot
do it so. What she does is only a complaint that the father in the past too
"often / Begun to tell me what I am, but stopp'd / And left me to a
bootless inquisition" (1.2). This passage also indicates that Miranda as a
woman, in this play, is also denied of knowledge and rationality which are
traditionally considered disciplines of men (hence denied for women). Here, it
is presented as if she as a woman cannot know who she is unless her father as a
man tells her so. Though the magician father urges the innocent daughter to become
more rational and reduce emotionality – "Be collected / No more
amazement…" (1.2), he again is indirectly restricting Miranda from growing
rational and getting rid of his control. It is not something good from the
feminist point of view. Thus, a feminist rewriting of the plot may have more
rational Miranda as the heroine of the play who can engage in rational
discussions with the father and thus live a life as equal as a man.
Such a situation of equality
as feminists could have imagined is never present in the play. It is evident in
that very scene (1.2) in which the father tells the story of his past and
journey up to this stage to the daughter. At that moment, the father tells long
stories to the daughter which the daughter does not actively respond to. She
does not ask any critical or significant question like why that happened and
how should that be, but only passively consumes the information and knowledge
that the father imparts according to his intention. From a feminist
perspective, this is conformation of traditional gender roles, which should be
changed.
Miranda just speaks of few
phrases which are not only short, but also they lack any essential opinion in
the communication process. For example, in listening to him, she says "O
the heavens! / What foul play had we", "O my heart bleeds" and
"Alack, for pity!" (1.2). In addition to lacking substantial
meanings, these phrases are charged with emotions which are often traditionally
associated with the gender of women. Or, they just passively accept what the
father just says: "Sir, most heedfully", "O, good sir, I
do" and "Your tale, sir, would cure deafness" (1.2). In whatever
way, Miranda is presented as conforming to a submissive and emotional image of
a woman as set by the traditional gender roles. A feminist retelling of the
story thus would eliminate such dialogues in order to present Miranda as an
active, strong and rational being.
William Shakespeare has
always been canonical in study of English literature. So are his characters. It
is often interpreted that characters of Shakespeare's plays represent human
beings living in their real life, because the humanly characters also undergo
through similar ups and downs as real human beings. Like men characters, women
characters in Shakespearean dramas are also equally important. They too
represent women with living experiences. Their strengths and weaknesses also
represent strengths and weaknesses of women in real life. As far as traditional
gender roles are concerned, women's roles in various plays also signify roles
of women in societies of specific time and space. Strengths, limitations and
overall roles of Hermione and Paulina in The
Winter's Tale and Miranda in The
Tempest are hence representative of what women could do and what they could
not in a society during Shakespearean time.
A feminist reading of any
literary work not only analyses how patriarchy functions in the text. It also
studies how characters, women in particular, behave and are behaved by other
characters. Hermione, Paulina and Miranda are thus the most important
characters to study from feminist point of view. It is also important to assess
their behaviours in terms of traditional gender roles: whether they conform to
or override rules, regulations and boundaries set by the patriarchy to be
imposed on them. From feminist perspective, hence, these women characters as
analysed are partly valiant to go beyond the patriarchal rules and challenge
the patriarchy; but they are at the same time restricted from such activities.
In his analysis of three
Shakespearean plays – Othello, Taming of the Shrew, and The Tempest – Cygan writes, "There
will never be one solid opinion on whether Shakespeare wrote his women
characters to make the women of his day powerful or if he wrote them in way
that would keep “real” women under man’s authority" (7). Cygan is right
that no one can be sure of Shakespeare's intention behind making of such women
characters, neither is that valid concern for a genuine reader. An honest and intelligent
reader rather can interpret the text in her own ways basing on the evidences
available in the text. Thus, "It is up to the reader, the audience, or the
critic, to decide which stance to take and which of Shakespeare’s works he or
she will use to back up their decision" (Cygan 7).
A feminist rereading hence
can also produce alternative plots to the plays in which women would be
characterised as more active and stronger in many aspects of their life so that
they can live a life as dignified as their men counterparts. As feminism wants,
reading of the plays with a feminist lens would let women trespass patriarchal
boundaries and rule their lives on their own. In such cases then, Hermione
would not be a passive Queen who every time accepts his King, but she would be
able to maintain a logical relationship while keeping in consideration the
behaviours taken upon her in the past. So would be Miranda in terms of her
relationship with her seemingly omnipotent father.
Works
Cited
Aasand, Hardin. "The Winter's Tale:
Critical Reception". 12 Dec. 2012. Internet
Shakespeare Editions. 25 Feb. 2014. < http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Annex/Texts/WT/intro/
CriticalSurvey/section/The%20twentieth%20century >
CriticalSurvey/section/The%20twentieth%20century >
Cohen, Derek. "Patriarchy and Jealousy in Othello and The Winter's Tale". Modern
Language Quarterly 48.3 (1987): 207-23.
Cygan, Lauren. "Sexist Themes in Othello, Taming of the Shrew, and The
Tempest". Department of English
at Illinois State University. 25 Feb. 2014. < https://english.illinoisstate.edu/rlbroad/teaching/studentpubs/OneWishEnglish/cygan.pdf>
Morse, William R. "Metacriticism and Materiality: The Case
of Shakespeare's The Winter's Tale". ELH
58.2 (1991): 283-304.
Shakespeare, Williams. The Tempest.
--- The Winter's Tale.
No comments:
Post a Comment