Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2008 Female Friendship Alliances in Shakespeare Milinda Jay

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCE

FEMALE FRIENDSHIP ALLIANCES IN SHAKESPEARE

By

MILINDA JAY

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2008

The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Milinda Jay defended on November 5, 2008.

Karen Laughlin Professor Directing Dissertation

Mary Karen Dahl Outside Committee Member

Fred Standley Committee Member

Jim O‘Rourke Committee Member

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

This dissertation is dedicated to the community of women who have supported me through the many stages of this work, and my mother, Sarah Jay, whose love nourished my dreams.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Karen Laughlin whose unwavering support of my ideas made completion of this work possible. I would also like to thank Charles Stephenson for getting me started on this work with a Christmas present of Greenblatt‘s biography of Shakespeare and Betty Mckinnie who patiently read draft after draft of this manuscript. A special thanks to Kathie Woerner and her family for taking care of me while I revised in the peace of their mountain home. But, most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Hal, and my children Jenny, Megan, Ross, Morgan and Robbie for taking my work seriously, and for tending one another, and me so that I could finish.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1

Methodology ...... 1 The Parameters of this Work...... 3

PROLOGUE ...... 6

1. The Merry Wives of Windsor...... 17

Synopsis ...... 17 Brief Critical Overview...... 17 Women and Community Values...... 18 In Production ...... 21 Some history...... 24 The Effect of Female Alliances on Other Characters ...... 25

2. Much Ado About Nothing...... 28

Synopsis ...... 28 Critical Overview ...... 28 Textual Suggestions ...... 30 From Text to Film...... 30 From Commodity to Community...... 35

3. As You Like It ...... 41

Synopsis ...... 41 Critical Overview...... 41 Playing to the Audience ...... 42 The Nature of Friendship ...... 43 Sisterhood on Stage and in Film ...... 45 Shelley Taylor‘s Tending and Befriending...... 49

4. Antony and Cleopatra ...... 53

Synopsis ...... 53 Friendship Alliances within the Play ...... 53 Antony and Cleopatra on Film...... 58

v

5. Hamlet ...... 60

Synopsis ...... 60 Critical Overview...... 60 The Impact of Misalliance and Isolation...... 61 Gertrude‘s Journey...... 61 Ophelia Alone ...... 66

6. Othello ...... 71

Synopsis ...... 71 Critical Overview...... 71 The Tragic Consequence of Misalliance...... 72 Emilia and Desdemona on Stage ...... 76 Without the Protection of Friends...... 77

7. Macbeth ...... 80

Synopsis ...... 80 Critical Overview...... 80 Tending Turned Upside Down...... 81 Shelley Taylor and Negative Tending...... 83 Isolation in Production...... 87

CONCLUSION ...... 89

REFERENCES ...... 91

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 101

vi ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the importance of female friendship alliances in Shakespeare's plays and how such alliances affect those engaged in them as well as the community around them. Their value to individuals and to the broader community is demonstrated both by the presence of supportive interrelationships and by their absence. Focusing on A Comedy of Errors, The Winter‘s Tale, Merry Wives of Windsor, Much Ado About Nothing, As You Like It, Antony and Cleopatra, Hamlet, Othello and Macbeth, I seek to reread and reappropriate Shakespeare as a proponent of women's affiliative groups and communities of women. In these plays, positive female alliances have an affirmative effect on the community around them; negative female alliances or females isolated from female friends or supportive female family structures, do not fare well, nor does their immediate community. My methodology is both feminist, in which I rely on the recent critical theories of Phyllis Rackin, among others, and psychological using the insights of Shelley Taylor and her research on the overall health insured by female friendships. While much recent literary criticism of Shakespeare has been relatively silent on Shakespeare‘s privileging of women in community, contemporary directors of Shakespeare‘s plays have not. I will therefore examine some of the ways that modern productions of Shakespeare have brought these elements of Shakespeare's work to the forefront as well as, in some cases, offering suggestions for bringing these issues to life on the stage.

vii INTRODUCTION

A subject which still needs much further exploration is the way in which close female bonding persisted…parallel to the familiar bonding of men…Many very close female friendships developed, closer in many cases than those with husbands… Lawrence Stone: The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800

I. Methodology

Gayle Austin traces the history of feminist scholarship through 1986 in her work Feminist Theories for Dramatic Criticism (1990). Similarly, in an essay tracing the history of feminist scholarship in Shakespeare, appearing as the epilogue to Women‘s Revisions of Shakespeare, Carol Thomas Neely traces the feminist criticism of Shakespeare through the eighties, and provides for us a model of categorization of the criticism. More recently Phyllis Rackin analyzes the criticism through 2003 in her 2005 work, Shakespeare‘s Women (2005),. I find Neely‘s model useful in categorizing trends in the scholarship, and helpful in allowing us to see where we, as feminist critics, have been, and, hopefully, where we are going. Neely herself borrowed the categories from Gerda Lerner, and I will follow Neely‘s lead in revising the categories a bit to see where we, as feminist critics, have been, and, hopefully, where we are going. Neely‘s model divides the criticism into three historical categories: compensatory, justificatory and transformational. The compensatory critic identifies with aspects of the Shakespearean text which enable women‘s agency and resourcefulness. In compensatory criticism, women‘s power is examined, but power is examined as women able to do what men do, only better. The justificatory critic studies the female heroine‘s contribution to and oppression by male patriarchal society. The transformational critic is not merely asking what women do or what is done to them. Instead the question is what meanings do these actions have and how it is related to gender. I would argue that compensatory criticism would include the optimistic criticism of the 1970s. While it is a criticism that began with a battle cry: women must not allow men to read literature for them; literature must be read from a woman‘s point of view, it has much in common with Anna Jameson‘s 1832 work, Shakespeare‘s Heroines. Its vision is elucidated in the introduction to Juliet Dusinberre‘s landmark work, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women (1975), in which Dusinberre reappropriates Shakespeare‘s heroines as feminist heroines. The argument against this compensatory criticism is that sometimes it read Shakespeare‘s female heroines in a vacuum, without reference to the historical, political, or cultural milieu surrounding the play. The response to the Compensatory critics (though certainly this is not what they would call themselves) has been the justificatory critics with their heavy reliance on the New Historicism of Stephen Greenblatt introduced in his seminal work Renaissance Self- Fashioning from More to Shakespeare (1980). An equally important influence on the

1 justificatory critics is Claude Levi-Straus‘s work, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, published in French in 1949 (Les Structures Elementaires de la Parente) and translated into English in 1969, with its the notion of women as commodities for exchange between men. His theory was refined into a paradigm by Gayle Rubin in —The Traffic in Women,“ (1975) and morphed into Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick‘s articulation of the theory as the —exchange of women as property for the purpose of cementing the bonds of men with men“ in Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial desire (1985). The critics of this school include Lisa Jardine Still Harping on Daughters: Women and Drama in the age of Shakespeare (1983), Steven Mullaney, Louis Adrian Montrose, and Celia Daileader among others. Such critics have held court in Shakespeare studies for almost thirty years. The tenets of this scholarship include the aforementioned —woman as commodity,“ and the oft quoted, —the period was fraught with anxiety about rebellious women,“ —women‘s language was policed,“ and —an obsessive energy was invested in exerting control over the unruly woman“ (qtd in Rackin 10). In this school of criticism, historical —evidence“ points to the subjugation of women all over the stage. Language signifiers signify other‘s otherness. Shakespeare‘s plays are read as tomes of homoeroticism, perverted sexuality, and voiceless, oppressed women The problem with this school of criticism, according to Rackin and others, is that in analyzing the plays thus, both cultural, political and social history has been reduced to an —accepted“ set of norms exclusive of new scholarship that has shown women to be much more politically, economically and social independent and powerful than recorded in the earliest —new historicist“ critical analysis. Further, she points out that the arguments made about how Shakespeare‘s audiences would have —read“ his performances are based upon minimalist evidence, indeed, often ignoring the overall plot structure of the play, the actual make-up of Shakespeare‘s audiences and the political climate regarding women‘s issues that has come to light through recent feminist historical scholarship. More recent scholarship by these feminist historians including Margaret Ezell, Laura Gowing and Amy Louise Erickson, points to several enlightening facts, for example the prominent role played by women in arranging marriages, the power of women in litigation, and the widespread economic power and activity of early modern Englishwomen to name a few (Rackin 139). Rackin suggests this: —although we cannot afford to ignore the history of women‘s subjugation, we can‘t afford to rest in it either. Overestimating past repression can easily slip into a dangerous complacency about present progress“ (Rackin 2). We move, then, into the third form of criticism that Carol Thomas Neely suggests as a category, and that is transformational feminist criticism. Transformational feminist criticism is not merely asking what women do or what is done to them, rather, the transformational critic asks what meanings these actions have and how it is related to gender. Obviously, the categories are metaphors, one bleeds messily into the next, but, for the purposes of this argument, I will use the term transformational to describe feminist criticism that, as Neely suggests, —is accommodating, one which the many women precursors who have read Shakespeare before her provide precedent for, one which like their revisions creates the possibility of progress and difference without separation and loss“ (Neely 250).

2 In 1999, Susan Frye and Karen Robertson edited a collection of essays entitled Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England. According to Jean Howard, the collection —marks a new stage in literary-historical research in this field. Exceptional women have always stood out…but now the collective process of feminist scholarship has made it possible to speak of a wider range of early modern women and their relations to one another both in social and textual worlds“ (305). Further, she states, —one of the recent gains of feminist work about the early modern period has been to reclaim the individual and collective agency of women in articulating and forwarding what they understand to be their interest“ (308). The literary criticism of the last three decades is further complicated by what actually happens on stage when Shakespeare is performed. To put it simply, the reductivist Shakespeare of these justificatory critics does not play well. Directors of Shakespeare have, by and large, rejected the criticism choosing, instead, to create a Shakespeare that makes sense to modern audiences, much as Shakespeare made sense to his own audiences. My dissertation, then, is in keeping with the model of these transformational critics. I seek to reread and reappropriate Shakespeare as a proponent of women‘s affiliative groups, women‘s alliances, communities of women. I will also examine some of the ways that modern productions of Shakespeare have brought these elements of Shakespeare‘s work to the forefront as well as, in some cases, suggesting ways of bringing these issues to life on stage. In my discussion of both Shakespeare‘s text and contemporary productions, I hope to follow Jean Howard‘s refreshing dictum: to recognize the value of women‘s alliances when she says, —In recognizing the variety of strategies by which early modern women made discursive and material alliances with other women to get what they individually and collectively desired, the narratives that construct women, especially women in past eras as being victims pure and simple, are being rewritten“ (308)1 II. The Parameters of this Work In her analysis of Shakespeare‘s popularity in Shakespeare and the Loss of Eden, Catherine Belsey reminds us that all popular fiction and its —corresponding commercial success depends to a high degree on [its] inscription of widely shared ideals, fantasies and values“ (7). According to Belsey, it is the job of the literary historian to determine the shared ideals, fantasies and values of a people based upon the fiction they enjoy. In examining Shakespeare‘s plays, it is clear that one shared ideal or value is the power of female friendships. If, as Phyllis Rackin suggests, in reading literature we find that which we seek (Shakespeare and Women 9), it follows that if we are looking for censured women, we are sure to find them. Conversely, if we seek healthy female friendships, we will find them. Celia Daileader argues for the existence of female communities in the works of women writers of the Renaissance, but not in Shakespeare; —female friendships in Shakespeare,“ Daileader maintains, —are virtually non-existent.“

1 As a classroom teacher of Shakespeare, I find that to teach women of the past as victims licenses students to an overweening pride in —the progress of modern man.“ Things were so awful for those poor women back then. Thank God we live now. This is, exactly what Rackin talks about as a —dangerous complacency.“

3 Two works by female writers frame the Renaissance, each proposing female communities. In the early stages of the Renaissance is Christine de Pizan‘s The Book of the City of Ladies and at the end, Mary Astell‘s A Serious Proposal to the Ladies. In each, the writer proposes a city of women, one symbolic, and one literal. But in both, there is the sense of the necessity of female support for women. Designed as a frame for her biographies of historical women, Christine de Pizan, uses the setting apart of women in a city is a literary device. As Maureen Quilligan argues, in The Book of the City of Ladies, Christine de Pizan builds —a city of ladies, where women will for all time be safe from misogynist attack“ (2). In de Pizan‘s city, Quilligan argues, women work together in groups for good. For example, when she writes about the Sabines, she presents women who —actively resolve–as a group–a situation of bloody warfare in favor of a racially intermixed, coherent, and peaceful society“ (153). For Mary Astell, too, the community of women functions as a sanctuary. For her, the literal community is one in which contemplative women live together in peace and harmony far from the subjugation of men. The goal of these contemplative women is education. Indeed, Astell‘s own life reflected the solidarity of female friends as she herself never married and was supported in her philosophical and educational writings by a group of wealthy female friends. She argues that a utopian community for women would alleviate many social problems. In fact, it was her project in A Serious Proposal to the Ladies —to establish a retreat in which women could educate themselves even as they pursued the blessings of [female] friendship“ (Gilbert & Gubar 188). I find that Shakespeare, too, intentionally writes female friendships into his plays. This is the subject of my dissertation. Following the lead of Frye and Robertson, I will be summarizing a variety of female relationships with the word —alliance.“ I will use the term to define —a formally recognized relationship, activated or chosen to the political advantage of its members“ (4), as well as using it to define —any form of women‘s interrelationships“ (4). Therefore, I will explore the idea of female alliance and community in a variety of ways in the following chapters. In the Prelude, I set up my methodology by examining the psychological theory of Shelly Taylor on the importance of the support of what she describes as healthy female communities to both individual women and their community at large. I then apply this theory in a cursory examination of a variety of Shakespeare‘s plays from early to late. I focus on The Comedy of Errors, as an example of a supportive sister relationship then offer a brief discussion of friendship between women of the same social class in Henry IV part 2, and the bond between Mistress Quickly and Doll Tearsheet. Next, I briefly examine a friendship that crosses social boundaries in the maid/mistress friendship between Katherine and Alice in Henry V. I conclude the chapter with the necessity of the female friendship in The Winter‘s Tale, a friendship that quite literally restores the order of the kingdom. The remaining chapters of the dissertation will look at Shakespeare‘s presentation of the value of female alliances through both positive and negative examples. As an aid to my readers, I will be offering a brief synopsis of the play that will be the subject at the beginning of the chapter. In order to make present to my readers the many ways one can fill the gaps between the lines of a text, I will also turn to stage and film productions and investigate their staging of female alliances.

4 In chapter two, I examine The Merry Wives of Windsor in which it is clear that when women act in community, as do Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page, they form a potent force. To rid the town of a philandering thief, Mistresses Ford and Page must band together, ultimately forcing a charivari on Falstaff after first dumping him in a river, having him beaten for a witch, and pinched and burnt for a cuckold. The solidity of their friendship is evidenced by the success of their plan. In Windsor society, for the children to grow into a safe and healthy maturity it is the mother‘s honor rather than food that is the precious commodity. In The Merry Wives of Windsor, Shakespeare presents women who strengthen one another in order to preserve this commodity. In chapter three, a close analysis of Kenneth Branagh‘s film version of Much Ado about Nothing, reveals a camera‘s eye that is very much concerned with the creation of community between women, and among the community at large. The rhetoric of this production suggests that isolation from community fosters evil, and that joining in community is a way of becoming whole. In chapter four, I discuss the gendering of Elizabethan audiences, and the effect the gender make up of the audience had on stage productions by examining As You Like It. I argue that the effect of the largely female audience on the play was a privileging of female friendships. I then go on to examine how this friendship is brought to light in modern stage and film productions of the play. In chapter five, I examine the relationship between theatricality, honor and power in Antony and Cleopatra. I argue that it is through the support of her female companions that Cleopatra is able to maintain her theatricality and thus her power. In chapter six, I narrow my focus to the relationship between the two women in Othello.. I argue that because these women are separated from their homes and supportive social networks Emilia is unable to tend when she is called to do so, and because of her inability to tend, Desdemona suffers and dies. Emilia has bought into a misogynistic version of herself: woman as object, responsible only for meeting the selfish needs of her husband rather than woman as a part of a larger community. In doing so, she has sacrificed her own emotional health and is thus unable to help Desdemona as she could. Chapter seven examines the transition from self-involved lover to tending mother in Hamlet.. It lays the blame for Ophelia‘s suicide squarely on the shoulders of Gertrude who is called to tend to her but is unable to do so. As a result, Ophelia dies. When Gertrude is finally able to come to terms with her own responsibility as a woman and mother to tend to the needs of those around her, it is too late. I conclude my work with a chapter on Macbeth. I examine the effect total isolation from other women seems to have on the psyche of Lady Macbeth. Her total isolation then encompasses her husband. When he becomes isolated from community, chaos ensues, and evil is made manifest. It is clear to me that Shakespeare felt strongly about the importance of community in upholding what is good in people. It is also clear that for Shakespeare, women are the key to maintaining healthy communities.

5

PROLOGUE Female Friendship: Spanning the Opus —And take her by the hand, whose worth and honesty/ is richly noted“ (The Winter‘s Tale V iii 144)

This chapter develops the methodology and underlying assumptions of this dissertation. Here I will offer an overview of Shakespeare‘s work against which to consider the specific readings offered by the rest of the dissertation. I will examine Shakespeare‘s writing of female friendships into his plays focusing particularly on The Comedy of Errors and The Winter‘s Tale. In each play, one of Shakespeare‘s most significant changes to his source material is the addition of female friends to the women who are primary to each plot. For The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare follows Plautus‘s The Brothers Menaechmus; for The Winter‘s Tale, his closest source is Greene‘s Pandosto. Neither primary plot source includes female friends. Why does Shakespeare view female friendship as important to the development of his plots? Marchette Chute‘s2 commentary raises some important questions about women in Elizabethan England that are, perhaps, answered by Phyllis Rackin and Jean Howard. According to Chute, England was known as a ”paradise for women,‘ and nearly every foreigner was startled by the amount of freedom they took as their right. ”The womenfolk of England…have far more liberty than in other lands, and know just how to make good use of it‘ and another foreign visitor to England noted ”…it is particularly curious that women went into taverns…accompanied by other women.‘ (40) The more recent scholarship of Phyllis Rackin and Jean Howard agrees with Chute on the make up of Shakespeare‘s audiences. Drawing on 16th century source material, Howard suggests that his audience represented a cross section of women from the very wealthy to the very poor, their seating in the theatre based not upon class, but upon how much they were willing to pay for that day‘s performance (Howard 73-75). It does not take great imagination to envision groups of close female friends sitting together in his audience, nor does it take a magician to see these groups of women mirrored in the close female friends presented on stage. Shakespeare was first a businessman; in order to fill his jointly owned theatre, he had to please the women in his audience. In order to please them, he had to demonstrate a basic understanding of them. However, before we examine Shakespeare‘s women, it might be worth our while to examine what recent psychology has to say about the nature of female friendships. What is the psychology of female friendship? In her groundbreaking work The Tending Instinct: How Nurturing is Essential to Who we are and How we Live, UCLA Professor of Psychology Shelley Taylor suggests that close female friendships have throughout history proven to be necessary to a woman‘s good physical and mental health and

2 Leo Daughtery calls Marchette Chute‘s biography of Shakespeare a —scrupulous“ popular biography, and while her work has fallen out of some current popular critical favor, her book contains many gems.

6 longevity (70, 80, 146). She argues that in contrast to the fight or flight response of men, when women are faced with stress they tend and befriend (3, 16). Her work argues that it is in seeking and nurturing female friendships that women have been able to survive the stress of many life changes including marriage, childbearing and rearing, divorce, disease and death.3 As noted in my Introduction, Jean Howard also sees the value of female alliances for women‘s survival in the early modern period. In her —Afterword“ to Maids, Mistresses Cousins and Queens: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England, she notes —the variety of strategies by which early modern women made discursive and material alliances with other women to get what they individually and collectively desired“ (308). Often, Shakespeare presents loyal female friendships that protect women emotionally and physically from the onslaughts of a dangerously male dominated world. He presents female loyalty as necessary to the health and well being of his female characters and as something that may enable them to obtain what they desire. When those relationships dissolve--when women are cut off from loyal friends-- the women are in jeopardy. Some are suicidal, some murderous, and some make choices that ultimately end in their demise. Regardless of presentational mode, Shakespeare values female friendship.4 For women in Shakespeare, being outside the community of women is unhealthy. A closer examination of Taylor‘s research will be helpful in revealing the dangers inherent for women when they are isolated from other women as well as the importance of female tending to the health of a community as a whole. While Taylor‘s work does not focus on the Renaissance, her psychological framework seems applicable to women‘s relationships in this time period as well. Taylor argues that the tending instinct is crucial to the survival of humans (11). Her research indicates that from the beginning of recorded history and probably before, women have aided the survival of the species through tending and befriending (90). She suggests that as opposed to the flight or flight response to stress that is common in the male species, for women, the most common response to stress is to tend and befriend (3, 16). That is, instead of choosing to run or fight when faced with a high stress situation, women choose to bond. Bonding with other women increases the chances of survival. Indeed, in bonding with other female friends, not only does she increase her own chance of survival, she increases her entire family‘s chances of survival (21). Taylor argues that the most telling prediction of good health among women, and men, is the quality of the network of women they have surrounding them (86). Because

3 What is true for the subjects studied by Taylor seems also to be true for women in the Renaissance. Indeed, Linda Woodbridge points out in her exhaustive study (Women and the English Renaissance) that while love —altered men in alarming ways“ (238), not even love could alter women‘s close ties to her female friends. Even for women in love, when one might expect the love object to take the place of all other relationships, Woodbridge argues that —their close same-sex friendships could continue as if nothing had happened“ (238). 4 While part of this representational mode includes boys playing women, and its consequent —exploration of sexual ambivalence“ (Dusinberre, —Introduction,“ 1), I will be writing of the women as women rather than as boys playing women and looking to modern productions in which female performers play the women‘s roles. For a more complete discussion of gender issues in the comedies see Catherine Belsey, —Disrupting sexual difference: meaning and gender in the comedies in Alternative Shakespeares, ed. J. Drakakis (1985), 166-90, and Greg Walker, The Politics of Performance in Early Renaissance Drama (Cambridge 1998).

7 women tend others, the physical, mental, and emotional health of those she tends is benefited (87). Whereas men reap a physical benefit from marriage–they live longer-- women do not. However, women reap this benefit of longevity when they have a solid support network of female friends (81). Also, according to Taylor, women cut off from support networks are more subject to violent treatment from their spouses or significant others and their life expectancy decreases. This finding is based not only on studies done in modern urban settings, but also those done in primitive rural societies (95-96; 101- 104). Overall, according to Taylor, emotionally healthy women seek the protection of other emotionally healthy women; emotionally healthy men also seek the protection of emotionally healthy women (113-115). Taylor suggests that the reason for this is twofold. First, it is a survival of the fittest trait. Women have always been primarily responsible for the survival of the species in the following way: it is they who are the primary caretakers of children; traditionally and still, it is the mother who is responsible for meeting the basic needs of the child: she feeds, clothes, nurtures and protects the child until s/he reaches an age where s/he can survive alone. However, Taylor argues, if she has done her job, the healthy well balanced child will arrive in adulthood with the understanding that close friends, especially female friends, are necessary for emotional and physical health and well being. The reason for this? Children model the behavior of their parents. Mothers have known for centuries that raising children is a community effort. A mother‘s networking skills are primary to a child‘s survival. If early woman networked effectively, she could have someone to help her watch her children while she tilled the soil or gathered and foraged for food. Without these friends, children are and always have been more vulnerable to dangerous outside forces whether these forces be early predatory beasts or modern predatory humans (13, 20, 21, 24, 195). However, as Taylor argues, it is not merely children and other friends that the woman tends. It is also her husband or significant other (114). And this tending trait is just as attractive to a man as sexual attractiveness and beauty because it is necessary to his survival as well as the survival of his genetic pool (124). If he is well fed and tended when he is ill, he is able to hunt and protect his family unit more effectively. Thus, strong mothering genes combine with strong hunting and protecting genes in order to insure the survival of the fittest (124-125). 5 In an early modern example of the strength of female alliances against —predatory humans,“ Ann Rosalind Jones discusses the alliances created by maidservants and their mistresses in London against predatory employers. In her article, she shows how maids and mistresses through a series of pamphlets —define themselves as members of an alliance of women at work…maids, mistresses… united against an outside other“ (31). We see these same female alliances investigated6 in the plays that are the subject of this dissertation. 7 The women who have solid social networks tend to survive

5 On another note, Taylor argues that social networking skills among the male of any given species are more valued than mere physical strength (136). Among baboons, apes and chimpanzees, the male leader tends not to be the strongest male, but the one most able to read social situations and figure out the best method for resolving conflict (131).

6 I‘m borrowing from Frye and Robertson in using the term alliance —to signal a range of relationships“ including —kinship…educational and religious connects [and] friendship“ (—Introduction“ 4-5).

8 physically and emotionally. The women who do not have such solid networks tend to be much more vulnerable to destructive forces. The object of this study, then, is to investigate the nature of healthy female friendships and what happens to women when they are isolated from these healthy friendships in nine plays by Shakespeare. It is certainly true that all female friendships presented in Shakespeare are not healthy. For example, it could be argued that Shakespeare‘s text, Romeo and Juliet, presents the possibility of the blame for Juliet‘s tragedy being assigned to her nurse who, in her own self-absorption, could be read as unable to tend to Juliet‘s emotional or physical needs. The relationship between Kate and Bianca in The Taming of the Shrew can be read as an almost direct inversion of that between the sisters in Comedy of Errors. Kate recognizes Bianca‘s thinly veiled manipulative behavior. Bianca is not what she seems, and Kate‘s awareness of this can be read as the cause for her negative dialogue regarding Bianca. The irony for modern audiences, as Phyllis Rackin points out, is that while this play had only three recorded performances by 1649, it is one of the most frequently performed plays of Shakespeare‘s canon for modern audiences (Rackin 52-53) and it has received far more scholarly attention than, for example, The Merry Wives of Windsor, a play in which women clearly control events (Rackin 53). 8 The importance of good social networking among females in strengthening marriages is evident in one of the first comedies Shakespeare produced successfully, The Comedy of Errors (dated between 1592-4). In Shakespeare‘s retelling of Plautus‘s The Brother‘s Menaechmus, his revisions are worth noting, especially his revisions of the women. Shakespeare departs from his source material by adding women and fleshing out their relationships with each other and with the men in the play. The Brothers Menaechmus opens with a misogynistic scene in which the husband Menaechmus berates his wife. He calls her a shrew and can hardly wait to get away from her in order to visit his mistress. The play‘s rhetoric censors neither his words nor his attitude; indeed the playwright‘s confidence in the audience‘s collusion with the psychological misogyny of the play is clear as the husband next threatens to pack his wife up and send her back to her father if she continues to ask questions about what he maintains is his business, but what, in fact, is hers: If you weren‘t such a shrew, so uncontrolled, ungrateful, too, Whatever thing your husband hated, you‘d find hateful, too. And, if you act up once again, the way you‘ve acted up today, I‘ll have you packed up–back to Daddy as a divorcee. (109-114) Menaechmus accuses his wife of —acting up“ when she seeks information about her missing dress which he has, in fact, stolen to give to as a gift to his mistress. As final clarification of the audience‘s collusion, the stage directions9 indicate that Menaechmus

7 I‘m borrowing from Frye and Robertson in using the term alliance —to signal a range of relationships“ including —kinship…educational and religious connects [and] friendship“ (—Introduction“ 4-5). 8 Shakespeare frames the misogynistic storyline with a story that emphasizes the deception inherent in appearance. The frame story includes a Lord who deceives the poor, drunk Christopher Sly into believing that he is a wealthy Lord who is watching the play for his own pleasure. The framing discounts the play within the play reducing it to the object lesson status of the Pyramus and Thisbe in A Midsummer Night‘s Dream, and —The Mousetrap“ play within the play in Hamlet. 9 Editor‘s addition to Plautus‘s text

9 then —turns to his audience with a big grin“ and says of his wife, —I‘ve robbed a rat“ (134). It is interesting to note that while Plautus‘s audiences were as varied and heterogeneous as Shakespeare‘s, 10 the comedy of Plautus is misogynistic, and, I would argue, Shakespeare‘s is not. According to Duckworth —criticisms of marriage and women are frequently uttered by married men in the Roman plays of Plautus and Terence; it is a common theme in ancient comedy“ (24). Duckworth defends Plautus‘s misogyny by stating that it is primarily comic and does not have the serious and therefore not so funny overtones of later comedies by Terence. Perhaps Duckworth‘s definition of —funny“ would be instructive in our understanding his point. Regardless of the degree to which Plautus is or is not funny to a heterogeneous audience, there are no such scenes in Shakespeare‘s rewrite of Plautus. Duckworth argues that because the —respectable“ Roman matrons were kept offstage in Plautus, the misogynistic commentary by their husbands was farcical. However, he argues, —the conventional treatment of marriage in comedy was less appropriate when the scenes and matronae were more serious and respectable and resembled more closely persons in real life“ (285). Thus his argument is, in short, this: it was ok to make fun of the idea of women, in a comedy as long as it was funny and did not make fun of actual women. This argument seems a bit circular. However, it we accept this particular comic subject as a convention of Roman drama, it is even more telling that Shakespeare, fully aware of this convention, chose not to incorporate it into The Comedy of Errors, his revision of the Roman comedy. In a decidedly knowing ironic contrast to Plautus‘s opening, Shakespeare‘s play begins with a husband who so loves his wife that he cannot bear to be separated from her. When he moves, she moves with him; first to Epidamus, away from their home in Syracuse, and then back to their home in Syracuse. Tragedy ensues when his wife wants to leave for Syracuse before the husband is quite ready to do so. In the opening lines of the play, Egeon, a merchant from Syracuse, who stands to die before sundown for coming to Ephesus, explains to the Duke that it was the search for his son who is in search of his mother and brother that brought him to Ephesus. The important point for this argument is here: he tells first of his happy marriage: In Syracusa was I born and wed Unto a woman, happy but for me. With her, I lived in joy. (I i 36-39) While the women in Shakespeare‘s re-imagining of Plautus are sisters, and appear together on stage throughout the play having conversation which —becomes an acceptable form of protest that ultimately socializes the women“ (McKewin 121), the women in Plautus never once appear on stage together. Indeed, Shakespeare turns Plautus‘s clichéd Roman paterfamilias structure, of fathers who headed family units in which women lack voice, respect or dignity, into a thriving community of women who band together in order to gain power and voice. Another striking difference in Shakespeare‘s retelling is his privileging of the companionate marriage 11that seems to be a by product of solid female

10 According to Plautus‘s Prologue to Poenulus, the audiences were quite lively, full of nurses with noisy children and gossipy wives: Nurses should keep their tiny children at home and not bring them to see the play…Married women should view the play in silence, laugh in silence, and refrain from their constant chatter; they should take home their gossip (Poen. 28-35 qtd in Duckworth 82). 11 While a full discussion of the companionate marriages is outside the scope of my discussion, Lisa Jardine‘s article —Companionate Marriages Versus Male Friendship: Anxiety for the Lineal Family in

10 bonding. In sharp contrast to the complete dearth of any female bonding in The Brothers Menaechmus, the sisters, Adriana and Luciana are supportive, loving and kind, though not naïve in their relationship with one another. Consider for example the following attributes of a female alliance between sisters in which one sister protects the other from a grave moral error. Because this play is a comedy of errors in which identical twins, separated from birth, are reunited, one of the very real dangers is that of the wife of the married twin damaging her marital relations by inadvertently sleeping with her brother-in-law instead of her husband. It is Adriana‘s sister, Luciana, who, through her loyalty, inadvertently protects Adriana from sleeping with her husband‘s brother. Anne Barton declares Luciana to be The voice of reason and tolerance in the play, sane in the midst of madness, she counters the possessiveness and jealous frenzy of her sister Adriana with counsels of generosity and patience. (113)

When Adriana worries about her husband because he has not shown up for supper when expected, her sister, Luciana soothes her, explaining: —good sister, let us dine and never fret / a man is master of his liberty“ (II i 6-7). When Adriana is unsatisfied with the relative unfairness of men being allowed to come and go as they please while women must wait and worry, Luciana soothes her once again with —Because their business still lies out of door“ (I i 10). Luciana then launches a tirade about the order of things, the point of which is that women are subservient to men. Adriana hits her mark when she replies wittily: —This servitude makes you to keep unwed“ (26). Luciana agrees–the servitude and the troubles in the marriage bed she has heard about are what keep her single. Adriana then explains to her that it is very easy for her to counsel patience when she herself has never had to be patient in this way. Luciana concurs, and the scene ends. When Luciana feels her sister to be sorely used by her —husband“ (actually, not her husband but, unbeknownst to her and Adrianna, her husband‘s twin) she does not hold back her scorn, and protecting her sister says, —Fie brother, how the world has changed with you / When were you wont to use my sister thus? She sent for you by Dromio home to dinner“ (II ii 152-153). When he refuses to give her sister the respect Luciana feels is due her (because he is not in fact her sister‘s husband), Luciana berates his servant Dromio, —thou snail, thou slug, thou sot!“ (II ii 193-94). She then upbraids the man whom she thinks to be her sister‘s husband for not being the kind of husband he ought, —If you did wed my sister for her wealth, / then for her wealth‘s sake use her with more kindness“ (III ii 5). She is faithful to her sister when her sister‘s husband tries to court her, —O soft, sir, hold you still, / I‘ll fetch my sister to get her good will“ (III ii 69-70). Indeed, she presents the antitype of the sisterhood in Shrew.

Jacobean Drama“ ( Reading Shakespeare Historically by Lisa Jardine, Routledge, 1996 ) discusses the anxiety caused by the companionate marriage in the Jacobean era. For a complete discussion of the social construct of the early modern marriage and its implications for women Carol Thomas Neely‘s book Broken Nuptials in Shakespeare‘s Plays (University of Illinois Press, 1993). As Neely indicates, —My book signals its focus on disruption and on the social construction of women through the institution of marriage. It examines how marriage as a legal, religious, and social institution decisively shapes women‘s subjectivity, sexuality and social roles in the plays“ (Preface xi-xii).

11 When she tells her sister of her husband‘s courting, Adriana is sad, mourns the loss, and wishes she still had him around. Luciana encourages her to recognize him for the good-for-nothing scoundrel that he is, —Who would be jealous of such a one? / No evil lost is wailed when it is gone“ (IV ii 23-24). The celebration at the end of The Brothers Menaechmus involves the two brothers‘ back-slapping celebration of having robbed both the prostitute and the wife, and having had fun doing so, Menaechmus II: Well, the slut led me to dinner…wonderfully have I just dined,/wined as well as concubined, of dress and gold I robbed her blind. Menaechums I: O, by Pollux, I rejoice if you had fun because of me. (1141-1144)

In sharp contrast, The Comedy of Errors ends with a happy marriage scene. More importantly, peace descends at the conclusion of the play as a result of the restoration of the close and loyal friendships, both male and female, among the characters in the play. —We came into the world like brother and brother and brother; / And now, let‘s go hand in hand, not one before another“ (V i 425-26). Loyal friendship is the emotional support necessary for good mental health as Shakespeare illuminates in sonnet 30, —Friendship restores losses and ends sorrows,“ and, it is the women, acting in community led by the mother Abbess in The Comedy of Errors who are responsible for restoring peaceful relationships. In the final scene, while it is Luciana and Adriana who demand the justice that leads to the resolution of the identity mystery, it is the Mother Abbess who is able to piece together the evidence and recognize her husband and sons. She offers to loose their bonds (V i 340) and —gain a husband by his liberty.“ Amelia does loose their bonds by revealing to them their true identity. Shakespeare chooses to add to his source material not only Luciana but also Emilia, long lost wife of Egeon, a mother abbess and head of a community of women. Interestingly enough it is with the mother abbess, in the community of women, that the most troubled male character in the play seeks and finds sanctuary, and sanity. While Rackin (50) laments the scholarly neglect of Shakespeare‘s history plays in which women have the most lines (the Henry VI plays, King John, and Henry VII), I would argue that even in the plays where are there are few women, Shakespeare creates women who tend to form communities of support with other women, small and isolated though these support communities may be. Again Shakespeare makes communities of women an important addition to his source materials. One of the subplots in 2 Henry IV is Falstaff‘s relationship with Mistress Quickly, the proprietress of the seedy Boar‘s Head Tavern, and the tavern prostitute, Doll Tearsheet. The Boar‘s Head represents, for the world of the play, the sordid life that Prince Hal must leave behind in order to become Henry V. At the same time, like the rural settings interspersed throughout the play, the tavern is a place where we are reminded that royal power struggles such as the one between the aging Henry and his one time friend and ally, Northumberland, go on against a backdrop of people living absolutely normal lives. While the —normal“ life in the rural scenes is represented by an old college classmate of Falstaff‘s, Justice Shallow, and his best friend, Justice Silence,

12 the tavern scenes paint the picture of a friendship between Mistress Quickly, the inn‘s proprietress, and Doll, the tavern prostitute. It is obvious in Act II scene IV that the friendship between Mistress Quickly and Doll is longstanding. Doll, obviously drunk, complains against a brawler, the swaggering Pistol. Mistress Quickly immediately asserts that she —shut the door, there comes no swaggerers here“ (II iv 76-77). Throughout the scene she proves that —a good heart‘s worth gold“ (31) as she protects and defends Doll. Doll needs Mistress Quickly, and Mistress Quickly comes to her aid. While Mistress Quickly has the protection of her position, Doll, a prostitute, no longer even has the protection that Prostitutes were afforded two centuries before. Indeed, in earlier times and in other European countries, prostitution was regulated and institutionalized. —They were protected by laws and treated as practitioners of a recognized profession“ (King 78). While this world might have existed in the early fifteenth century of Henry IV, it was a world unfamiliar to Doll and mistress Quickly whose anachronistic world is the world of Shakespeare‘s 16th century England. By the middle of the 16th century, the rape of a prostitute in France ceased to be a crime (King 78), and by 1546, by Royal Proclamation, all the brothels in London were closed. Mistress Quickly is in a privileged position. Having been left the riches of an alehouse, albeit the Boar‘s Head, she is guaranteed protection from several things. As an alewife, and part of one of the few traditionally female guilds, she holds a reputable and protected position in society. She is guaranteed an income, and a permanent job, and even perhaps a form of welfare if something should go wrong (Anderson and Zinnser 370- 373). She is, perhaps, a reflection of the modestly independent women that formed at least a part of Shakespeare‘s audience. Thus, Mistress Quickly protects Doll from the patrons who would take advantage of her; indeed, one man threatens to —murder Doll‘s ruff.“ She helps Doll with the patron who actually seems to love her (as unlikely as that love may prove to be). At the end of the play, Doll either feigns pregnancy to avoid arrest, or is actually pregnant. Mistress Quickly not only protects her from the blows of the constable, but more importantly has a specific wish for her: —Would that she would miscarry.“ She understands the precarious position of unmarried women who bear illegitimate children. —When illegitimate births occurred, feudal arrangements taxed the women deemed guilty, and towns imprisoned or banished women guilty of fornication“ (King 8) and, more often than not, when illegitimate births did occur the baby was helped out of this world by either the mother or the midwife. Ironically, infanticide was so widespread that the punishment was often mild, the mother pleading insanity, and then being released to the care of the family (King 9). It is clear that Doll has no family other than Mistress Quickly. Thus, Mistress Quickly‘s protection of Doll is both physical and philosophical. The loyalty of Mistress Quickly is a fair reflection of the female solidarity among working classes of the time, according to Ann Rosalind Jones in her work —Maidservants of London.“ However, Jones argues that the solidarity among women actually crossed the boundaries of class. She uses as her evidence a pamphlet widely circulated in London in 1574 produced by a coalition of —maids and mistresses“ in response to a particularly misogynistic pamphlet produced by a London Lawyer in the same year. His tract attacked —the sloth and dishonesty of London maidservants“ (Jones 27). Indeed, according to Jones, —the pamphlet constructs its ”we‘ as a convincingly political plural, an alliance of

13 women defending their common interests on the basis of habit and knowledge they share with the women who have power over them (28). Friendships crossing more dramatic class boundaries, for example between mistress and maid, occur frequently in Shakespeare‘s plays as well. This is certainly the case in Henry V. If the lot of the common woman is to work, it is the lot of the aristocrat to marry and marry well the candidate chosen by her family (King 34-35). This is quite clear in Henry V. Katherine is to marry a king; her father wants her to marry the most powerful king. As the play progresses, it is clear that this king will be Henry V who is English. Thus, Katherine‘s Lady‘s Maid aids her in learning the English language. In the final scene of the play (V ii), Henry woos Katherine. While he speaks no French and Katherine very little English, it is Alice who keeps what could be a troubling exchange easy, even humorous. Henry flatters, courts, and proposes to Katherine. It is a situation fraught with tension, but Alice smoothes over each misunderstanding so that her mistress can take the position that is most advantageous for her. When Katherine points out for Henry the main point of the scene -- it is not Katherine‘s choice whom she will marry; it is her father‘s, —dat is as it should please de roi mon pere“ (V ii 247) -- Henry agrees and wishes to seal the agreement with a kiss. Katherine refuses to kiss Henry; it is against maidenly chastity for an unmarried woman to kiss, especially on the lips. It is Alice who saves Katherine from an embarrassing, and possibly costly, faux pas with her future husband and present king. She quickly explains to the miffed Henry that —it is not the custom for the maids in France to kiss before they are married“ (266). With this her final line, Alice has helped Katherine as much as she can and must turn her over to the care and keeping of her future husband who responds territorially with —nice customs curtsy to great kings“ (268-9) and kisses her in spite of her protest. That the marriage is then sealed by an agreement between her father and Henry is the desired outcome that Alice would wish for her mistress and friend, since at this point the power balance is clearly out of her hands. While Alice is a loyal friend, an example of the sort of relationship that we see later played out between the queen herself and her serving women, in this the upper echelon of society, the power of a friend is limited not by loyalty but by power. We see this played out historically in Elizabeth Brown‘s study —Companion Me with My Mistress“ which focuses on the alliance between the monarch [Elizabeth] and her waiting women. The loyalty of Elizabeth‘s all female privy chamber staff is evidenced by the fact that in the forty-four years of her reign, the sixteen positions of ladies in waiting were held by only twenty-eight women (132). Brown asserts that the friendships among the women were close; that Elizabeth trusted and confided in these women throughout her lifetime. Their friendship sustained her through the most powerful years of her reign as well as in her declining years. Near the conclusion of Shakespeare‘s opus lies another play in which he revises his sources to add women who aid one another in crises. In the opening scene of The Winter‘s Tale (1610-11), the ideal world presented in Act I scene I is interrupted by a jealous king, but is restored again in the final scene of the play by two women working in collusion. The play is, in a sense, a rewrite of Othello, only in this revision, the Emilia character is not fooled by a slick talking husband. In the opening scene of the play, the kindness of the Lords of Bohemia and Sicily to one another sets up an ideal world, the world as it should be. In this Edenic paradise, there is hope, kindness and great optimism

14 about many things: the friendship between the two countries, —the heavens continue their loves“ (I i 31); the young Prince who promises to grow into a fine king, — You have an unspeakable comfort in your young prince Maxmillus“ (I.i. 35); and the hope of many goodwill visits between the two kings in the future, —this coming summer the King of Sicilia means to pay Bohemia the visitation which he justly owes him“ (I.i.5-6). There is great love between the kings; —I think there is not in the world matter or malice to alter it“ (I i 32-34), says a Lord of Bohemia to a Lord of Sicily in the opening lines of the play. This is all shattered in Scene II when the King of Sicilia, Leontes, determines, with no actual evidence, other than his own paranoia, that his wife is cheating on him with the king of Bohemia. Very quickly after, the king of Bohemia leaves, the wife gives birth to a daughter, and the young prince dies. The wife is sentenced to prison where she presumably dies, and the baby daughter is sent off to be exposed; the hope is she will die and the king will then have erased two painful reminders of the life he might have had. Scene two is fraught with tension as distrust turns into accusation, accusation to sentencing, and the tragic victim becomes the innocent boy prince who dies after being separated from his imprisoned mother. While these plot twists are similar to those in Pandasto, Shakespeare‘s source for the majority of the play, Shakespeare adds two important female characters, both of whom are instrumental in saving the queen. He also adds a plot twist in the form of a female friend. As Hallett Smith points out in his introduction to the play in The Riverside Shakespeare, The dignified patience of the accused queen, Hermione, makes necessary the presence of some other character to express resistance to Leontes‘ tyranny, so Shakespeare creates Paulina, who in her fearless assertion of her mistress‘ innocence is reminiscent of Emilia in the final scene of Othello, and in her later manipulation of affairs toward a happy ending recalls the capable women in the problem comedies. (1613)

Hermione‘s friend, Paulina, and serving woman, Emilia, join together to help Hermione as soon as she is in prison. Paulina: ... Pray you, Emilia, Commend my best obedience to the Queen. If she dares trust me with her little babe, I‘ll show‘t the King, and undertake to be/ Her advocate to the‘ loud‘st… Emilia: Most worthy madam,/ your honor and your goodness is so evident that your free undertaking cannot miss/A thriving issue... (II i 38-42) While this particular effort is less than —thriving,“ the baby is, in fact, banished and the queen sentenced to death, by the play‘s conclusion, her good friend Paulina is able to reverse the near tragedy, bringing life back to the royal family just as surely as she appears to breathe life back into the dead Hermione in the dramatic final act. For two decades, Paulina badgers Leontes about his tragic error in banishing his daughter and sentencing his queen to death, —If one by one, you wedded all the world, Or, from the all that are, took something good to make a perfect woman, she you kill‘d Would be unparallel‘d“ ( V i 12-15). Leontes bitterly regrets his decisions, —She I kill‘d? I did so; but thou strik‘st me Sorely, to say I did. It is as bitter/ Upon thy tongue as in my thought“ (V i 17-19). After making him swear never to remarry, it is clear that Paulina will get from Leontes what she wishes: reunification of the royal family.

15 The babe has been raised on foreign soil, and Hermione has been hidden by Paulina; she is not dead. By play‘s end, Paulina is able to affect the absolute clearing of Hermione‘s name of any false charges of wrong doing, reunite Hermione and the king in marriage, and bring their child back to them. Pauline symbolically brings Hermione back to life, a feat she dramatizes by disguising her as a statue and unveiling her before Leontes. Alone, Hermione would have remained a —statue;“ with the help of a female friend she is brought to life. At the play‘s conclusion, those who have been lost are found, and the wife, husband, daughter and soon to be son-in-law are all joined in a happy wedding scene, engineered primarily by Paulina. Indeed, at the end of the play, both Hermione and the King give Paulina credit for their good fortune, and trust her to ensure their continued community. The king implores her: Good Paulina, lead us from hence, where we may leisurely Each one demand, and answer to his part Perform‘d in this wide gap of time, since first We were dissever‘d. Hastily lead away. (V iii 151-55) Thus, in the plays briefly outlined in this chapter, there is a privileging of relationships between women. Ackroyd argues that the women in Shakespeare‘s plays are merely a reflection of the women in Shakespeare‘s life and that as a small boy in Stratford, he was probably surrounded by the strong women who were his mother‘s sisters12. There is evidence to support Shakespeare‘s remaining closeness with the children of these aunts. Ackroyd suggest that possibly some of his happiest childhood memories were those in which his mother and her six sisters shared and gossiped over large family celebrations (Ackroyd 29-30). His own wife seemed more at home in the company of the women of Stratford than with Shakespeare himself13; she did not join him in London. In essence, Shakespeare brought to the stage the familiar stories of the many ways female friends are bound together. For the women in Shakespeare‘s audience the scenes he created must have brought to the stage familiar moments from their own lives, moments in which they were understood, protected and, perhaps, even saved by their female friends.

12 Germaine Greer in her 2008 biography, Shakespeare‘s Wife (New York: Harper ) argues for the prevalence of women in Shakespeare‘s young boyhood as well. 13 See above

16 CHAPTER 1 The Merry Wives of Windsor —This inclination of women to bond together may be far older than we imagine, for the comfort that females enjoy in one another‘s company is not confined to humans; it is evident in animals as well.“ (Taylor 91)

The previous chapter examined how both The Comedy of Errors and The Winter‘s Tale present female alliances whose focus is upholding honor. This chapter will examine another female alliance, this one between two married women who work to uphold honor and community values. . I. Synopsis Falstaff, a knight, comes to the little town of Windsor and wreaks havoc. He poaches deer, tries to make cuckolds of two of the town‘s merchants and make a little money off their wives. While as a knight, he outranks any of the other characters in the play, the two wives, Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page are unimpressed and punish him for his audacious assumption that he could seduce them by covering him with dirty laundry, throwing him in the river, having him dress up as a woman and be beaten, and finally by having the entire town humiliate him in an elaborate ruse. Meanwhile, Mrs. Page‘s daughter is ripe for marriage, and Mr. Ford believes his wife is making him a cuckold. Anne Page finds a suitable husband and Mr. Ford reforms.

II. Brief Critical Overview

While Anne Barton explores the comic community created by introducing Falstaff into Windsor, Natasha Korda argues that The Merry Wives of Windsor is a play presenting —ordinary housewives who protect the propriety of their domestic domains“ (233). In this communal setting, she argues, it is women who control the behavior of the townspeople. She sees The Merry Wives of Windsor as a play offering —its own modern perspective on small-town life in early modern England…and a glimpse into the everyday lives of common citizens“ (227, 232). According to Robert Cohen, the play suspends hierarchy, affirms romantic love and reinforces a sense of middle class community. Ultimately, he argues, the unity of disparate elements is the goal of the play–that is incorporating Falstaff and Ford in spite of their obvious errors into the Windsor community, and the leading characters achieve this. However, he stops short of crediting the women in the play with creating this healthy community alliance: As the title of the play reveals, its conflicts are fought primarily on the grounds of gender. But the meanings of these conflicts, despite their unambiguous outcomes, are unclear. Is the wives‘ triumph over Falstaff‘s sexual adventuring and Ford‘s fantasy over his wife‘s infidelity a victory for middle class women…or middle class women, or for both? The play celebrates the wives‘ freedom and autonomy, in short their merriness, but that merriness serves primarily to protect their husband‘s wealth. (1259)

17 III. Women and Community Values

The question Cohen‘s argument raises for me is this: who is primarily responsible in the play for the creation of these community alliances? I would argue that the play celebrates the victory of the alliance formed by Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page in upholding community values. While he asserts that —the purpose of their merriness serves primarily to protect their husband‘s wealth,“ I would argue that in fact, their purpose is to protect their own honor. Furthermore, to assume that the husband‘s wealth is not also the wife‘s wealth is to misunderstand the place of the burgher‘s wife in this play. The script is clear on the issue: these women control the money. This issue is so unmistakable that even a visitor to the town understands immediately. Falstaff says of Mrs. Ford, —she has all the rule of her husband‘s purse,“ and then a few lines later he says the same of Mrs. Page (I.iii. 45, 59). The theme of women of financial means is not unique to Merry Wives. In As You Like It, it is interesting to note that both Celia and Rosalind are the only children of their fathers; they are the sole heiresses. Thus, in the beginning of the play, Celia, whose father has usurped Rosalind‘s father, promises that when her father dies, she will give the kingdom over to its rightful ruler which will then be Rosalind, —for what he hath taken away from the father perforce, I will render thee again in affection ( I ii 12-14). In both Merry Wives of Windsor and As You Like It, the inciting action occurs as a direct result of the male protagonist‘s misunderstanding of the power inherent in loyal ties of female friendship. Duke Frederick banishes Rosalind from court not realizing that his own daughter will follow her. They both hasten to the Forest of Arden and so begins the rising action of the play. In Merry Wives, Falstaff sends both Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page identical love letters. He has no understanding of the nature of female friendships; as soon as they receive their letters, they share them with one another, then vow revenge on Falstaff. Thus begins the rising action of this play. In As You Like It, Duke Frederick grossly overestimates the power he has over his daughter, and underestimates the power of the ties of female friendship, and in so doing, loses his daughter to the forest where she will hide with her banished friend and cousin, Rosalind. So, too, does Falstaff underestimate the friendship between the two women he is courting. In creating his letters, Falstaff underestimates several things that even his dull servants Pistol and Nim do not miss. Falstaff reveals his plan of seducing the wives to Pistol and Nim. Nim warns him that he is getting in too deep, —The anchor is deep. Will that humor pass?“ (I iii 51). When Falstaff waxes poetic about how Mrs. Page ogled him, Pistol dismisses him with, —Then did the sun on dunghill shine“ (I iii 63), and Nim thanks him for his humor. When Falstaff tries to get them to deliver the love letters, both Nim and Pistol refuse because they recognize that Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page are not victims. Pistol and Nim have much to lose if they are discovered as the messengers since the women are powerful in their community, as well as being fast friends. Shakespeare presents Falstaff as ignorant and naive. What a bumbling fool to believe first that two prominent townswomen would ogle and admire him. Mrs. Page calls him a —Flemish drunkard [with] guts made of puddings“ (II i 30-31), and Mrs. Ford calls him —a whale with so many tons of oil in his belly“ (II i 67). His misreading of their chastity is clarified by Mrs. Page who rails, — I‘ll entertain myself like one that I am not acquainted

18 withal; for sure unless he knows some strain in me that I know not myself, he would never have boarded me in this fury“ (II i 87-88). Secondly, and perhaps most naïvely, he misunderstands the close ties among female friends that is part of the social custom of this community: of course they talk freely and then read each other‘s letters. Taylor argues that it is conversation between women that glues their relationship together. While for primates, most of the communication of bonding happens through touch, women get closer to one another through talk–endlessly sharing information about what is going on in the social world…Psychologists point out that men friends often do things together–playing sports or working on projects–but the primary activity that women enjoy together is talking. (99-100) Similarly, Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page bond through talking. Falstaff‘s ignorance of the ways of women in Windsor renders his objective of seducing the women an unachievable one. From the moment they receive his letters, which they see as an affront to their honor and dignity, Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page plan their response, —Let‘s be revenged upon him“ (II i 93). A through line of the play, then, is the friendship alliance between Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page. Not only has Falstaff insulted each of the women, he has insulted womankind in general as Mrs. Page indicates when she wonders how many identical letters he has written–she is certain that he has printed a number of them on a printing press and left a blank where he could fill in the name of the woman to whom he wishes to declare his love on that particular day; —I warrant he hath a thousand letters writ with blank space for different names…he cares not what he puts into the press“ (I ii 75-77). Her concern shifts immediately from concern for other women to concern for her own reputation. She worries that his declaration will become public knowledge which would taint her honor and therefore her standing in her community, even though she is innocent; moreover, he makes her doubt herself, —It makes me almost ready to wrangle with mine own honesty“ (II i 75). While Mrs. Page is primarily concerned with the personal implications of the letter, Mrs. Ford is more concerned with its implications for her marriage. She is equally incensed about her honor, but her primary concern is her husband‘s reaction. Though their concerns are varied, their response is not. They will band together against this common enemy. Mistress Ford: Nay, I will consent to act any villainy against him that may not sully the chariness of our honestly. I, that my husband saw this letter! It would give eternal food to his jealousy. Mistress Page: Why look, where he comes, and my good man, too. He‘s as far from jealousy as I am from giving him cause, and that, I hope, is an immeasurable distance. Mistress Ford: You are the happier woman. Mistress Page: Let‘s consult together against this greasy knight. Come hither. The solidity of the alliance between these two women becomes clear when Mistress Ford‘s fear of domestic repercussions paralyzes her, and Mistress Page steps forward to organize and direct the assault against Falstaff to preserve their honor. It is important for Mistress Ford to have Mistress Page as her ally. As Mistress Ford predicts, when Mr. Ford is told by Pistol that Falstaff seeks to woo his wife, he

19 believes her to be quite capable of being wooed by Falstaff, and even is willing to encourage the courtship to prove her to be unfaithful, —I will be patient. I will find out this…I will seek out Falstaff…If I do find it–well“ (I i 114,124, 126). On the other hand, when Mr. Page is told by Nim that Falstaff is courting his wife, his response is completely different. Page immediately questions the integrity of the one delivering the message, and rightly so. A mere two scenes prior to this one, Mr. Page was witness to Nim‘s being found guilty of having gotten Slender drunk, and then having stolen his purse. His response, then, to Nym‘s —news“ is, —I never heard such a drawling, affecting rogue/I will never believe such a Cathayan though the priest o‘ the town commended him for a true man“ (II i 125, 127-8). Mr. Page reveals Pistol and Nym to be thieves and rogues to Mr. Ford; however, Mr. Ford is not consoled and believes Mr. Page foolish in trusting his wife, —A man cannot be too confident,“ he says. Mr. Page‘s response to that is humorous, —If he should intend this voyage toward my wife, I would turn her loose to him; and what he gets more of her than sharp words, let it lie on my head“(II ii 160-162). Thus, Mrs. Page, secure in her own husband‘s love, has a double task before her. Not only must she ally herself with Mrs. Ford in order to ward off the threat of an outsider, she must also help her secure the health of Mrs. Ford‘s marriage by proving Mr. Ford wrong in his jealous assumptions. When Mrs. Ford says, —I think my husband hath some suspicion of Falstaff‘s being here,“ Mrs. Page steps forward to engineer a plot validating Mrs. Ford‘s purity and her own honor while at the same time discrediting the lying Falstaff, —I will lay a plot to try that, and we will yet have more tricks with Falstaff“ (III iii 155-7) . For the women, honorable chastity is necessary in order to maintain their positions of leadership within the community. Falstaff is a predator, and the women band together to get rid of him in a manner reminiscent of female animal behavior as described by Taylor. Primatologist Sue Boinski found that female squirrel monkeys‘ ties to other females change in this fashion to cope with extreme stress…during the period in which the females give birth…the previously solitary mothers begin traveling in close-knit groups. Each time a falcon swoops down to pluck away a baby, it is mobbed by vigilant females and driven off…these intriguing animal studies suggest that female ties may be loose and variable in normal times, but flexible enough to promote shared defense in stressful times. (97) What causes variation in the alliance of Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page with one another is Mrs. Page‘s children. However, it is the women‘s alliance with one another that keeps the children safe. In Act III scene ii of the play, Mistress Quickly tells Mrs. Page that Mrs. Ford needs to see her then, —Mistress Ford desires you to come suddenly“ (IV i 5-6). That Mrs. Page does not go immediately exemplifies the only time in the play that Mrs. Page does not come when Mrs. Ford calls, or Mrs. Ford does not come when Mrs. Page calls. —I‘ll be with her by and by,“ says Mrs. Page, —I‘ll but bring my young man here to school“ (IV i 7-8). She must first take her son to school. The values of the women are the values of the community. Children are valued even more than the friendship between the women. The play concludes with the happy marriage of Mrs. Page‘s daughter Anne, to her chosen love, Fenton. The entire community embraces the marriage signaling a privileging of not just women in this Windsor society, but also children.

20 Ford has learned through the course of the play that evil comes to him who thinks evil (Barton 320). Ford wants to believe that his wife is having an affair with Falstaff and goes to great lengths to not only prove it, but if need be, make it happen. He disguises himself as the character Brook, telling Falstaff that if he will but compromise Mrs. Ford‘s chastity so that he, Mr. Brook, can sleep with her, Falstaff will be rewarded richly: Believe it, for you know it, there is money. Spend it spend it spend more; spend all I have. Only give me so much of your time in exchange of it as to lay an amiable siege to the honesty of this Ford‘s wife. Use your art of wooing; win her to consent to you. If any man may, you may as soon as any. (II ii 55-58) In response to his charade, Mrs. Ford speaks for the community when she says that her wish for her husband is that, —Heaven make you better than your thoughts!“ (III iii 204- 205). Mr. Page shuns Mr. Ford‘s jealous thinking telling him, —Fie, fie, Master Ford, are you not ashamed? What spirit, what devil suggests this imagination? I would not ha‘ your distemper in this kind for the wealth of Windsor Castle“ (III iii 215-217). Evans tells Ford, —Master Ford, you must pray, and not follow the imaginations of your own heart. This is jealousies“ (IV ii 155-157). Later, Mr. Page tells him that Mrs. Ford is cheating on Mr. Ford —no where else but in your brain“ (IV ii 159). Mr. Ford‘s imagination in believing Mrs. Ford to be cheating is only as powerful as Falstaff‘s imagination in believing Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page to be in love with him. However, Ford‘s public censure comes through the alliance of Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page in making certain that both Falstaff and Ford learn that their evil thoughts do not match the reality of Windsor society. The circle of spurious thought cannot end until Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page work together to overthrow both Falstaff‘s overweening pride in himself and his ability to make women jump in bed with him, and Ford‘s jealousy. And, with careful teamwork, they are able to do just that, —I‘ll warrant they‘ll have him publicly sham‘d, and methinks there would be no period to the jest, should he not be publicly sham‘d,“ says Mrs. Ford, to which Mrs. Page replies, —Come, to the forge with it, then shape it. I would not have things cool“ (IV ii 219-224). It is clear by the final act of Merry Wives of Windsor that when women act in community, as do Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page, they form a potent force, ultimately forcing a charivari on Falstaff after first dumping him in a river, having him beaten for a witch, and pinched and burnt for a cuckold. In their alliance, we see Shelley Taylor‘s theory of tending and befriending enacted. According to Taylor, when women find themselves in stressful situations, they first tend and befriend. Fighting back is their secondary rather than their primary response. Taylor argues that as women support one another they strengthen each other. Taylor traces this instinct back to early foraging women, who, when faced with the challenges of raising children on limited food supplies, —relied heavily on ties with other women“ (98). In Windsor society, for the children to grow into a safe and healthy maturity it is the mother‘s honor rather than food that is the precious commodity. In The Merry Wives of Windsor, Shakespeare presents women who strengthen one another in order to preserve this commodity.

IV. In Production

21

A quick tally of plays presented in Shakespeare Survey courses suggests that Merry Wives is one of the least read comedies in the canon.14 Similarly, the play is one of the most infrequently produced in Shakespeare‘s canon. Phyllis Rackin argues that it is modern audiences, beginning with the restoration, who have been most resistant to the seeing a play in which women are shapers of not only domestic order, but also communal order. Rackin also compares the production history of Merry Wives with the production history of The Taming of the Shrew and finds that while Shrew, the most misogynistic of Shakespeare‘s plays, was largely unpopular during the English Renaissance (with only three recorded references to the play through 1649) (Rackin 52), Merry Wives was wildly popular (64). In fact, so unpopular was Shrew‘s —argument“ that a response, The Tamer Tamed, though only slightly less misogynistic, was written two days after the play was first performed again in 1633. Modern reception of Shrew is quite the opposite. The RSC has performed Shrew twice as often as Merry Wives between 1979 and 1993; there has been a musical version and several Broadway spin-offs of Shrew (Rackin 51). On the other hand, with the exception of the opera by Otto Nicolai in 1849 of the same name, and Verdi‘s Falstaff (1893), there are no spin-offs of note for Merry Wives. Rackin finds the popularity of The Taming of the Shrew during our own time rather alarming, but also ironic given the fact that one of the pervasive arguments of New Historicist and Marxist feminist criticism of the Renaissance is that women were by and large oppressed. What Rackin suggests is that we should, perhaps, examine what is going on in our own popular psyche that would make Shakespeare‘s most misogynistic play one of the most often produced in the modern era and the least often produced during his own era. In order to appropriate the play for the current stage it may prove useful to consider what Merry Wives has to say to modern audiences. The Merry Wives of Windsor presents characters who uphold the value that —wives may be merry and yet honest, too“ (IV ii 105) discrediting the fabliaux tradition in which merry wives were by and large also unchaste wives. In traditional fabliau, women were divided into two camps: the merry whore and the chaste wife. Wives with flamboyant personalities, that is women who were outgoing and sociable, were the adulteresses, and could be recognized as adulteresses simply by an analysis of their personalities. In contrast was the chaste wife, the woman who was quiet, introspective and never called attention to herself in public by being boisterous and outgoing. This woman was trustworthy. Shakespeare turns this stereotype upside down. As Richard Helgerson argues, Shakespeare‘s plot both —invokes and inverts the traditions of fabliau and novella“ (238). Ironically, the 1982 San Francisco Bay Shakespeare Company production purports to be —authentic“ and yet opens with a pantomime of Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page committing adultery. This production is an example of how the play has been misrepresented perhaps through careless dramaturgy and an audience largely unfamiliar with the script. The advertisement for the production says that it is —staged as it would have been in the 16th century.“ However, the actual staging, minus the costuming, seems to more a

14 In an informal internet investigation on August 12, 2008, I pulled up the first ten university level Shakespeare survey courses, each with a syllabus, that were listed in my Google search, —Shakespeare Survey Course.“ Out of the ten, four were using The Taming of the Shrew as one of their texts; not one was using Merry Wives.

22 presentation of the cultural values of the 20th century, as Rackin suggests, and less about what might have actually happened on Shakespeare‘s stage. The opening sequence of the production presents a gross misreading of the script in other ways as well. 15 The production presents Mr. Ford as its central protagonist whose worst fears are realized– his wife can‘t be merry and honest as is proven in the added opening pantomime. The production also undercuts the friendship between Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page showing it as nothing more than a farce, closer to the —sisterhood“ of Lear‘s Regan and Gonreil, in which they vie for the same man, and, in which the duped husbands continue being duped. The more widely accepted reading of the play is, as Anne Barton suggests, that the play is an illustration of the truth of the —The Garter motto, ”evil be to him who thinks evil‘“ (321). Certainly, Mr. Ford thinks evil of his wife and Mrs. Page whom he accuses of being adulteresses, —Good plots they are laid and our revolted wives share damnation together“ (III ii 36-37). Barton places Mr. Ford in a long line of foolish men in the fabliaux tradition who make themselves even more foolish by accusing their chaste wives of adultery (320). The San Francisco Bay production buys into the fabliaux tradition as the meaning of the play, completely missing Shakespeare‘s undermining of the tradition by presenting wives both chaste and merry. The production is, then, authentic, but authentic fabliaux not authentic Shakespeare. There are several modern productions that highlight the bond between the women. The RSC‘s 1987 production, directed by Bill Alexander, seems much closer to the rhetoric of the script than the San Francisco Bay production. Here, the bond between the women is cemented through psychophysical action in Act II scene I as well. The women sit in a beauty shop discussing the letter each has received from Falstaff. They bridge the manicure tables separating them, reaching over to touch one another, punctuation marks for their mutual mirth over the letters Falstaff has sent them. Similarly, in the 1955 Shakespeare Memorial Theatre production, directed by Glen Byam Shaw, the women stand so close to one another that they appear to be Siamese twins as they take turns reading aloud from the letters. It is obvious from this scene that there are no secrets between the two women, that whatever they receive they share. Their relationship as presented in these productions seems in keeping with both Shakespeare‘s rhetoric and the findings of Shelley Taylor regarding female friendship. Throughout life, women seek more close friends than men do. Beginning in early childhood, girls develop more intimate friendships than boys do and create larger social networks for themselves. Groups of women share more secrets, disclose more details about their lives, and express more empathy and affection for one another than do members of men‘s groups. They sit closer together and touch one another more than men in groups do. Women confide their problems to one another, seeking help and understanding. Men do so much more rarely. (91) For some men, this closeness is a threat. For Mr. Ford the threat is palpable, but outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior for men within the social confines of the play. His commentary on the friendship of his wife and Mrs. Page is this: —I think if your husbands

15 This production has the same misread feel as the 19th century productions of Romeo and Juliet in which the lovers live happily ever after have. While we see in these 19th century restructurings Shakespeare as the supposed author of some —well-made“ plays, what can we make of this production of The Merry Wives?

23 were dead, you two would marry“ (III ii 13-15), in response to which Mrs. Page quips, —Be sure of that–to other husbands“ (III ii 16).

V. Some History

How unusual was this close bonding of women in the Renaissance? According to historian Olwen Hufton, young women of the working classes began work outside the home at puberty, working to save enough money for a dowry. Middle class women were often sent off to school, or were sent to a local grammar school (17). Roger Chartier argues that friendships made while working, at school or merely by chance could —rival familial and marital commitments“ (401). While it was a woman‘s responsibility to serve those who shared her hearth and home, to feed them raise them, attend them in sickness and even in death (Castan 407), it was equally important to join with other women in fulfilling these duties. —Women went to the washhouse, the fountain, the oven, the mill. They often traveled in groups of two or three and stayed for hours chatting with their neighbors“ (413). Indeed, according to Castan, —doorways, streets, and even public squares were taken over by women… who were said to gather in some cities in ”little platoons‘ sorting herbs and feeding their children“ (414). The women did not simply gather together to complete physical tasks, they gathered together to sort out difficult emotional issues. —When a mother is informed of the death of her son, rather than take refuge in the bosom of the family, she rushes in to the street and collapses in tears in the arms of a neighbor“ (414). The 17th century friendship of Manon Philipon and Sophie Cannet survived school, marriage, child rearing and old age. —For years they exchanged confidences, plotted together, and maintained an active correspondence–so active that it interfered with family life and disturbed their husbands“ (416). Thus, Mr. Ford is not alone in his fear that his wife and her best friend prefer one another to their husbands. The bonds of friendship, however, were not insular. In fact, in Renaissance England Women were important instruments of social control…they exercised their prerogative as guardians of the home and family morality. By disclosing private scandals, they aroused public opinion. They broke the law of silence that normally applied to domestic affairs, but only when the offense was grave. By revealing what they knew, they brought justice to their ever changing domain. (418) After dumping Falstaff in the River Thames, and having him beaten as a witch, Mrs. Page suggests that —The spirit of wantonness is sure scar‘d out of him“ (IV ii 209). However, Mrs. Ford poses a further question, —what think you? May we, with the warrant of womanhood and the witness of good conscience pursue him with any further revenge?“ (IV ii 206-208). After having provided Falstaff with a private punishment, they decide to take the matter to a far more public censure. The charivari was generally associated with weddings, especially those of which the community disapproved, whether because one of the partners was stranger to the town, much older than the partner, a known adulterer, or worse. Regardless of its specific purpose, the charivari was the town‘s way of maintaining social control. According to historian Daniel Fabre, by 1640 French and English authorities —prohibited not only matrimonial charivaris, but all nocturnal assemblies, disreputable

24 songs“ and —indecent actions“ (540) associated with a variety of rites of passage. What exactly was the charivari, and when did women become involved? The charivari, in whatever form it was held, registered a protest against some indignity about which local people were in agreement….The ritual merely manifested what everyone already knew: implicit, discreet knowledge was transformed into spectacle, not in order to change the course of events, but simply to take public note of the individual‘s reputation. (540) However, not all flirtatious girls, henpecked husbands, remarriages, or adulterers elicited a punitive ceremony. Judgment was merited only in cases where a variety of grievances had accumulated against an individual and his or her family. (541) Fabre argues that it was unusual for a woman to take part in these noisy rituals, usually leaving the dirty work of dressing the cuckold up in deer antlers, smearing honey on the woman to attract insects, parading the couple around town to the sound of raucous songs, chants and loud rhythmic accompaniment to the young boys or men of the town. However, the very rarity of a woman becoming involved in the censure makes their doing so even more significant (545). Women who enjoyed economic and cultural autonomy were able to assume full charge in the rituals (545) rather than —merely designating victims and bringing charges“ (545). Whether defending a pregnant girl or chastising another woman‘s debauch, they behave as though by defending the honor of all women they were giving proof of their own integrity. The ritual not only denounces the morality of some scandalous act but at the same time upholds the morality of the participating women. The values judgments involved were so unanimous that a pastor from Mezieres though in principle hostile to demonstrations of this kind, wrote the court that he was in favor of charivaris conducted by women. (546) The final ceremony of the Merry Wives of Windsor has all the elements of the traditional charivari: public censure, music, insult, jeers and actual bodily pain of the accused. And more to the point, it is instigated and carried out by women: Mrs. Page, Mrs. Ford, Mrs. Quickly and the young girls and boys of the village. Anne Barton calls it the dramatization of —the triumph of community“ (322). And, she argues, the community censures those who would question this —pair of wives who may be merry but are also fiercely chaste“ (322).

VI. The Effect of the Female Alliance on other Characters

In Shakespeare‘s opus, this may be the play that argues the most strongly for both female and communal centered values. Unlike the tragedies in which women, such as Othello‘s Desdemona, are harmed because of their friends, Mrs. Ford has a strong female friend whose support saves her from being shamed, and in fact, enables her to shame the husband who has mistakenly attempted to shame her. Shakespeare repeats this plot twist in Much Ado about Nothing. Beatrice, ever loyal to Hero, makes certain that the shame Claudio attempts to place upon Hero is returned in equal measure

25 to Claudio. The strong and loyal female friends in Shakespeare‘s comedies are focused on upholding the honor of their female friends. Falstaff and Mistress Quickly appear in Henry IV parts 1 and 2 and Merry Wives. Falstaff, however, loses power in the female-centered environment of Merry Wives. Russ Macdonald quotes A.C. Bradly in suggesting that this Falstaff seems to be a mere shadow of the Falstaff we know from the Henry plays; —To picture the real Falstaff befooled like the Falstaff of Merry Wives is like imagining Iago the gull of Roderigo“ (Bradly qtd in McDonald xxx). But, there it is; a much weakened Falstaff, a condition, I would argue, brought on by a solid female alliance. In contrast to Falstaff, Mistress Quickly is —empowered by her membership in the social network of the Windsor community“ (Rackin 68) and is able to effect change. This contrasts with the Mistress Quickly of Henry IV Part II. In the Henry plays, her bond with Doll Tearsheet is obvious and strong. What is markedly different from her character in Merry Wives is that in the Henry plays, she is largely powerless in changing the destiny of her friend. Doll goes to prison in spite of Mistress Quickly‘s support and goodwill, while in Merry Wives she is largely responsible for the marriage that occurs at the conclusion of the play, orchestrating events so that her friend Anne is able to marry the suitor of Anne‘s choice. The social order in this community which Barton argues is a —special picture of ordinary, middle-class life in a small country town“ (320), consists of husbands, wives, daughters and friends all brought together by a female alliance. The other action in the play, besides Falstaff‘s attempt to woo Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page is that of Fenton trying to woo Ann Page. And this action, too, resonates with necessary female alliances, in this case a most unlikely one: Mistress Quickly and Anne Page. While Mrs. Page wants Anne to marry Dr. Caius, because not only is he wealthy, but he is also well-connected at court, —The doctor is well money‘d, and his friends potent at court,“ (IV iv 88-89); Mr. Page wants her to marry Slender because he is wealthy. However, Anne wants to marry neither of the men that her parents have picked for her. She says Slender is a fool, and that she would rather be a turnip in a turnip patch than marry Caius, — I had rather be set quick I‘ the earth, and bowl‘d to death with turnips!“ (III iv 87). But, Anne is no fool. She is not one to rush headlong into love without first, like her mother, checking out the situation thoroughly. In act three scene four, Anne wishes to make certain that Fenton is marrying her for love and not money. Fenton explains to her that her father, Mr. Page, will not let her marry Fenton because Fenton has squandered his own fortune, and is only after Anne because of her inheritance. As Mr. Page tells Mr. Ford, —The gentleman is of no having. If he take her, let him take her simply/ the wealth I have waits on my consent, and my consent goes not that way“ (III ii 75-77). Thus, to marry Anne means marrying her without her fortune. Anne wonders if Fenton will still have her without money; everyone is saying that is all he wants: —May be he tells you true“ (Iii iv 11). However, in sweetly simple terms, Fenton tells Anne, —Albeit I will confess thy father‘s wealth was the first motive that I woo‘d thee, Anne; Yet wooing thee, I found thee of more value/Than stamps in gold, or sums in sealed bags, and tis the very riches of thyself/That now I aim at“ (III iv 13-15). This community values women and the love of women for who they are rather than what they have. Ultimately, Anne and Fenton marry, because of Mistress Quickly, and the community rejoices. In response to their marriage, Ford says, —In love, the heavens themselves do guide the state; Money buys land, and wives are sold by fate“

26 (V v 232-34). Page replies with arguable the most uplifting words of the play, —Well, what remedy? Fenton, heaven give thee joy! What cannot be eschew‘d must be embrac‘d“ (237). And, what is embraced is a community purged of its illnesses and healed by an alliance of women.

27

CHAPTER 2 Much Ado about Nothing —Come Thus to Light“ (IV i 111)

What audiences remember best after seeing Much Ado About Nothing is the witty verbal sparring between Beatrice and Benedick. In many ways, this is a fair assessment of the stage action; Benedick does have the majority of lines in the play (432). However, it is a bit surprising to realize that the actual number of lines spoken by Beatrice is a mere 270 while Leonato has 328, Don Pedro, 313, and Claudio, 286. What, then, do the two marriages that constitute the play‘s comic resolution tell us about the significance of female alliances?

I. Synopsis

The play has two major plot lines. The first has to do with the wooing and subsequent rebuking of Hero by Claudio, the second with the communal matchmaking of Beatrice and Benedick.16 It is the friendship between Hero and Beatrice that cuts across these plot lines. Beatrice and Hero greet Benedick and Claudius, home from war. Benedick and Beatrice exchange insults, Claudius and Hero plan to marry. Don John, jealous of his brother Don Pedro and his friends, plans to destroy the marriage before it starts by making Claudius believe Hero unfaithful; he is successful. At the wedding, Claudius tells all assembled Hero is a whore not worth marrying. Beatrice defends her friend‘s honor as does the Friar. Beatrice pledges her love to Benedick when he swears to kill Claudio for destroying Hero‘s honor. Before that becomes necessary, Hero is vindicated by the town constable, and the play ends in a dance prior to the weddings of Beatrice and Benedick, and Claudio and Hero.

II. Critical Overview

Throughout the play‘s critical history, the dual plot lines have made analysis somewhat complicated. On which of the plot lines should the critic focus his/her attention? Each seems to present a completely different version of male/female relations. In her introduction to the 2006 Arden Shakespeare Much Ado About Nothing, Claire McEachern summarizes two hundred years of Much Ado criticism. Her analysis is this: what preoccupied most nineteenth and twentieth century critics in their response to the

16 Just for fun, I have my Intro to Shakespeare students make predictions about the outcome of the love matches in Shakespeare‘s comedies. Students tell me that Beatrice and Benedick will survive because they communicate freely,even though their communication is sometimes fighting. They point out the similarities between the Beatrice and Benedick couple and the Rosalind/Orlando couple. They see these couples as —bound for success,“ and the Hero/Claudio, Celia/Oliver couples —doomed for failure.“ The students say that because there are friends involved in getting and keeping the first two couples together, the friends will also help them stay together.

28 play was twofold: first, —the play‘s violation of comic decorum,“ (119) with its awkward marriage scene between Hero, the accused, and Claudio, her accuser. Uncomfortable with focusing attention on this violation of decorum, critics turned their attention to the much more interesting Beatrice and Benedick plot. While the Beatrice and Benedick plot held center stage for the critics, it was upon the morality and realism of the characters, primarily Beatrice and Benedick (119-122) that the critics focused their lenses. The Hero/Claudio plot line took a back seat. It is only in more recent criticism, including Feminist and New Historicist readings, that the Hero/Claudio plot has been more carefully examined. According to McEachern, the Hero/Claudio plot contains much richer materials through which to discuss —the recent attentions to power structures“ (125). However, the response by critics interested in examining the oppression inherent in hegemonic structure has been varied because of the dual plot in which —the play‘s portrait of patriarchy outrages and encourages in equal measure“ (125). The portrait of patriarchy that outrages is that presented by the first plotline; the portrait that encourages is contained in the second. The problem with reducing the play to an example of patriarchal oppression lies in the necessity of then ignoring the second plotline, or at least doing some sophisticated mental gymnastics to reappropriate it. In this criticism, Beatrice and Benedick have returned to their ornamental status, perhaps because they are harder to assimilate to a grim view of power‘s deforming effects upon personhood, and the figure of Beatrice challenges rigid notions of patriarchy‘s comprehensive or coercive force. (125) An example of such criticism would be Gail Sterns Paster‘s 2006 essay —A Modern Reading“ which focuses on the oppressive patriarchy visible in Much Ado, emblemized by Don Pedro who, she argues, single-handedly orchestrates all of the weddings in the play. Benedick and Beatrice marry because Don Pedro deems it so, not because they are in love. The resistance of Beatrice and Benedick to traditional love is not a reflection of their personalities, but a reflection of the cultural misogyny that makes marriage odious to men and women (Paster 213-230). However, as McEachern suggests, the play is full of contradictions; in plot structure, in character presentation, in its presentation of love, friendship, kinship and marriage. She quotes from the more inclusive critical perspective found in Barbara Everett‘s 1994 essay, —Much Ado About Nothing: The Unsociable Comedy,“ as one possible way of reading all of these contradictions, —Shakespeare …generates a novelistic sense of the real, of a world where people live together to a degree that is socially and psychologically convincing, …by embracing contradictions everywhere“ (qtd in McHeachern 124). I believe that Shakespeare did embrace the contradictions he saw in every day life in the people he knew, in the life he lived, and placed them unapologetically on his stage. Much Ado About Nothing suggests that one way of smoothing those contradictions was through the power of friendship, especially the power of the close female alliance represented by Beatrice and Hero. While modern critics tend to overlook this relationship, modern directors don‘t. Kenneth Branaugh‘s Much Ado About Nothing is just one example of the visual rendering of the necessity of a trustworthy community of friends, especially among females, in creating healthy love relationships that Shakespeare presents in his text.

29 III. Textual Suggestions

In a marriage arranged by friends, David Weinlick and Elizabeth Runze became man and wife on June 13, 1998 in the Mall of America in Bloomington, Indiana. The wedding drew 2000 spectators and worldwide media attention. In this new twist on an old theme--arranged marriage–Weinlick determined that his friends were better able to choose a spouse for him than he was for himself. Ten years later, the couple, who met the same day they wed, are still happily married with three young children. According to Elizabeth Weinlick, —although it's nice to have fireworks, a relationship needs something more substantive to survive“ (Santaniello). The something more substantive in this case might be the wisdom of good friends. In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare‘s text presents a similar argument for the substantive value of a community of friends in arranging marriages such as Beatrice and Benedick‘s. The text also presents us with the tragic consequences of a marriage engineered by an individual in the pairing of Hero and Claudio, whose marriage seems primarily motivated by a financial alliance. Friends of Beatrice and Benedick see a marriage between the two as a good thing. They spend much of the play working to that end. Beatrice and Benedick prove malleable in spite of their words that would indicate otherwise. They seem pleased to be, united not so much through their own efforts as those of the society around them. The revelation here is that marriage is a communal affair, thus the decision about who is to marry whom is a communal decision. That is, in fact, a value shared by the Elizabethans who saw marriage as exactly that, a way of solidifying family relationships, and increasing the wealth among families (Macfarlane 165). Christopher Lasch argues that the very convention of gendered love arguments springs from the cynicism with which marriage was viewed by the middle Renaissance.17 He argues that in Shrew, Shakespeare —made the art of sexual insult elevated to a new height of verbal refinement, bear the whole weight of the dramatic action“ of the play (19). Much Ado can be seen as a play that makes a metamorphosis of this convention. It is up to Beatrice and Benedict, through the help of their community of friends, to unravel the fabric of insult and replace it with romantic love.

IV. From Text to Film

Branagh‘s Much Ado brings the textual suggestions about friendship and female alliances to life as he stages the necessity of healthy community relationships. In this film, the friends are consistently blocked in groups; they tend to radiate from these groups out, but then always back in. Branagh‘s film highlights Shakespeare‘s presentation of the discernment available through maintaining close communal ties with trustworthy friends, and the danger inherent in breaking those ties. The play also suggests the value in a husband‘s support of his wife‘s friends, and Branagh capitalizes on this theme through his careful blocking of the climactic scene between Beatrice and Benedick in which Beatrice demands his support for Hero.

17 He cites Beaumont and Fletcher‘s The Woman‘s Prized or the Tamer Tamed (1611), The Scornful Lady (1613), The Wild Goose Chase ((1621) and Rule a Wife Have a Wife (1624) as examples.

30 While the text presents women who maintain solid communal ties throughout, the men vary in their communal ties. Those most enmeshed in community, for example Benedick and the Friar, exercise the most wisdom when faced with moral dilemmas. Men who stand outside the community whether by choice or vice lose their perspective and with it their discernment in reading people, as evidenced by Don Pedro, or their morality, as evidenced by Don John. Shakespeare‘s script opens with a messenger fresh from a nameless battle front announcing that the battle has been won with no loss of lives and that Claudio has fought valiantly. In response to Beatrice‘s questioning, he admits that Benedick remains cheerful and has fought well. This is our first introduction to Benedick. The messenger presents him as well-liked, a man among men, a good friend and solid soldier. Upon hearing him praised, Beatrice begins her first in a series of good-natured verbal assaults on Benedick, as if she is warming up for his actually being present. She introduces a major theme of the play when she questions the nature of Benedick‘s friendships, —Who is his companion now?“ she asks, —He hath every month a new sworn brother“ (I i 66-67). She accuses him of being a fickle friend moving from one to another as the winds move him. This, her first solid complaint against Benedick, highlights the importance of friendship for the play‘s female characters. In the text, also, while Leonato welcomes Don John, the bastard brother of Don Pedro, he makes it clear that he is welcome only because of his loyalty to Don Pedro, —Let me welcome you, my Lord, being reconciled to the prince your brother, I owe you all duty“ (I i 147-48). With this comment, Leonato introduces a second important motif in the text: friend ties are more trustworthy than kin ties. The intimate camera of Kenneth Branagh‘s production prepares the audience for revelations in the first scene pertinent to its understanding of the communal nature of the characters‘ relationships. While the camera‘s eye invites us to recognize the centrality of community, Shakespeare‘s script sets up dramatic tension in the opening scene by presenting the clever, honest and forthright Beatrice‘s obsession with Benedick, a tension that affects us as witnesses to this community. She admits that once infected with him, he is hard to get rid of. We want to know why she is so obsessed. A few lines later, Benedick is presented as swearing off all women until he is 60. He is so insistent upon this that we as his audience understand that, in fact, he is a character ripe for love, since he protests too much. Further Shakespeare‘s text and the camera‘s eye invite us in to see Leonato‘s foolishness when he buys into Beatrice‘s disdain for Benedick. He misses her obvious obsession with him; she is one of the first to greet the messenger and inquire about a particular person: Benedick. Leonato, however, takes her at face value, a foreshadowing of his later near tragic inability to read the truth about his own daughter. In Branagh‘s movie, it is clear that the most trustworthy relationships are those between women. The male characters tend to fade in and out of negative alliances with alarming frequency. The script opens with a negative alliance between Don Pedro and Don John, brothers who have only recently healed the rift created when Don John attacked Don Pedro. So pronounced is the rift between the brothers that Leonato is hesitant to welcome Don John to his home and only does so after Don Pedro assures him all is well. Soon after we hear that Benedick changes friends easily and often, his alliances apparently fickle and dependent upon his moods. In fact, so fickle is Benedick‘s alliance to Claudio that Beatrice is able to convince him to kill him. Thus the text sets up

31 doubt in alliances between men. The invading soldiers through their negative alliances wreak havoc on the community. The positive alliance that exists between Antonio and Leonato, however, stands in sharp relief to the fickle alliances of the younger men, and is much more similar to the alliances between the women in the play. Benedick and the friar end the play as the only men out of the noblemen who are not duped by other men. The women, in contrast, cling to and protect one another. And, lest we doubt the trustworthiness of any woman in the play, both Shakespeare and Branagh make clear that even the woman most likely responsible for Hero‘s fall, and thus the weakest link in the female alliance, Margaret, has no idea what she has brought about. Margaret‘s midnight rendezvous with Borachio is observed by Don Pedro and Claudio who mistake Margaret for Hero. They believe they have seen Hero cheating on Claudio with Borachio. In Branagh‘s film the camera‘s eye records Margaret‘s face at the end of the wedding scene as Claudio shuns Hero and she realizes what she has done. We see the dawning of recognition on her face when it is clear that it was she, not Hero, whom the men saw kissing Borachio. The moment Margaret realizes they‘ve mistaken her for Hero, she rushes in to clear Hero‘s name. A precursor to Emilia in Othello, Margaret runs forward presumably to try and explain to Claudio that it was she, not Hero, who was with Borachio that night. While for Emilia, it is too late, and Desdemona is already dead, for Margaret, Hero is only feigning death. In stepping forward immediately to attempt to right the wrong, she gives credence to Leonato‘s consistent belief that Margaret was unaware of the deception in which she was involved, — [she] was packed in all this wrong“ ( V ii 299). The irony of course is that he believes in the bawdy Margaret‘s purity of intent, but not his own daughter‘s Branagh opens the movie, and sets the scene for men being untrustworthy, with these words spoken by Beatrice: —Men were deceivers ever, one foot in the sea, and one on the shore, o one thing constant never/the fraud of men was ever so…“ (II ii 62-65). Soon, we learn that it is Benedick she does not trust: Benedick who has, apparently, deceived her and broken her heart. Since Beatrice has been deceived, Benedick must prove himself faithful; perhaps he must make up for having deceived her in the past. Hero watches her with knowing eyes; her look tells us that this may be what Beatrice believes, but she will soon have a change of heart. Indeed, when the messenger comes to announce that Don Pedro and his men will be coming soon, Beatrice‘s first question is how many men has Benedick killed and eaten as though he has —killed and eaten“ her (I i 43-44), and, therefore, —he is a stuffed man.“ But the words Emma Thomson highlights in this opening scene are, —Who is his companion now?“ There is then a clear and drawn out beat between this question and her next comment: —every month he has a new sworn brother“ (71-73). The beat between —now“ and —every month“ lingers and makes the audience think that she is talking of a new woman as companion and not man. It also clarifies her belief in the importance of loyalty in friendship. Her delivery makes it clear to the audience that the question she wants to ask is whether or not he is with a woman. She doesn‘t care about his new found brother. After having established this, the camera seeks to establish the relationship between Beatrice and Hero. As the men arrive on horseback, the excitement and tension build. The members of Leonato‘s household, who have all been enjoying the summer afternoon lounging on a hillside listening to Beatrice read poetry about unfaithful men, bound down the hill to bathe and prepare for the visitors. In the moment of greatest excitement and anticipation,

32 the camera zooms in on Beatrice and Hero as they hold hands and run down the mountain, their friendship certain and supportive and fun. A few minutes later, after they have bathed, they watch the men approaching through a window then turn to one another and exchange a delighted smile. They share one another‘s delight as later they will share one another‘s pain. We are clued in to Beatrice‘s real feelings about Benedick as the camera zooms in on Beatrice. Her face is at first resigned to the coming of Benedick, and then pained, and then there is a large smile on her face as if what she desires most is to see him, the delight of her heart, but she is, at the same time pained by the meeting. Thus, Hero‘s insight into Beatrice‘s heart is confirmed for us. The camera then takes us to Benedick‘s face where we read no such pain. Branagh‘s camera convinces us that Beatrice is the underdog in this battle. With her our loyalties lie. We begin to see something about alliances as well. The text suggests that alliances based merely on —feeling“ are fickle and changeable, not trustworthy. Branagh‘s camera clarifies. In sharp contrast, the moment shared between Claudio and Hero at the very beginning is as sweet as the meeting between Beatrice and Benedick is pained. They share a shy smile that turns into one of delight as they gaze into one another‘s eyes. Beatrice watches this, looks at Benedick and it is clear that she was hoping for such a smile from him. Benedick, however, ignores her, and they begin their first parley, the —good natured“ but painful baiting of one another. From the camera‘s point of view, however, it is Beatrice rather than Benedick who is most pained by the exchanges. We see her face last in the first exchange, and it is wounded. Benedick turns away and moves into firm and fun fellowship with his friends, who later prove themselves to be gullible and foolish, an example of the negative alliances of men set up in the beginning of the play. It is only later that we get some insight into Benedick and his actual feelings for Beatrice, feelings that Hero seems to already know. We first see that Claudio‘s reason is clouded when his first question about Hero is the awkward negation, —is she not a modest young lady?“ (I i 165). It is clear from Benedick‘s response that even when he is asked about Hero, he is perturbed and pained by Beatrice. His immediate response to Claudio‘s question is —there‘s her cousin, and were she not possess‘d with a fury, exceeds her in beauty as the first of May doth the last of December (I i 190-92). Thus, the tone is set for the rest of the play, Claudio needing constant affirmation of his feelings, Benedick struggling to figure Beatrice out, but through his own reason. Feelings are not trustworthy in this play. Benedick and Beatrice must have proof from reliable sources that they are loved; otherwise they are not interested in relationship. Claudio, ever ruled by his feelings which change with each given scene, is led by those same feelings into situations with negative consequences. In this way the text begins undercutting our trust in Claudio. While Shakespeare presents marriage as a commodities exchange for Claudio, Branagh‘s camera reveals an inner life to Don Pedro for whom marriage is also a commodities exchange. While Hero is a good match for him financially, she is spoken for. The camera‘s eye makes it clear that his real interest lies in Beatrice. Beatrice recognizes his interest in her, but makes it easy for him to bow out when she says that while it is true —the stars danced“ when she was born (II i 336), she is still economically too far beneath him to be considered for his wife. Here, Branagh reorganizes the scene a bit to make this point. Branagh then adds another touch: Don Pedro begins appearing with a wine glass as if his lack of love is more than he can bear

33 without the solace of the bottle. The camera then follows him as he attempts to please all of those around him. He creates relationships by affirming for each friend what that friend believes himself to be best at. Don Pedro, by the end of the movie is established as hungry for love and truth, but a little too in love with his wine glass to discern either, thus, while his —heart“ is presented as being in the right place, his lack of discernment causes him to trust negative alliances , i.e. Don John, for information that when acted upon has the potential to ruin lives, which, in fact, it nearly does. However, in this —battle“ between female and male alliances, the female alliance proves to be the stronger. Ironically it is Benedick and the priest, each actively involved in the community of the play, involved in using their —reason“ to think through situations rather than act as the observer who holds himself slightly apart from the community, who end up being the ones able to discern truth. Benedick and the friar prove themselves unable to be duped by Don John. However, this is a journey to discovery for Benedick. Indeed, in the first scene of the play, Benedick —doth protest too much“ as he swears he will —die a bachelor“ (I i 246). Don Pedro, then actively involved in the community, is able to see through Benedick as Hero can see through Beatrice, and swears that what Benedick thinks will happen is not what will, actually happen. He knows Benedick will marry. The advice of trustworthy friends forms the basis for solid marriage alliances, or so the text seems to suggest. In contrast, at the heart of the malevolent evil in the play is Don John, another player who holds himself apart from the community of the play; however, the play can be read as a movement from stasis, with Don Pedro as a part of a vibrant, emotionally healthy community, to chaos, in which he holds himself apart from the community and becomes foolish, and then back to stasis when Don Pedro becomes fully engaged in the community again and gains wisdom. Don John is never a part of a vibrant, emotionally healthy community, signaling in this text that his advice on marriage alliances to be less than trustworthy. He shows the perversion possible in grasping power rather than building a trustworthy community of friends. In contrast, Branagh chooses to present a Conrade who is an unwilling accomplice to Don John‘s evil. He presents him thus so that we can see how low Don John has sunk in cruelty even to his own servants. The scene unfolds in this way: in what seems to be a calm moment, (I iii), Conrade oils and massages Don John. Conrade is speaking soothingly to Don John telling him to keep his anger in check. Without warning, Don John jumps from the table and turns on Conrade who is clearly frightened by this display of anger. Don John proclaims himself a villain and asks his servant not to try and change him. Conrade seems to be surprised by this; he seems to have no concept of Don John‘s evil, though he is to see it soon enough when Don John reveals his plan to bring Claudio down. Conrade is played in sharp contrast to Borachio who appears with a Cyclops mask, possibly an excellent pun on the little known satyr play by Euripides called The Cyclops, a bawdy play with overtones of violent homosexuality. Borachio reveals the plot of Don Pedro to lure Hero, and together they plan to create trouble. We thus see the danger in the —community of villains“ who stand in sharp relief to the community of friends both male and female who surround Beatrice and Benedick. Further, we see the negative consequences for both Don Pedro and Claudio who trust his advice on marriage. When the women of the play remain in the protective confines of their tending and befriending community of women, the result is good for the community at large.

34 However, the opposite is true as well. When Margaret moves outside the protective support of Beatrice and Hero and trusts Borachio, who, as has already been demonstrated, is a member of an unhealthy alliance of friends, the results are nearly disastrous. Margaret‘s brief alliance with Borachio almost costs Hero her honor. While Margaret only makes the mistake once, Claudio makes the mistake of trusting in unhealthy alliances again and again. Like Othello after him, Claudio is easily persuaded of Hero‘s unfaithfulness when the wicked and bitter Borachio and Don John whisper treachery into his ear. What he watches in act two scene one is Don Pedro telling Hero of Claudio‘s‘ love. What he believes he sees is Don Pedro luring Hero. Claudio‘s love is fickle as is his hate. He is a fool and will cause Hero pain. Branagh‘s direction shows us that Hero deserves someone like Don Pedro rather than fickle Claudio. In almost all the camera angles, Claudio is shown smaller than Don Pedro, quite boyish in contrast to Don Pedro‘s manliness. By the middle of the play, Claudio has become Don Pedro‘s cupbearer, hauling his wine glass from place to place for him. However, as our trust in Don Pedro unravels, we see Claudio mirroring him more closely. It will be necessary for Don Pedro to be duped by his brother in the same way Claudio is duped for the audience to accept Claudio‘s error as a human mistake rather than inherent evil. Claudio will have to work hard at the movie‘s conclusion for the audience to accept his suitability for Hero. And, in Branagh‘s next scene, Claudio does just that. In what proves to be a most brilliant staging, Branagh has Claudio symbolically make the journey through hell for Hero reminiscent of the journey Dante makes for Beatrice. In this movie version, to purge himself of the sin of mistrusting Hero, he must travel the road to hell. This symbolic journey to the underworld is dark, lit only by the lanterns. In the dark of the night, Hero watches from a nearby hillside as the lanterns light the dark night, the progress that Claudio must make to right his wrongs. As he humbles himself, and reveals that he is truly sorry; willing to publicly declare his wrong, his villainy and right the wrong, it is only here in his utter humility that we the audience are able to forgive Claudio and thus understand Hero‘s final forgiveness. When the dark night in hell has ended, the sun rises and joy comes in the morning in the form of the marriage of Beatrice and Benedick. It is their story that is at the heart of the community creation of marriage in Much Ado About Nothing. In this play, the signal for a healthy relationship is its ability to reach beyond itself and feel responsible for maintaining the health of the community at large. This is how the text presents both Beatrice and Benedick as individuals and as partners.

V. From Commodity to Community

Don Pedro is the first to recognize and say that Benedick and Beatrice should love. He also recognizes that it will be a community effort in order for them to actually marry. He plans to make them fall in love so that they can have a double wedding with Hero and Claudio. As the community of women friends rally to help Beatrice, and men friends rally to help Benedick, Hero says, — I will do any modest office to help my cousin find a good husband,“ (II i 376), and thus the plan is set into motion. The argument for the value of community support is clear when at that moment Benedick overhears a group of his friends declaring Beatrice‘s love for him; he begins to

35 see her in an entirely different light. Her words, which previously he was certain were meant to harm, are now read by him as meant for good. —Ha,“ he says, of his newfound discovery that Beatrice loves him, and proceeds to completely misread her words, but for the good, —Against my will I am sent to bid you come in to dinner–there‘s a double meaning in that…If I do not love her, I am a Jew…I will go and get her picture“( II iii 253-262). Beatrice responds in the same way. After overhearing a group of her trusted friends declare Benedick‘s love for her, she declares, —Contempt farewell, and maiden pride adieu! Benedick, love on I will requite thee!“ (III i 110-115). Here, Shakespeare suggests that a healthy alliance means that the community of friends actively seeks good in order to counteract evil. Indeed, Claudio is subject to the negation of this dynamic. Active evil, in the form of Don John, whispers in Claudio‘s ear that Hero is not what she seems. It has already been made clear to Claudio that Don John lied the first time about Hero, that in fact, Don Pedro was doing exactly what he had promised: wooing Hero for Claudio. Why does Claudio believe him this second time? Why is he so willing to accept information from what had already proven to be an unworthy source? Perhaps a more interesting question is this: Why does Don John not include Benedick to join Don Pedro and Claudio in watching —Hero“ have sex with Borachio? The answer lies in the theme that is redundant in Shakespeare: choose your friends carefully. Don John knows Benedick to be no fool. However, he wagers both Don Pedro and Claudio are, in fact, fools, naïve enough to be duped twice by the same villain. In one of the most often misquoted lines in Shakespeare we read, —friendship is constant in all things Save for in the office and affairs of love“ (II i 175). It is a confused Claudio who utters these lines; he has been duped by Don John into not trusting Don Pedro. When he utters these lines, his friend, Don Pedro, is actively pursuing Hero for Claudio. Indeed, the rhetoric of the play suggests the very opposite: it is necessary to trust friendship in the office and affairs of love. Accordingly, your friends want what is best for you, and you especially need them in the murky, cloudy waters of love. What the play sets forth is this: your trustworthy friends want what is best for you. Friends who prove themselves to be unfaithful once will continue to be unfaithful18. As many Renaissance historians have argued, for some women in the Renaissance, close friends were more valued than husbands (Stone, Macfarlane, and Aries). In Hero, Beatrice has a friend who sees beneath her own desire to protect herself from emotional pain. Hero is able to see the truth beneath Beatrice‘s barbed words. Beatrice so values this friendship that she can only marry Benedick when he puts his life on the line by protecting Hero. To love and protect her friend is powerful magic for Benedick; powerful enough to win him Beatrice‘s love, and her hand in marriage. Gerda Lerner in The Creation of Feminist Consciousness calls groups of Renaissance women who worked together for their common good, intellectually, emotionally and or physically, —affinitive clusters“ (227), which she describes as —supportive networks of female friends“ (226). Indeed, Shakespeare himself would have been familiar with these affinitive clusters of women who gathered to discuss arts and literature, —and also provided a space for women to interact and support the work of other women“ (234). According to Lerner,

36 In England, the earliest known salon is that held in the 16th century by Mary Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, sister of Sir Philip Sidney, where poets such as Spencer, Shakespeare and John Donne mingled with learned women, aristocrats and artists. (234) It is no surprise that Shakespeare frequently places groups of women together in his plays for mutual support. He is at ease with bright, witty women who approach life both intellectually and in community with other women. He is also quite familiar with women who rely on one another for good choices in marriage. These —bluestocking women“19 according to Lerner, protected one another. The life of the intellectual community was dependent upon each member continuing in the community. It was important for the prospective husband to be supportive of the community itself in order for the wife to be able to continue her membership. It was important to continue the intellectual freedom, and thus, certainly, they were careful to help orchestrate —good“ marriages. The text presents a Hero sorely in need of protection, and a Beatrice willing to do what she can to protect her. In choosing Italy as the setting for the play, we might assume that Shakespeare was aware of the ancient laws that continued to be debated regarding adultery of both married and unmarried women. According to Eve Cantarella in —Homicides of Honor,“ —the lex Julia de adulteries“ (229) was a law which remained in effect in Italy with minor revisions until well after the French Revolution, which —established that an illicit sexual relationship was an offense open to public trial at the request of any male citizen and punishable by exile to an island for both members of the adulterous couple and by the payment of fines levied from their patrimonial wealth“ (229). By the 15th century, the law had been revised and rewritten so that adultery could be punished by the father of the adulteress. The father could, in a fit of rage, kill both his daughter and her partner and not be found guilty (231). The right did not extend to the husband, the belief being that —it is granted to the father and not to the husband to kill the woman and any adulterer because most often a father‘s sense of affectionate duty takes counsel for his children; on the other hand, the heat and violent impulse of a husband readily making a judgment was to be restrained“ (233). The law was complicated, and dealt with both married and unmarried daughters, but the intent was clear: if it was necessary to kill the daughter in order to preserve the family honor, the daughter could be killed. Thus, it is not just a good friend wishing to preserve her friend‘s honor that makes Beatrice feel the necessity to protect Hero. Beatrice is protecting Hero‘s very life. Similarly, there is between Beatrice and Benedick a mutual need. Benedick needs Beatrice‘s love, Beatrice needs Benedick‘s love, but more than anything she needs his protection, as she herself reveals, —Oh that I were a man!“ (IV i 306). All of this, then, lends the play a vitality that modern audiences may miss, but one of which the best actors are quite aware. Each line they utter as the play reaches its climax and draws to its conclusion has, as RSC director Dominic Cooke says of the play, —the power to change lives.“ In Shakespeare‘s script, the friendship between Hero and Beatrice is obvious from the opening lines of the play. Beatrice asks who has come home from the war when all she is really interested in is Benedick. However, this mistress of language is unable to

19 While the OED cites the first usage of the term as 1643 having to do with Parliament, and the term is most commonly used for the much later group of 18th century women, Lerner uses the term to describe these women, contemporaries of Shakespeare.

37 form the sentence that actually asks specifically for Benedick, so Hero must speak for her, —My cousin means Signior Benedick of Padua“ (I i 35-36). These words signal the mutual understanding between these friends. Hero understands and protects Beatrice‘s heart‘s desires, just as Beatrice understands and protects Hero. However, the rhetoric of the play is clear: in the marriage market, there are two sorts of marriage. One is a commodities exchange, and one is the combining of kindred spirits. This is clearly demonstrated in Romeo and Juliet; much of the tension of the play lies in the fact that while Juliet‘s parents see marriage as a commodities exchange with Juliet being the commodity to exchange, Romeo and Juliet fight for the second: the combining of kindred spirits. In Much Ado, the commodities market exchange is between Claudio and Hero. Indeed, in this conversation between Claudio and Benedick, the nature of the exchange is clear: Benedick: Would you buy her that you inquire after her? Claudio: Can the world buy such a jewel? Benedick: Yea and a case to put it into. (I i 179-181) A few lines later, to be certain that she is, indeed, a valuable jewel, Claudio evaluates exactly how much Hero is worth: Claudio: Hath Leonato any son? Don Pedro: No child but Hero, she‘s his only heir. (I i 292-293) Claudio does think things through, and realizes how he sounds. He quickly explains to Don Pedro, to make him understand that this is not simply a commodities exchange, Oh my Lord, when you went onward on this ended action, I look‘d upon her with a soldier‘s eye, that lik‘d, but had a rougher task in hand Than to drive liking to the name of Love. But now I am return‘d, and that war-thoughts Have left their places vacant, in their rooms come thronging soft and delicate desires, All prompting me how fair young Hero is, Saying I liked her ere I went to wars. (I i 296-305) Claudio clarifies his position: he desires her sexually and financially. This satisfies Don Pedro who agrees to help —close the deal“ as quickly as possible serving as the negotiator between Claudio and Leonato, Hero‘s father. Don Pedro understands the commodities exchange to come is going to be costly to Leonato, and he says to him at the beginning of the scene, before Claudio has revealed himself that, —The fashion of the world is to avoid cost, and you encounter it“ (I i 97-98). The exchange is similar to the one between Hortensio and Petruchio over Kate in The Taming of the Shrew, which Shakespeare penned just four years earlier. While Kate‘s shrewishness is more similar to the barbed tongue of Beatrice, the commodities market exchange in her case is much more similar in style to the exchange for Hero: Hortensio: and yet I‘ll promise thee she shall be rich Petruchio: I come to wive it wealthily in Padua, if wealthily then happily in Padua (I ii 80-83) And, similar to Claudio‘s alarming admission that his first consideration of Hero was —with a rougher task in hand,“ Petruchio says of Kate, —I will board her though she chides as loud as thunder (I ii 95). Like Kate, Hero is tamed, though before the play ever begins;

38 and like Henry V‘s Katherine, Hero will bow to the will of her father. Hero is, as Leonato makes clear early in the play, goods that can be bargained for. She is a commodity. But, by placing her in the underdog role, Shakespeare forces his audience to rethink the commodity. This commodity has feelings, and is wronged. This commodity does everything she is supposed to do, according to Elizabethan parental codes (Macfarlane 119-147), but unlike her cousin Beatrice who seems to be entering into a companionate marriage, Hero is duped, humiliated, and treated like a bag of spoiled fruit. From the early lines of the play, Hero represents the ideal daughter; ironically it is the ideal daughter who is most abused. In sharp contrast, even Don Pedro recognizes Beatrice‘s lack of respect for authority when he declares that she —father herself“ (I i 109), and in a searing monologue Beatrice herself rebukes a father‘s right to tell her what to do, Yes, by my faith, it is my cousin‘s duty to make cur‘sy and say, —Father, as it please you,“ But, yet for all that, cousin, let him be a handsome fellow, or else make another cur‘sy and say, —Father, as it please me.“ (II i 51-55) Still, it is Beatrice who ends up with her heart‘s desire. Hero, who does exactly what is wished of her, ends up metaphorically dying and being reborn to marry a fool. She wakes up to the same world she fell asleep to. Her marriage is still a commodities exchange; —And since you could not be my son in law, /Be yet my nephew. My brother has a daughter/Almost the copy of my child that‘s dead/And she alone is heir to both of us“ (V i 273). It is not enough that Claudio be promised a woman who is a —copy“ of Hero, she must also be the heir to Leonato‘s and Antonio‘s estate. If, as both Stephen Greenblat and Catherine Belsey argue, popular plays like those of Shakespeare are a reflection of the shared values, unfulfilled fantasies, and deep desires of the people for which they are written, what are the shared values, unfulfilled fantasies and deep desires embodied in the rhetoric of this play? In sharp contrast to this market exchange is the courtship of Benedick and Beatrice. While their sharp exchanges are reminiscent of Petruchio and Kate, the similarities end there. Beatrice seems to be the ward of Leonato. As such, he will provide her with a small dowry, but nothing compared to that of Hero. Thus, when Benedick chooses Beatrice, in contrast to Claudio‘s choice of Hero, and Petruchio‘s for Kate, he is choosing for something other than money, which the rhetoric of the play strongly supports.20 Like Henry V‘s Katherine, marriage is the only avenue open to Beatrice. While Hero‘s marriage plan is consolidated early in the play, Beatrice is left in the frightening unknown. In an unguarded moment, after learning of Hero‘s successful engagement, she says, —Good Lord, for alliance! / There goes everyone to the world but I, and I am sunburnt./ I may sit in a corner and cry ”Heigh-ho for a husband!‘“ (II i 278œ280). Thus, as her mother/friend, Hero sets out to make certain that Beatrice is safely married. Benedick is a good match for Beatrice, as the entire community seems to agree. The marriage would never have taken place without the community of women smoothing the way for Beatrice.

20 Beatrice protects those who need protection. And, Beatrice is unwaveringly brilliant of speech, as was Elizabeth who is said to have extemporaneously blasted a Polish ambassador in Latin for his poor manners, and his unseemly speech (Weir 443).

39 Indeed, in the office of love, friendship acts as Beatrice does for Hero. In Branagh‘s version, in the high passion of the wedding when Claudio accuses Hero of perfidy and literally throws her to the ground, it is Beatrice who comes up fighting, warding Claudio off with one hand and protecting Hero with her arm. And, in this heated moment, it is only Beatrice and Ursula, her serving woman, who protect her. And, later in the scene, it is only due to the bidding of Beatrice that Benedick attempts to clear Hero‘s name, and is willing to challenge Claudio to a sword fight in order to defend her honor. The wise friar, however, understands that they must be quiet and he calls for discernment in sifting through the muddled, horrifying events of the wedding. Immediately after the friar speaks, it is the wisdom of Benedick that clarifies where the blame should lie: it is her father who fears more for his own honor than her feelings, but this valuing of honor over truth must first be proved. It is necessary in this scene that a man speak reason to Leonato, who rants on about his lost honor and his shame and the daughter who has besmirched his name. Benedick loses patience with him and says, —Sir, sir be patient“ ( IV i 143). He is the only one with the courage to speak and thus end Leonato‘s tirade. In the climactic moment in the movie, however, Beatrice is angrily demanding that Benedick murder Claudio. When he refuses, he holds her. The camera‘s eye tells us that Benedick is prepared to do for Beatrice whatever needs doing, but Beatrice cannot fathom the depth of his love. For Beatrice, the only vindication for Hero is for Claudio to die. The camera‘s eye makes it clear that he tries to speak reason to her, and finally, he is able to break through her rage, —Think you in your soul that Count Claudio hath wrong‘d Hero?“ he asks Beatrice (IV i 327). When Beatrice responds —Yea, as sure as I have a thought or a soul,“ Benedick is on his way to defend Hero‘s honor and, in doing so, seal his love for Beatrice. In some ways, Shakespeare‘s plays reflect Elizabeth and her court. Motherless, and very dependent upon close friends for kindness and support, many of his major female characters have close female friends who, as Shirley Taylor argues, —tend and befriend“ (37). As Alice tends Katherine, so too does Beatrice tend and befriend Hero, and Hero, Beatrice. Indeed, Beatrice will have nothing to do with a man until he proves himself. It is in protecting her friend Hero that he proves himself man enough to marry Beatrice. In many ways, then, this play does asserts itself as a comedy that fulfills its promise to its audience, if that promise for Shakespeare‘s audience is, as Misty G. Anderson argues, —a play that culminates in a marriage that affirms community“ (1), particularly the community of women. 21 Shakespeare‘s text presents a Beatrice whose fierce and unwavering loyalty to her female friend proves her to be a woman courageous enough to enter into a marriage based on community rather than commodity.

21 Anderson argues that —comedies about marriage in this period reflect historical changes in marriage law that elevated then diminished women‘s standing as agents within the institution“ (1).

40 Chapter 3 As You Like It —…whose loves/ Are dearer than the natural bond of sisters“ (I ii 276)

As You Like It has two major plot lines, the first concerned with primogeniture and its effects on brothers, and the second dealing primarily with the relationship between two women. While much has been written about the —Brother Plot,“ the actual action of the play, with the exception of the opening fight, and the drawing of Orlando‘s sword on the men in the forest, is not actually focused on the brothers; rather, the majority of the play‘s action takes place on a stage whose primary focus is Rosalind. Within the action of the play it is the bonds of sisterhood that Shakespeare lays out for the audience to consider. The purpose of this chapter, then, is to explore the alliance of the two principal female characters as central to the staging of the play and thus crucial to directors of both stage and film versions.

I. Synopsis

Rosalind and Celia watch Orlando wrestle, Rosalind falls immediately in love. Duke Frederick, her uncle and Celia‘s father, bans her from the kingdom. Together the friends strike out to the Forest of Arden, Rosalind dressed as a boy and Celia dressed as a peasant. They buy a small farm in the forest, and Rosalind observes various lovers. Dressed as Ganymede, she meets Orlando whom she convinces she can help fall out of love with Rosalind, if he will meet her daily for lessons. They meet regularly until Oliver shows up in Orlando‘s place revealing Orlando was wounded while saving him. Oliver falls in love with Celia and the next day they all get married.

II. Critical Overview

Much of the recent critical conversation about As You Like It is concerned with what occurs offstage, that is those issues dealing with the Oliver/Orlando plot. Since my discussion concerns what actually happens on stage as it informs an actual production of the play, my summary of this criticism will be somewhat cursory. Louis Montrose‘s 1981 article, —The Place of a Brother“ sets forth the argument that in spite of the fact that Rosalind speaks 677 of the play‘s lines and Oliver 147, Rosalind is not, in fact, the play‘s protagonist; rather the play is a —structure for her containment“ and the real protagonist of the play is Oliver. Montrose is in line with the critics who use Claude Levi-Strauss‘s anthropological findings of 1949, including Gayle Rubin‘s —The Traffic in Women,“ to argue that women function as vehicles for the restoration of relationships among men. Dympna Callagahan also dismisses Rosalind as protagonist in her 1999 work Shakespeare without Women. She argues that Rosalind as-woman is doubly absent from the stage; rather, the gender bending inherent in both the cross-dressed actor (boy actor as female Rosalind) and the cross-dressed character (character Rosalind cross dressed as boy) accentuates the absence of women on Shakespeare‘s stage. What is missing from this critical conversation, however, is a discussion of the very obvious alliance between Rosalind and Celia, something that Juliet Dusinberre calls

41 for in her introduction to the Arden Shakespeare As You Like It (2006), Dusienberre calls the friendship between these two characters —socially the most equal of all friendships between women in Shakespeare‘s plays“ (28). She goes on to quote Juliet Stevenson (who partnered with Fiona Shaw in the 1985 RSC production), —There‘s no real parallel to their journey anywhere in Shakespeare. I had never seen this friendship fully explored“ (qtd in Dusineberre 29). The purpose of this chapter, then, is to explore the friendship as central to the staging of the play, and thus crucial to directors of both stage and film versions. While Montrose would argue that —the dramatic process that forges the marital couplings simultaneously weakens the bonds of sisterhood while it strengthens the bonds of brotherhood“ (Montrose The Purpose of Playing 132), Dusinberre counters that —Celia is audience, commentator and agent in the mock marriage (IV i 119-127). In act five not only do the ”sisters‘ become even more closely allied as prospective sisters-in-law, but the brotherhood between Orlando and Oliver acquires a new generosity which aligns it with an ideal of sisterhood in the play“ (31). I agree with Dusinberre‘s argument; Montrose predicts a future for Celia and Rosalind that is completely outside the realm of the play. I will argue that within the action of the play it is the bonds of sisterhood that Shakespeare lays out for the audience to consider. III. Playing to the Audience Why does Shakespeare place these closely bonded women on the stage and central to the plot? Perhaps the answer lies in an investigation of the genre of comedy that As You Like It represents. Probably first performed in 1599, this was arguably one of the first plays presented at the new Globe Theatre (Dusinberre 6). As part owner in the theatre, Shakespeare needed a full house. Houses filled when the audiences were pleased. It was crucial that this first season‘s performances please audiences. There was stiff competition on the outside: bear baiting and cock fighting to name only two. Perhaps Elizabethan men and women were similar to modern audiences. Perhaps the draw for blood letting and fighting was primarily male, and perhaps Elizabethan females preferred the new genre: romantic comedy. Catherine Belsey, in Shakespeare and the Loss of Eden, suggests that —during the course of the 1590‘s, Shakespeare‘s comedies put romantic courtship on the popular stage for the first time, and in the process created a new genre“ (29). She defines romantic comedy as —the story of the procrastination of mating“ (29- 30). The script cues us to Rosalind‘s love for Orlando from their first appearance together on stage when she says, —Oh, excellent young man!“ (I ii 204). Familiar with this plot device, the Elizabethan audience would understand that the play would end in marriage. The only mystery, then, would have been the obstacles standing in the way of the relationship, and how the characters would circumvent those obstacles. In this play, also, is the unique touch of the epilogue delivered by a woman. As Rosalind says, —It is not the fashion to see the lady the epilogue; but it is no more unhandsome than to see the lord the prologue“ (V iv Epilogue). While critics such as Dympna Callaghan would argue that it was misogynistic homoeroticism that put young boys dressed as women on the stage, other critics, including Stephen Orgel, argue that the homoeroticism was not necessarily misogynistic as the plays attracted many women, and the theatre depended on their support (Callaghan 31). Callaghan counters this argument suggesting instead that —the exclusion of women from the stage and their simultaneous inclusion as customers œ the fundamental characteristic (contradiction) of the institution of theatre in early modern England does

42 not exculpate theatre from the charges of misogyny“ (Callaghan 31). However, it seems to me that Orgel‘s point is a good one and that to argue that women in early modern England were the unwitting spectators of wholesale misogyny on stage threatens to undercut the wit of these same women. Karen Newman raises the question of who the —we“ in the audience actually is in Fashioning Femininity and the English Renaissance Drama. Audience perception, she suggests, is based upon many things: race, class and gender. Indeed, for Newman, all three must be taken into account; there is no universal —woman“ as —both the whores in the pit and the good English wives…view the play from different perspectives, and certainly different from that of a white male audience of whatever social and economic station“ (164 note 30). According to Phyllis Rackin, there would be no surprise in this particular play being geared toward women, since A number of the London companies had female patrons. The leading company in the 1580s was the Queen‘s Men, under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth…Moreover, since the players derived the bulk of their income from public performances, all of the companies, whether or not their official patrons were women, would have been influenced by the fact that women constituted a sizeable proportion of the paying customers in the public playhouse, perhaps more than half. (46) Thus, it should come as no surprise that while this is, in fact, a romantic comedy, what the script seems to focus on is the perception of love by the women in the play. As Clara Claiborne Park argues in —As We Like It: How a Girl Can Be Smart and Still Popular,“ —As You Like It is Rosalind‘s play“ (107). Rosalind is the play‘s protagonist, and the majority of the play‘s lines and discussions of love will be in some way filtered through her. However, perhaps even more than the erotic love relationships, what the play most carefully explores are the strong bonds of friendship between Celia and Rosalind. IV. The Nature of the Friendship According to Marianne Novy in —Daniel Deronda and George Eliot‘s Female Re- Vision of Shakespeare,“ novelist George Eliot found The friendship between Rosalind and Celia…a model for her own friendship with other women. To Maria Lewis she writes, —I heartily echo your kind wish that we should be ”like Juno‘s swans coupled together“ (I: 51; AYLI 1.3.75). To Martha Jackson, —I have as many queries rising to my lips as, if you were her to have them orally delivered, would make you wish, like Rosalind, that the answers were corked up in you like wine in a bottle“ (1:92; based on AYLI 3.2.197-200). To Sara Sophia Hennell, —Not a word more to throw at a dog. So said Rosalind to Celia and so says one to thee, who loves thee as well as Rosalind did her Coz“ (I: 203; based on AYLI 1.3.3). (Novy 90) Adrienne Rich suggests that such eroticized writings as those of George Eliot, continued in letters between —educated women of the Victorian period…celebrates a ”primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of a rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving of practical and political support‘“ (qtd in Dusinberre 29). By the end of Act I, the nature of the Rosalind-Celia friendship is clear. As Le Beau tells Orlando, in the friendship between Celia and Rosalind, their —loves are dearer

43 than the natural bond of sisters“ (I ii 275). Even Charles, the court wrestler, knows of their closeness and is able to report it to Oliver early in the play when asked news of the court and if Rosalind has been banned from the court with her father, O no; for the Duke‘s daughter, her cousin, so loves her, being ever from their cradles bred together, that she would have followed her exile or have died to stay behind her. She is at court… and never two ladies loved as they do. ( I i 96) Although it in a sense becomes a political alliance, against the usurping duke, the friendship of Rosalind and Celia is also a private —female only“ space. When Celia wishes for a word alone with Rosalind, she sends everyone else away, —Back friends, Shepherd go off a little. Go with him sirrah!“ (III ii 159). And their friendship is respected, and protected by the most unlikely protectors: Duke Frederick, who banishes Rosalind‘s father from his own kingdom, keeps Rosalind in the kingdom because he recognizes the value of her friendship with Celia, —I did not entreat to have her stay,“ says Ceila to her father; —It was your pleasure“ ( I.iii.66-67). Shakespeare‘s text, then, can be seen as offering a balanced friendship between these two women, perhaps reflective of the debate regarding Jane Anger‘s pamphlet, —Her Protection of Women.“ Celia does not allow Rosalind-as-Ganymede to buckle under to masculine misogynistic treatment of the idea of —woman.“ The text presents a Celia who snatches Rosalind back into friendship-approved boundaries when Rosalind banters with Orlando in Act IV chiding, —You have simply misused our sex in your love prate.“ 22 Celia indicates that Rosalind has gone too far in her masquerade with Orlando when as Ganymede she presents women as inconstant, insecure and silly. Her words to Rosalind are reminiscent of Anger‘s pamphlet published in 1589, a mere ten years before this play was first staged. Anger rails against men who accuse women of being fickle in love. In fact, she argues, We are contrary to men because they are contrary to that which is good. Because they are purblind, they cannot see into our natures, and we see too well (though we had but half an eye) into their conditions, because they are so bad. Our behaviours alter daily, because men‘s virtues decay hourly. If Hesiod had with equity as well looked into the life of man as he did precisely search out the qualities of us women, he would have said that if a woman trust unto a man, it shall fare as well with her as if she had a weight of a thousand pounds tied about her neck and then cast into the bottomless seas. For by men are we confounded though they by us are sometimes crossed. (Jane Anger) In responding vehemently to Rosalind‘s disparaging words about women, the text presents a Celia taking a clear position in the debate about women that was raging in the late 1500s among pamphleteers as Henderson and McManus argue in Half Humankind. Celia forces Rosalind as Ganymede into compliance.

V. Sisterhood on Stage and in Film

22Some of the —love prate“ to which Celia refers are these lines between Orlando and Rosalind: Orlando: A man that had a wife with such a wit, he might say, —Wit, whither wilt?“ Rosalind: Nay, you might keep that check for it till you met your wife‘s wit going to your neighbor‘s bed

44 While modern critics with the exception of Dusinberre and Rich, have paid scant attention to the bond between Celia and Rosalind, modern directors have placed the relationship center stage. The friendship between the women is obvious from the choices the directors and actors make in the opening scene of the 1978 BBC version of the play directed by Basil Coleman and starring Helen Mirren. The costume designer made the choice to dress Celia and Rosalind in outfits so similar they reflect one another in style and design in both the opening and closing scenes of the play, tipping the audience off to the director‘s point of view on the balance of power in the friendship. In the opening scene their dresses are white and off-white silk satin brocade, 15th century court attire, and, at the end of the play, they are dressed in similar wedding attire: flowing white gowns made of lawn linen. The difference in their costumes is in neither material nor style, merely in the drape of the gowns. The costumes reflect the balance of their friendship, though they are draped with individual personalities. The choice of opening the first scene with the women enjoying a spirited game of Rounders (an English children‘s game played with a ball and bat, a precursor to baseball and cricket) is yet another clever choice highlighting their camaraderie. It is clear they‘ve played the game often as they seem to play it well. Thus, when Rosalind misses a catch, and is more dejected than she might normally be, Celia is concerned. The audience is invited into an understanding of the subtleties of Rosalind‘s mood when Celia bids Rosalind, —Sweet my coz, be merry“ (I ii 1). These words take the audience a bit by surprise; up until now, the Rosalind on film does not seem very downcast. However, Celia‘s words draw our attention to Rosalind, and on closer examination we (that is the audience for the BBC film) see clearly that Rosalind is slightly downcast, and that her perceptive friend wants to make her feel better. Celia tries several tactics to do so; her first is to directly implore her to be merry. While this remark doesn‘t visibly make Rosalind feel any better in this version, it does give her free rein to vent her feelings, Dear Celia–I show you more mirth than I am mistress of, and would you yet I were merrier? Unless you could teach me to forget a banish‘d father, you must not learn me to remember any extraordinary pleasure (I ii 3-7). This version seems true to the text: Celia is a friend with whom Rosalind can share freely her pain and distress, in spite of the fact that Celia‘s father is the major cause of Rosalind‘s pain by having usurped her father‘s throne and then banishing him from court. In this version, Rosalind thus responds immediately to Celia telling her what is in fact wrong: the cause of her sadness is simply that she misses her father. In the RSC‘s 1992 production directed by David Thacker, this line is delivered by an infuriated Rosalind who has been patient with her uncle‘s bad behavior for as long as she possibly could. In this production of the play, there has been a banquet, presumably, in which a toast has been raised to the present Duke, Celia‘s father, honoring him for his goodness and kindness. It is the last straw for Rosalind who leaves the banquet immediately and retreats to the safety of the nursery, the director‘s concept of a safe haven, where she and Celia have been raised. Celia follows her, and her —sweet my coz be merry line“ is delivered through clenched teeth; her underlying message is —get back to the banquet, or there will be dire consequences.“ This version, then, offers a cause and effect relationship for Rosalind‘s banishment: she resents Frederick, and he understands. Celia, in this version, tries to protect her from herself. Rosalind is banished in spite of Celia‘s warning (—Interpreting a Stage Direction“).

45 However, in the much brighter BBC film version, Celia tries to remedy Rosalind‘s bad mood by telling Rosalind, somewhat self-righteously, that if the situations were reversed, she, Celia, would be happy to pretend that Rosalind‘s father, her uncle, was her own father, and she would actually rejoice rather than being sad. Celia totally misunderstands Rosalind‘s feelings at this moment, but Rosalind slaps her with her words, making fun of her self-righteousness and bowing to her as if she were a queen, —well, I will forget the condition of my estate to rejoice in yours“ (15-16). The irony in her delivery is gentle, but Celia, acting as a close friend would, recognizes it immediately. She gives an apologetic laugh, and, as if to say how stupid of me to not understand your point, she tries another tactic: she promises Rosalind that she will see to it that Rosalind rightfully inherits her kingdom from her father, the usurping duke, when he dies. Rosalind laughs at Celia kindly. It is clear that while she is not the least bit interested in inheriting the kingdom, the fact that Celia cared enough about her to let her talk about her problem and moved from misunderstanding to understanding, and then tried to fix her problem is all the Rosalind in this version needs. She pulls herself together, and picks up the paddle to continue their game of Rounders. It is a happy moment in their friendship, and makes clear to the audience the absolute ease of the relationship between the two. Celia tends Rosalind; Rosalind responds to her tending by being momentarily healed of her sadness. Thus, while each version offers unique stage directing and interpretation of line delivery, the effect is the same: Celia is protective of Rosalind, and this protection clarifies the nature of Shakespeare‘s positive presentation of female alliances. However, this relationship is not merely limited to the tending of one another‘s needs; they also enjoy equality of intellect as is given full visual representation in the BBC version when they engage in a spirited philosophical debate about fortune vs. nature. To translate ideology (that is of their intellectual equality) to action, in this production, the women engage in the debate seated on throne-like chairs right next to one another, speaking quickly, and laughing often. They are clearly as delighted by the parrying of intellects as they are by the exchange of tenderness earlier in the scene. In an example of how criticism can inform production, we turn to Dominic Cooke‘s 2006 production for the RSC as informed by the notion of transcendence as a central theme of the play. According to Robert Watson in —As you Like it: Simile in the Forest,“ The multiple and elaborate explorations of the polarity of art and nature in As You Like It are mapped analogically onto a polarity of the linguistically entangled human mind and the material objects which that mind can know only partially, only by the constraints of comparison–the vocabularies and categories of mind people use to carve the sensory feast into edible bites. (78) Thus, the world is divided into what seems to be and what is, between a Platonic cave and the larger reality outside the cave. Watson argues that this play, like Henry V and Hamlet, is obsessed with paradoxical images, language and pairings. Language is seen as incomplete, something that reveals only limited truth. Thus, the limitations of the women are, indeed, represented by the limitations of the language, but like Duke Senior and other characters in the play, each female character makes a conscious attempt to transcend limitations either through language or changing identities. While it is clear that

46 the women understand their position in the —universe,“ as seen in Celia‘s play on the term marketable œ—like pigeons“ they will —be stuffed with news, and go to the market fat and healthy in order to fetch a better price“-- The language also works on another level: Celia and Rosalind‘s own marriage marketability (I ii 92-95). Fiona Shaw and Juliet Stevenson say of their 1987 production of this scene that what is clear here and in Act 3 scene 2 is —their mutual relish of language and complimentary wit“ (65). The women understand their limitations but aspire to transcend them. When they go to Arden, it is —to freedom.“ As Dominic Cooke suggests, this is the part of the play that speaks to a modern audience. The play, on many levels, Cooke suggests, —affirms the possibilities of change and transcending experience.“ This bright eyed optimism in Cooke‘s production is what saves Rosalind from certain death when she is banned from Duke Frederick‘s court. Both she and Celia believe in —imagining the possibilities“ for change in any situation. In no scene is the nature of the relationship between the two friends more obvious than in the BBC‘s presentation of the scene in which Duke Frederick banishes Rosalind. In this version, the scene opens with Celia once again tending Rosalind who is now downcast out of love for Orlando. Celia asks, —is all this for your father?“ (I ii 10), to which Rosalind replies, —no, some of it is for my child‘s father; how full of briers is this working-day world!“ ( I iii 11). Celia chides her, —come, come, wrestle with thy affections“ (21), and within a few seconds of the beginning of the scene they are laughing together trying to determine who should rightfully love Orlando. In the midst of their shared laughter, Duke Frederick and his train storm in. Rosalind and Celia stand side by side as Duke Frederick declares an edict for the removal of Rosalind no closer than 20 miles to his kingdom. He gives her 24 hours and tells her that she will die if she does not leave, —You, cousin,/ Within ten days if that thou beest found/So near our public court as twenty miles, Thou diest for it“ (43-45). Rosalind responds immediately begging to know why she is being ordered to leave, —Let me the knowledge of my fault bear with me“ (46). In the blocking of this scene, there is an interesting physical mimicry that goes on between the two women as Rosalind implores Frederick to let her stay. Rosalind and Celia first look at one another; it is as if Rosalind is looking in a mirror, so closely does Celia‘s expression and physicality mimic her own. Then, Rosalind steps forward, and, when Celia‘s head goes down, only a few seconds later, Rosalind‘s goes down as well. There is a both a physical and mental solidarity between the two cousins. And, more telling than the mental and physical solidarity between the two is the risk Celia is willing to take for her cousin. While Duke Frederick is an imposing figure, more so as he has his armed knights directly behind him in this scene, Celia is not afraid. After Rosalind has pleaded her case, —Your mistrust cannot make me a traitor“ (56), Celia moves in front of Rosalind and asks why this is necessary, —hear me speak,“ she says (66). When her father attempts to shroud the truth in his politician‘s dissembling, she stops him in mid-sentence, quite willing to risk his wrath for truth. Duke Frederick says, —We stay‘d her for your sake/Else had she with her father rang‘d along“ ( I iii 67-68). Celia will have none of this. She stops him with her hand, and moves her face menacingly close to his, at which point Duke Frederick sits down, and Celia continues, —I did not entreat then to have her stay/it was your own pleasure and your own remorse/I was too young that time to value her, but now I know her“ (69-71). Duke Frederick realizes at that moment that as long as Celia is standing

47 beside Rosalind, he hasn‘t a chance of convincing her of anything. His next tactic is to pull her aside, quite away from Rosalind and appeal to her vanity. Rosalind is tricky; if Rosalind leaves, he says to Celia, you will look better, She is too subtile for thee, and her smoothness, Her very silence, and her patience Speak to the people, and they pity her. Thou art a fool; she robs thee of thy name And thou wilt show more bright and seem more virtuous When she is gone. Then open not thy lips: Firm and irrevocable is my doom Which I have passed on her; she is banish‘d. (77-84) Frederick threatens Celia to —open not her lips,“ to not speak, to not say a word. He has laid down his law, and she is to abide by it. In this production, he shouts the last two lines into Celia‘s face; Celia, unscathed, responds in kind, parroting both his body language and his vehemence, but not his shouting: —Pronounce that sentence, then, on me“ (85), at which point Celia follows Rosalind out of the room immediately. It is this next moment that clarifies the deeper meaning of the play for Dominic Cooke as he directs his 2005 production for the RSC. For, it is here that Celia rises above the bad hand life has dealt her cousin whom she sees as her twin, and sits with her, and, without skipping a beat, not only plans their escape but convinces Rosalind that when viewed from another angle, escape can be a new beginning. In this, Cooke sees that Celia has enabled them both to transcend adverse circumstances. Cooke suggests that our present world is a pretty dark place. If we are to have any hope, we must believe that we can transcend its darkness. This theme he sees presented again and again in As You Like It. Only a few minutes before, Frederick had promised Rosalind banishment that heralded certain death as there was little chance of her survival on her own. The women use the alliance of their friendship not only to transcend the boundaries of despair prescribed to them by Duke Frederick, but to transcend the roles prescribed to them by both their class and gender. Isolated women do not fare well as is shown again and again in Shakespeare. He returns to this theme when he presents Audrey and Phoebe later in the play, types of the isolated woman. However, for Rosalind, there is no fear of isolation. Celia makes it clear that she will never be alone, Celia will see to it they are both protected, and it is true that with both Celia and Touchstone Rosalind will survive. Thus, within a few seconds of Celia‘s announcement of her plan, Rosalind has gone from weeping to laughter, and what ensues is an energetic plan for Rosalind to dress up as a man, but, as presented in Cooke‘s 2006 production, not just any man! Ganymede, who, according to Cooke, —in the Renaissance came to represent something more spiritual [than Zeus‘s cupbearer], he became a symbol of the soul‘s ascent to the absolute“ (—Who is Ganymede?“ RSC). 23 It is Celia who decides how and when they will fly. She thinks of food, and money while Rosalind thinks to bring the fool. The stage friendship in this moment is so close that

23 While Mario Di Gangi in —Queering the Shakespeare Family,“ would argue that Rosalind‘s choice of Ganymede as her male disguise is the key to unlocking a homoerotic interpretation of the play, Raymond Waddington‘s interpretation —Moralizing the Spectacle: Dramatic emblems in As You Like it“ is more in line with the RSC‘s reading based upon Renaissance Italian Humanists‘ portrayals of the Ganymede myth as an allegory of the soul‘s ascent as seen in Alciati‘s Emblematia.

48 their plans override their mourning and sorrow for having just been banished from their home. In playing this scene in the 1987 RSC production, Juliet Stevenson and Fiona Shaw found this as being the moment in which the alliance between the two friends becomes most obvious as Celia rejects her father in favor of her friend, and the two friends, now fatherless and homeless, are more equal than at any other time in the play (Johnson 63). In the BBC version, whereas Celia was the leader, the brain, the exhorter, the one who pulled Rosalind out of her bad moods in her father‘s kingdom, in the forest, it is Rosalind who is the leader. She is the one who tends Celia. When they first reach the forest, Celia is hungry, —I faint almost to death“ (II iii 66), and Rosalind goes to get her food. —I pray you shepherd,“ Rosalind says to the first person she meets in the forest, —Bring ourselves where we may rest ourselves and feed/Here‘s a young maid with travel much oppressed“ (70-74). However, the need of the women for each other in this production is played as mutual. When Rosalind comes upon Orlando for the first time in the forest after she has found his love notes posted all over the tree, she is both delighted and a little frightened. She is not certain what to say. When she finally speaks to him, she says, —Do you hear, forester?“ (III ii 297). After she has gotten his attention, in this BBC version, she does not know what to do next. She looks at Celia who is hiding behind the tree. Celia gestures for her to ask for the time. Relieved to have something to ask him, Rosalind turns back and asks him, —I pray you, what is‘t‘o‘clock?“ (299). Emboldened by Celia‘s confidence in her, she carries on a lively conversation with Orlando, even though Orlando stops her with —there is not clock in the forest.“ She keeps looking back at Celia behind the tree for affirmation and to bolster her confidence as she speaks. This, too, is in keeping with Taylor‘s research which shows how calming women can be for one another in stressful situations (116-117). When Orlando moves towards her, she is taken aback, and does not regain her confidence until she pulls Celia from behind the tree to stand beside her. When Rosalind moves close to Orlando, Celia moves back and sits behind the tree to allow them time alone. When Rosalind begins to feel insecure, as she woos Orlando in earnest, though dressed as Ganymede, she looks back at Celia for confidence, and Celia gives her the confidence to continue with her successful wooing. When she invites Orlando home with her, she moves forward and takes Celia‘s hand. They move forward, and Orlando follows behind. Thus, Rosalind/Ganymede makes clear to even Orlando the depth of her/his friendship with Celia. But, according to Stevenson and Shaw, the relationship between the two friends changes as Rosalind falls more deeply in love with Orlando, leaving Celia behind to make her own way through much of Act V. Here, Celia finds her own love, Oliver. According to Shaw and Stevenson, Celia falls in love with Oliver with the same break- neck speed with which Rosalind falls in love with Orlando at the wrestling match. However, when Rosalind enters at the wedding, in this production, it is with Celia making it clear that she has not abandoned their friendship in taking on Orlando (Johnson 70). VI. Shelley Taylor‘s Tending and Befriending The relevance of Taylor‘s theory of female response to peril as tending and befriending rather than the masculine fight or flight response is clear in this drama. In the 1987 RSC production, the forest, far from being a place of pastoral peace, is a place of

49 one‘s dreams, both nightmarish and whimsical. When the girls enter the forest, it is at midwinter, and they are —harshly face to face with the realities of exhaustion, cold and hunger“ (Johnson 64). Taylor‘s psychological study of female relationships argues for an evolutionary pattern of women coming to the aid of other women when experiencing stressful conditions. Taylor‘s research shows the calming effects women have on one another in such a situation (101-104). Also, according Taylor, in a healthy friendship, one friend tends, and then that same friend may the next week need tending. There is an equal sharing of the nurturing; if one is always the tender, and the other the one who allows herself to be tended, the relationship is unbalanced (109). Healthy female friendships are balanced, and Shakespeare presents us with a balanced friendship. As Celia is the primary nurturer and tender in the opening scenes of the play, so in the forest of Arden, Rosalind and Celia exchange roles. The play, then, presents characters who follow Taylor‘s pattern: women‘s response to stress is to tend and befriend while men‘s response to stress is —fight or flight.“ In her chapter —The Origins of Tending,“ (Taylor 16-34), Taylor outlines the history of our understanding of the fight or flight response. In the 1930s, Walter Canon (qtd. in Taylor 16) observed the fight or flight response in his patients. It was assumed after this research that all humans responded in this way. Research in the‘ 90s suggested something different: women respond differently to stress. Rather than fight or flight, they seek to comfort or be comforted by others (18-21). When women are in crisis, according to Taylor‘s summary of this research, they reach out to others, they tend, and befriend; they communicate with an understanding that survival depends upon the ability of people to help each other. This is obvious when Celia, Rosalind and Touchstone enter the forest. They are tired, hungry and in need of help. When they finally see people in the forest, Rosalind approaches them gently, kindly. She asks for help, —Good even, to you friend… I prithee, if that love or gold/Can in this desert place buy entertainment, Bring us where we may rest ourselves and feed.“ (II.iii.69). She befriends with kind words first. In contrast, when Touchstone hails Corin the shepherd, the first human they see, Touchstone does so with unkind, belittling words, —Holla! You clown!“ (II iv 67). Rosalind cuts him off immediately, shushing him and reminding him that he must befriend rather than alienate, —Peace, fool,“ she says to Touchstone. Be quiet, she is telling him, —he‘s not thy kinsmen“–you don‘t know him, you can‘t talk to him in this way! But, Touchstone continues with his badgering, and when Corin asks, —whose there?“ Touchstone replies with, —your betters.“ Rosalind shushes him yet again; —peace, I say,“ then Rosalind moves forward quickly to handle the scene so that it becomes a befriending rather than a fight sequence. What Rosalind‘s action demonstrates is that you must befriend those upon whom you are dependent for food. She speaks kindly to Corin, and by the end of the exchange she has negotiated not only for food but also to buy the cottage in which he lives. She has even won his pledge of friendship, —I will your faithful feeder be“ (99). In direct contrast to this female understanding of the necessity of tending and befriending in a crisis situation is the scene between Orlando, Jacques and Duke Senior. In II vii, Duke Senior and his banished court are cooking their evening meal and sharing drink and pleasant conversation. Suddenly, Orlando appears out of the dark, drawing his sword on Jacques and demanding his food. Orlando‘s foolishness is made obvious by his unplanned attack on the entire court of Duke Senior who, although they are resting, are still armed and ready. — Forbear and eat no more“ says Orlando (88). Fortunately for

50 him, Duke Senior, true to Taylor‘s theory of altruistic males being those who are able to maintain power (140-45), recognizes the need behind Orlando‘s foolish attack, and deters Orlando with these compassionate words, —Art thou, thus bolden‘d, man, by thy distress?“ (91-92). While Orlando does not immediately put down his sword, his response to the adrenaline rush of distress is, as Taylor and others have often argued, fight or flight, and he has chosen to fight. Contrast the mutual tending and protecting between the two women with the only other woman in the play, Audrey, who, in sharp contrast to Rosalind and Celia, is alone. She must navigate the waters of love alone without help. Unprotected by a female friend, she is taken for a slut by Touchstone who tries to take advantage of her innocence and solitary state by pretending to marry her. Jacques intervenes and saves Audrey from Touchstone‘s knavery and the shame of violated virginity outside the bounds of legal marriage. While Touchstone is very willing to sleep with Audrey, he does not want to legally marry her, only pretend to do so with the half-wit priest Sir Oliver Martext presiding. Jacques schools Touchstone in honor, and, ultimately, Touchstone marries Audrey legally (III iii). It is a dangerous moment for Audrey, who without the protection of family or friends navigates the world as a woman alone. That Jacques protects her raises the audience‘s esteem of this melancholy hermit, protector of both innocent animals (the deer) and people. In direct contrast to this scene is the scene directly following (III iv) between Rosalind and Celia in which Celia tells Rosalind to be careful and guard herself from what could possibly be false love. The apparent aim of this scene in the BBC version is for the audience to understand that Orlando‘s love is true, but at the same time, the audience can‘t help but feel some relief that someone is protecting Rosalind‘s heart in a way that Audrey nearly missed. Indeed, in the 1978 BBC production there is not a single scene between Orlando and Rosalind that Celia is not standing close by tending Rosalind to be certain that her virtue remains safe. For RSC director Dominic Cooke, language can be a force of change. And this is another message that he argues is a part of Shakespeare‘s legacy to modern audiences. We are suspicious of language, he says, because we are the primary audience for advertising by which we are barraged everywhere we look, Cinema, the tube, the buses, television, magazines. Most words are lies, and they are, he argues multimillion dollar lies. Advertising attempts to sell us things we don‘t need to replace those which we do. The things we need, Cooke argues, are available in the language of Shakespeare rather than in the false promises offered by advertisements. While advertising promises us comfort in things, Shakespeare‘s language points us to comfort in people. Indeed, Shakespeare‘s language leads us to a view of the emotional stability granted by close female alliances. In a brief scene between Rosalind and Phebe, Rosalind has overheard Phebe berate the love-struck Silvius. Her words are wicked and cruel, as opposed to the lighthearted banter of lovers that we hear between Rosalind and Orlando. When Rosalind has heard as much as she can stand hearing, she emerges to say, —Who be your mother/ that you insult, exult, and all at once over the wretched?“ (III v 34-36). While it is clear that mothers in Shakespeare are rarely present, Rosalind‘s words exemplify the issue that kind words are the legacy of mothers, and thus it is through women that befriending is taught, and through them that this notion of language meant for healing rather than

51 hurting is passed on. Here we see that while community is not physically created by the presence of mothers, the communal values imbued by the mothers are present and accounted for in this comedy. And, indeed, it is when these same communal values are silenced that women suffer.

52 CHAPTER 4 Antony and Cleopatra —Your crown‘s awry, I‘ll mend it“ (Chairman to Cleopatra V ii 318-319)

In her study of friendship during the Renaissance, Sovereign Amity: Figures of Friendship in Shakespearean Contexts, Laurie Shannon argues that there are two primary models of friendship presented in Renaissance writings: one she defines as —a utopian vision of human engagement“ in which friends offer one another their consent, the second she defines as —a pragmatic strategy for differences of opinion and stature“ which she further defines as a —vehicle for counsel“ (17). The female communities of friends we have studied in the preceding plays offer valid arguments for each model. The women in these plays both counsel and agree with one another creating an environment of safety and love that affords the recipients of their friendship a stable environment, one that does not dissipate when one of the friends falls in love or marries. In focusing on ill-fated historical lovers, Antony and Cleopatra sharply contrasts the title characters while presenting a surprisingly strong alliance between Cleopatra and the serving women who act as both counselors and friends to her. I. Synopsis This play is built around the contrasting alliances of Antony and Cleopatra. Cleopatra has entertained Mark Antony in Egypt for several months when Antony is called back to Rome for the death of his wife. While in Rome, he marries Octavia, Caesar‘s sister in order to solidify his alliance with the other two triumvirs. Cleopatra is devastated, but recovers when Mark Antony returns to Egypt sending Octavia back to Rome and pledging to stay with Cleopatra. Caesar‘s forces attack Antony‘s; in the Battle of Actium, Antony abandons his men to Caesar‘s forces and follows Cleopatra‘s ship back to safe harbor. Antony meets Caesar‘s troops on the ground and has a surprising wins but decides to meet Caesar again at sea against the advice of his soldiers. The Egyptian fleet flees again; Cleopatra fearing Antony‘s wrath locks herself in her monument and sends word she has committed suicide. His honor lost, and his lover supposedly dead, Antony falls on his sword, but before he dies is carried to Cleopatra. Caesar arrives to capture Cleopatra and take her back to Rome, but she, too, kills herself. II. Friendship Alliances within the Play Antony and Cleopatra, while categorized as a tragedy, is also a history. Shakespeare chooses this particular moment in historical time to place on his stage changing little of Plutarch‘s history as he does so24. That the friends of Cleopatra, Charmian and Iras, are named in Plutarch, that they come down to us in history as important to Cleopatra‘s life story is remarkable in and of itself; they were neither warriors nor kings, nor even queens. They were serving women, but so important were they to Cleopatra‘s story that Plutarch marked them. I begin with this because near the

24 John Wilders says of Shakespeare‘s use of Plutarch as a source, —Had Shakespeare not read Daniel or the Countess of Pembroke, Antony and Cleopatra would probably have been much as it is; without Plutarch it could not have existed“ (63).

53 end of Macbeth, written in 1606, the same year as Antony and Cleopatra, Macbeth utters this lament: I have lived long enough. My way of life Is fall‘n into the sere, the yellow leaf, And that which should accompany old age, As honor, love, obedience, troops of friends, I must not look to have. (V iii 25-30) Similarly, at the end of Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare presents us with an Antony who has none of these–he has lost his honor, his love, his obedience to the things he knows to be right, and he has lost most of his friends. By placing —troops of friends“ as the final valuable thing that will, hopefully, accompany one in old age, Macbeth, and I would argue Shakespeare, privileges this relationship, 25 and thus the —troop of friends“ that accompanies Cleopatra in eleven out of her twelve appearances on stage. Paula Bennett suggests that this play is Shakespeare‘s most —woman centered play“ (Bennett 114). It is here, she argues, that Shakespeare explores the depths of female friendship. Bennett analyzes Antony and Cleopatra from the point of view of Emily Dickinson‘s poetry and letters describing Egypt as a place of poetry and the place for which Dickinson longed in contrast to the —patriarchal moralizing civilization“ of Rome represented by Octavius in the play. Thus, for Dickinson, Cleopatra and Egypt represent not merely the physical lust for the person of Cleopatra, but the overwhelming need for —poetry and passion… opulence and splendor“ (Bennett 115). The —woman centered Egypt,“ she argues, is the place of friendship. It is Antony‘s lack of loyalty to his men that earns him the shame that makes it necessary to commit suicide. Ironically, it is Cleopatra‘s loyalty to her country and her serving women that make her suicide regal. It is as if she, perhaps, like Shakespeare himself, has learned the important lesson that in a tough world in which danger, disease, financial ruin are not only possible but probable, the loyalty of friends will keep you afloat26. In her analysis of the friendship between the women in Antony and Cleopatra, Elizabeth Brown makes a compelling argument for the fact that while some are serving women, there is nothing subservient about their relationship with Cleopatra. Rather, she argues, the friendships were in many ways self serving for these women who benefit financially as well as socially through their close alliance with the queen (143), thus, in a sense, balancing their relationship. Behind their bravado, then, both Charmian and Iras share the very human desire to be something more, maybe even just something different from the character each is scripted to play. Indeed, while they are serving women to Cleopatra, they think of marriage, families, children,

25 While it is likely that Macbeth‘s use of the word —troops“ when describing friends has to do with the fact that he would much rather have troops of friends surrounding his castle than the troops of enemies that, at that moment, were there, nonetheless, this notion of troops of friends is a comforting one. 26There is an easy camaraderie between Cleopatra and her serving men and women. Her court reminds the audience of a band of players who understand very well the theatricality of their roles. Peter Ackroyd argues that Shakespeare was loyal to his friends, and he loyal to them. By 1591 Shakespeare had joined a company of men that would eventually be the Lord Chamberlain‘s Company, the company with which Shakespeare would associate for the remainder of his life (150-151).

54 Good now, some excellent fortune! Let me be married to three kings in a forenoon, and widow them all. Let me have a child at fifty to home Herod of Jewry may do homage. Find me to marry me with Octavius Caesar, and companion me with my mistress. (I ii 25-29) But, just as many of the serving women of Elizabeth were unlikely to have families of their own 27so, too, would these women spend their lives in the service of their queen. In spite of their desire to be something more, something different, their loyalty is always to Cleopatra, just as many of Elizabeth‘s serving women were to the Queen herself (Brown 138). In scene ii, Cleopatra‘s attendants gather to hear the predictions of a soothsayer. Their camaraderie is easy, open and intimate. Brown argues that This scene is the only time Charmian and Iras express motives and desires that deviate even slightly from those of the queen. Even so, they do not appear to resent their positions or their mistress: indeed, the soothsayer‘s words, —You shall be more beloving than beloved“ (I ii 22) reiterated the women‘s fundamental loyalty to Cleopatra. Cleopatra‘s attendants, unlike their Roman counterparts, do not complain about her or Antony. (138) As the play opens, we overhear a conversation between two of Antony‘s friends, Philo and Demetrius. Philo is quite angry that Antony has traded in his role as general for Cleopatra‘s bed, Take but good note, and you shall see in him. The triple pillar of the world transform'd Into a strumpet's fool: behold and see. (I ii 11-13) While Philo is introduced as a friend to Antony, his only two lines in the play are critical of Antony‘s role in Egypt. We wonder if he has shared his concerns with Antony. In sharp contrast are Cleopatra‘s serving women who save any criticism or suggestions for Cleopatra‘s hearing. They feel free to both advise and berate Cleopatra. There is none of the backbiting that is obvious among Antony‘s own men. As if to underline Antony‘s solitary state while he is in Egypt, the majority of his entrances on the stage are solitary, or with those who have other loyalties. This is in sharp contrast to Cleopatra‘s entrances. In the single scene in which she appears without her serving women (III vii), it is with Enobarbus, the friend of Antony‘s who has allied himself with Cleopatra and seeks a private audience with Cleopatra so that he can convince her to stay out of Antony‘s war. And in the only scene in which she appears but does not enter when the scene begins (IV xii), she stays for only nine lines, during which Antony berates her, and then rushes out seeking Charmian, Iras and Mardian. Indeed the first lines of that scene are Cleopatra‘s —Help me, my women!“ (IV xiii 1). Cleopatra handles the crises of her life with her friends, not alone. An alternative way of reading Cleopatra‘s entrances, peopled as they were with lovely women and attractive Eunuchs is simply as a part of her theatricality; she staged her entrances, perhaps in the same way Queen Elizabeth had done when she was alive. Thus, we see another parallel between Elizabeth and Shakespeare‘s presentation of Cleopatra. While Elizabeth neither married nor bore children by a lover, still, there are

27 —The privy chamber staff was a surprisingly stable group with a very low rate of turnover. In forty-four years, only twenty-eight women held the sixteen paid positions. Some never married and served for almost the entire reign (Brown 132).

55 remarkable similarities. She was close to her serving women, and theatricality was important to her. Like Elizabeth, the historical Cleopatra‘s glory was less her beauty than the theatricality of her presentation according to classics scholar Barbara R. McManus who notes that the historical Cleopatra was less interested in her own beauty than in her power. This is evidenced by the portrait drawn on the surviving coins which she herself would have minted. In this portrait, Cleopatra is less beautiful than regal, less a woman than a ruler. She is bedecked with jewels and crown. At Antony‘s first historical sighting of Cleopatra according to Plutarch‘s account, she was dressed as the goddess Venus, she herself lay all along under a canopy of cloth of gold, dressed as Venus in a picture, and beautiful young boys, like painted cupids, stood on each side to fan her. Her maids were dressed as sea nymphs and graces… (Plutarch 757) This description of Cleopatra by Plutarch must have reminded Shakespeare of his own queen. According to one biographer, during Christmas 1584, Elizabeth appeared …dressed in black velvet, sumptuously embroidered with silver and pearls. Over her robe she had a silver shawl that was full of meshes and diaphanous like a piece of gossamer tissue. But this shawl gleamed as though it were bespangled with tinsel. Swathed in this shimmering mantle, sitting under her canopy of cloth and gold, Elizabeth must have resembled a goddess, and her regal air and fragile physique can only have added to the otherworldly effect. (Erickson 347) What the women share in common is the understanding of the importance of theatricality to popular esteem. A popular leader maintains her power. Theatricality works. But, I would argue, there is more to her entrances with her friends than mere theatricality. The friendships between Cleopatra and her serving women resemble, in many ways, the sort of alliance that is healing and whole and necessary for the healthy survival of women according to Stanford psychologist Shelley Taylor. As we have seen in previous chapters, Taylor argues that it is the tending instinct in women that enables them to survive. And, this tending instinct is apparent throughout the play. In act one scene three, when it is clear to Cleopatra that Antony will return to Rome to get his affairs in order, she tells Charmian and Alexas and Iras how she will behave toward Antony–she plans to be perversely contrary; Charmian is quick to tell her that she is wrong, and that is not the way she should act. Cleopatra asks, —What should I do that I do not?“ to which Charmian replies, —In each thing, give him way; cross him in nothing“ (I iii 7-8). Cleopatra ignores this advice. But then Charmian follows with more biting advice: —In time we hate that which we often fear.“ What Charmian‘s objective here is for Cleopatra to understand that if Anthony continues to fear the vituperative words issuing from Cleopatra‘s mouth; if he fears her reaction to everything he says and does, then he will grow to hate her. It is unclear whether or not Cleopatra responds to Charmian‘s advice. The important issues here are these: Cleopatra is presented as seeking her friend‘s wisdom. Her friend, while knowing that her advice will not be taken kindly, offers it anyway because her objective is to do what is best for Cleopatra. Again, in act one scene five, Charmian‘s obstacle is Cleopatra‘s anger as she follows through on her objective of making her mistress listen to her sound advice. Cleopatra mourns the loss of Antony to Rome; Charmian‘s terse reply is this: —You think of him too much“ (6). Almost every scene of the play in which Charmian appears

56 clarifies her relationship with Cleopatra as being that of a friend with all the rights and privileges of friendship, including the right to say no when she is asked to do something she does not want to do, Cleopatra: Let‘s to billiards. Come, Charmian. Charmian: My arm is sore, best play with Mardian. (II v 3-4) When, upon hearing that Antony has married Octavia, Cleopatra threatens to kill the messenger, Charmian chides her saying, —Good madam, keep yourself within yourself; the man is innocent“ (II v 75-76). This stands in sharp contrast to its parallel scene, act three scene thirteen when Antony orders a messenger whipped for much the same thing, and his men stand aside and chide him behind his back rather than having the courage to tell him he is wrong in punishing an innocent man. While Cleopatra‘s messenger goes away unscathed, Antony‘s is whipped until he —whine aloud for mercy“ (101). This is only one of many times in which we see Antony in negative contrast to Cleopatra. When Antony has shamed himself by following Cleopatra in abandoning his men at Actium, all three of the serving women urge her to comfort him. Indeed, Cleopatra is actually led into the scene by Charmian with the objective of comforting Antony. Her friends, who are presented as understanding Cleopatra better than she understands herself, have as their objective healing the rift in the relationship between Antony and Cleopatra. Eros, friend to Antony, but better friend to Cleopatra says, —Nay, gentle madam, to him, comfort him“ (III Xi 26). Both Iras and Charmian implore her, —Do, most dear Queen,“ —Do? Why, what else?“ (27-29). They continue until they achieve their objective and Cleopatra does exactly their bidding. This tending seems to be motivated by their knowledge that Cleopatra loves Antony, if he does not survive, she will be hurt. They also seem to be motivated by the knowledge that without Cleopatra‘s comfort, Antony could well kill himself, —He is unqualitied with very shame“ (44). Cleopatra goes to him and apologizes for sailing away, leaving his men unprotected. Antony is refreshed by her apology, and goes on to win his next victory on land, almost making up for his loss at sea. However, he chooses to fight another naval battle, and in this one, the Eyptians once again turn their sails back to Egypt leaving Antony‘s men outnumbered and defeated. Antony‘s fury at Cleopatra at this second betrayal frightens Charmian into advising her to —to the monument!/There lock yourself and send him word you are dead“ (IV xii 3-5). Cleopatra‘s trust is made clear by her next action: she locks herself in the monument, and Charmian‘s objective is achieved: she has protected Cleopatra from Antony‘s wrath, and her protection proves timely as Antony tells Mardian, — She hath betrayed me and shall die the death“ (IV xiv 26). Charmian‘s action protected Cleopatra from dying at Antony‘s hand. But, in the next moment it is clear that Charmian is as clever as she is protective when the announcement of Cleopatra‘s —death“ turns Antony‘s wrath to sorrow and he determines without Cleopatra life is no longer worth living, and expresses his desire to be with her through eternity, —But I will be/ A bridegroom in my death and run into‘t /As to a lover‘s bed“ (IV xiv 93), and with these lines, he falls on his sword. There is certain pathos presented in the friendship in the final scene of the play. Cleopatra chooses death over shame; she commits suicide to avoid being paraded in Rome by Casear. While the women, through each scene of the play, have chastised, bolstered and protected, it is the simplicity of the tending that occurs in the final scene that Shakespeare presents as a memorial to the friendship. In the final scene it is their objective to give her the same dignity in death that they gave her in life. When Cleopatra

57 dies, Charmian mourns her death saying, —Now boast thee death in the possession lies/A lass unparrallel‘d.“ (V ii 316). In this private but public moment, she names Cleopatra a girl, an equal, a friend. In her final act of tending, Charmian gently restores the crown that has gone askew on Cleopatra‘s head to its rightful place, —Your crown‘s awry/I‘ll mend it“ (319). A few minutes later when she presents Cleopatra to the guards who rush in hoping to prevent her death so that she can be paraded in Rome for Caesar, Charmian says of her queen‘s death, —It is well done, and fitting for a princess Descended of so many royal queens“ (V ii 327). Her final objective achieved, arranging her queen so that she is presentable to the world, she lies beside her and dies of the same poison as her queen. In peopling this death scene with Charmian and Iras choosing to die beside Cleopatra, Shakespeare paints a stage picture of friends as faithful in death as life28.

In Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640, authors Katherine Henderson and Barbara F. McManus argue that the formal treatises on women of the period present six major images of women, three of which are negative and presented in the antifeminist tracts: the shrew, the seductress and the vain woman. In contrast, the three positive images presented in feminist tracts of the period included the chaste, the pious and the nurturing woman (47-49). The types of women presented on Shakespeare‘s stage were, perhaps, even more influential than women in treatises. It appears that more people attended the theatre than read. The drama was, in Shakespeare‘s day what the cinema is today, a truly popular art form which both shaped and reflected popular modes of perceiving women. On a day when all nine public theatres in Shakespeare‘s London were open, it was theoretically possible for 10 percent of the population to attend. (Henderson and McManus 127) While the authors find a plethora of examples of five of the stereotypes-- shrew, seductress, vain, chaste and pious-- in Renaissance poetry and non-Shakespearean drama, —the positive example of the nurturing woman“ (126), they argue, is rare. —Other traits…patience and stoicism under trial are stressed more than their nurturing qualities“ (126). The nurturing trait —was not seen as ennobling her in the way that chastity and holiness do“ (127). I would argue that Shakespeare presents us with several women of the nurturing type, clearly so in Charmian and Iras. III. Antony and Cleopatra on Film

28 Weller and Ferguson argue that in writing Antony and Cleopatra Shakespeare was influenced by a play about Cleopatra written by his contemporary, Elizabeth Cary, Lady Falkland, author of the first play in English by a woman (The Tragedy of Mariam the Fair, Queen of Jewry) (Weller and Ferguson 41-42). What is especially interesting is the story of the writer‘s life, her devotion to her female friends, and her causes. Elizabeth Cary was largely self educated; it was said she read four languages by the time she was twelve and placed herself into a hundred pounds of debt with her mother‘s servants when she used their candles to read late into the night. Elizabeth Cary‘s life, as recorded in The Lady Falkland, was full of intrigue, romance, passion and revolt. She defied her family in marrying her husband; she defied her husband in her choice of profession, and she defied her country in her choice of religion. She converted to Catholicism early in the 1600s when England was a Protestant country. She died in poverty, but in good mental, physical and spiritual health. She was a generous hearted and generous spirited rebel who was as fiercely loyal to her female friends and serving women as they were to her. According to her daughter‘s biography, —All her friends were able to employ her to the uttermost of her power; and to her friends she continued so to their very deaths“ (The Lady Falkland 199).

58 It would appear that the stereotypes prevalent in Renaissance poetry and non- Shakespearean drama, that is portraits of each stereotype minus the nurturing one, are prevalent in film versions of Antony and Cleopatra, in spite of the textual evidence that presents otherwise. In the 1972 movie version of the play directed by and starring Charlton Heston, Charmian and Iras are absent from the first scene, though the stage directions in the Folio call for their being there. The focus of the first scene in the Heston production is the passion between Antony and Cleopatra. The screen is full of images of the vain and shrewish seductress. Similarly, the 1981 BBC Antony and Cleopatra minimizes the serving women in the opening scene, though Antony‘s men are clearly visible in each cinematic frame. Charmian and Iras flit briefly across the screen, clearly shrews, not nurturers, and only as Cleopatra exits. Even in the scenes in which the script clearly indicates three women and one man, such as act one scene three, Cleopatra is foregrounded; the single woman visible in the scene is shot from behind, and while this is meant to be a scene of intimacy between women, the camera‘s eye searches for and finds other men. Charmian, who seems to want to tend the grieving Cleopatra in act two scene five hesitates before she can even touch her. The nurturer is clearly absent in each of these productions. However, the nurturing tenders are out in full force in the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton 1963 Cleopatra advertised as the —spectacle of spectacles,“ winner of four academy awards, and directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. Cleopatra‘s serving women in this movie are loyal, tending and nurturing. As an example of their loyalty to Cleopatra above all others, the women are ordered away from Cleopatra‘s company by Marc Antony. His orders they completely ignore, they wait for a word from their mistress and only then do they leave her side. Indeed, Cleopatra‘s serving women are a constant presence in the movie, from the powder room scene to the temple scene to the bath scene, Cleopatra is attended by her women. In the powder room, her women stand sentinel over her; when Julius Caesar appears, the women utter a little shriek, and one says, —a man!“ they then surround her protectively, covering her demurely, their arms framing her through the camera‘s eye. She speaks safely ensconced in a company of women who caress her and tend her. In frame after frame, the women appear surrounding her. While the men in her life change (from Caesar to Antony) the women stay the same. And, while the movie is more a historical spectacle than Shakespeare, it is the film version of Antony and Cleopatra that is most familiar to audiences, and, it could be argued, more true to Shakespeare‘s Antony and Cleopatra in its depiction of female alliances.

59 CHAPTER 5 Hamlet —I doubt it is no other but the main/His father‘s death and our o‘er hasty marriage“ (II ii 57)

While the women in the comedies are presented as protecting and tending one another and often the community at large through their alliances with other women, in the tragedies we are presented with the result of both misalliance and isolation. This chapter will examine the nature of the alliances formed by the two female characters in Hamlet, Gertrude and Ophelia, and how these alliances affect the action of the play. I. Brief Synopsis Gertrude joins Claudius in requesting that Hamlet stay at court rather than going back to university in Wittenberg. Laertes leaves his sister, Ophelia with their father Polonius while he leaves for France, warning her not to take Hamlet‘s love seriously. Polonius tells her to stay away from Hamlet, she is obedient. Hamlet is visited by the ghost of his father who bids him avenge his murder but not to involve Gertrude. He plans a play to reveal Claudius‘s guilt. His mother is infuriated at Hamlet‘s behavior at the play, and summons him to her room where he kills Polonius thinking him Claudius. Ophelia goes mad but not before asking to see Gertrude who must be convinced to see her. Hamlet is sent to England by Claudius to be executed, but circumvents his fate and returns to England where he proclaims his love for Ophelia over her grave and is challenged to a sword duel with Laertes, bent on avenging his own father. He and Laertes are killed by the poisoned sword; Gertrude by the poisoned wine, and Claudius by Hamlet.

II. Critical Overview

Feminist critical approaches to reading both Gertrude and Ophelia have been varied but often focus on the questions of female strength and sexuality. In her germinal 1957 essay, —The Character Of Hamlet‘s Mother,“ Carolyn Heilbrun argues against the then traditional critical response to Gertrude which regarded Gertrude as limited by her feminine frailty, —superficial and flighty“ (10). Heilbrun argues that these articles miss the more important aspects of her personality, which is that she is an intelligent, strong willed, succinct woman whose passion has landed her in the marriage with Claudius (11). She reads Gertrude as a gracious hostess to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, a kindly presence for Ophelia, and someone who, when she is confronted with truth, is able to accept it. She sees lust as her weakness, but one from which she recovers after the closet scene with Hamlet (15). Janet Adelman reads Gertrude as less a fully realized character than a —site for fantasies larger than she is“ (qtd in Thompson 30), fantasies which include the fear represented by woman herself, the thing without a phallus, embodiment of the threat of masculine loss, —that which corrupts man against his will“ (Adelman 266). Indeed, for Hamlet, Adelman argues, Gertrude is little more than a reminder of his loss of —the father who can control female appetite, who can secure pure masculine identity for

60 his son“ (279). Adelman reads the patriarchal construct of the world of Hamlet as one in which woman-as-evil is ever present. Elaine Showalter offers us a history of the representations of Ophelia in art, on stage as well as in criticism. She argues that from the 1660s when women first appeared on stage until the Victorians, Ophelia‘s madness was read and presented as sexual melancholia or —erotomania“ in contrast with Hamlet‘s intellectual melancholia, and was defined as the madness of a young woman with either awakening or unusual sexual desire. The Victorians read Ophelia‘s madness as a response to the double standards of sexuality (232) and also a response to her intimidation by her father, her lover and the world in which she lived. Critics of the Freudian era read her madness as an Elektra complex driven by love of her father, and the Post-Freudian feminists have read Ophelia‘s madness as a revolt against patriarchal repression (Showalter 220-238). My approach is, I suspect, unique because while much criticism has been spent on Hamlet‘s lack of a father, nothing that I have found has been written on Gertrude‘s lack of female alliances. And, while Gertrude‘s lust has been the focus of much criticism as well, I will be framing her lust through the lens of female alliances. III. The Impact of Misalliance and Isolation In the early scenes of Hamlet, Gertrude is presented as having chosen an alliance with Claudius that paralyzes both her mother/son relationship and her alliances with other women. As the play unfolds, we see Gertrude moving away from her bond with Claudius and reclaiming her role as a mother to Hamlet. She is, however, unable to connect with Ophelia until her death, when she mourns her loss. Current psychological theory can shed some light on the Gertrude presented in the first few acts of the play. In her classic work In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women‘s Development, Carol Gilligan discusses ethical dilemmas and moral development differences in men and women. She asserts that for men, the primary concern is justice, and for women, the primary concern is care. When women describe themselves, it is primarily through relationship; when men describe themselves, it is primarily through separation and individual accomplishment. Men get the job done; women hold the group together. Of course she submits that these are cultural patterns, not necessary descriptors. An interesting issue arises, she says, when women fear that being concerned with needs of others will impede recognition of self. Yet, Gilligan argues for most women, The truths of relationship, however, return in the rediscovery of connection, in the realization that self and other are interdependent and that life, however valuable in itself, can only be sustained by care in relationships. (127) I would submit that the rhetoric of Hamlet suggests that without —care in relationships,“ that is when the tending within a female community is missing, the entire community suffers. IV. Gertrude‘s Journey It can be argued that the text presents a Gertrude who moves from preoccupied lover to loving mother, and while the journey can be read to be similar to Lear‘s, that is, as a lesson that is hard earned, perhaps even at the cost of the lives of those he loves, in the end, Gertrude‘s dying words are protective of her son. She has learned the difference between lust and the care in relationship that sustains life, albeit too late to save the life of

61 either herself or her son. This aspect of the play is highlighted in the comments of Sian Thomas, who played Gertrude in the 2004 RSC production. As she says, —It seems to me that Gertrude has never been much of a mother, but her journey in the play is that she becomes one.“ My reading of this play will be a production oriented one in which I sometimes draw on directors and performers‘ comments to show how contemporary performers and performances of Hamlet bring to the surface issues of community and female alliance that the critics have generally overlooked, as well as how the scenes might interpreted then blocked to highlight these issues. I will be, in a sense, taking the lead of Thomas and other actors by using acting terms such as motivation29, objective30 and obstacle31 in discussing the characters. We first see Gertrude enter with Claudius in act one scene two. Her overall objective in this scene seems to be to please Claudius. She parrots his speech as well as his stage actions. He enters; she enters. He chides Hamlet; she chides Hamlet. He departs; she departs. Her obstacle in the scene, the thing that keeps getting in the way of achieving her objective is Hamlet. Gertrude‘s opening lines to Hamlet are invectives; she tells him to pull himself together and stop mourning; she does this in a public place, subjecting him to humiliation. Her immediate objective is to have Hamlet do as Claudius wishes: get rid of the clouds (II ii 66). Good Hamlet, cast thy knighted color off, And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark. Do not forever with thy vailed lids Seek for thy noble father in the dust. (I ii 68-72) Gertrude‘s words are commands rather than suggestions; she commands him to forget his grief and move on as if nothing has happened, as if his father has not died and his uncle has not married his mother less than a month after the death of his father. Hamlet is left with no choice other than to agree. To disagree would hinge on treason. When Gertrude says —Thou know‘st ”tis common, / All that lives must die, / Passing through nature to eternity“ (I ii 70-72), she is, in effect, saying, —this happens to everyone.“ Hamlet, however, proves to be less malleable than she would like, a clear obstacle to her achieving her goal of bringing Hamlet into compliance with Claudius‘s wishes. Hamlet‘s own objective here is to cut her to the quick without being treasonous. Thus, he dissembles, offering Gertrude words that can be read as either a slap in the face or as the uttering of heart-felt grief. When he says, —it is common,“ the pun is, of course, on common; he finds her whorish. But Gertrude, eager to win achieve her objective, questions him again as to why he has to carry on so about his father‘s death, and, perhaps, deliberately misunderstands the pun, —If it be [common] /Why seems it so particular with thee?“ (I ii 74-75). At this point, Hamlet‘s objective shifts and he wants to shame her, —”seems,‘ madam–nay, it is, I know not ”seems‘/‘Tis not alone my inky cloak, cold mother,/Nor customary suits of solemn black…these indeed seem…/But I have that within me which passes show/these but the trappings and suits of woe“ (I ii 79-85). And here, Claudius must step in to achieve his own objective, to silence Hamlet, driven by his

29 What drives the character to make the choices he or she makes. 30 What the character wants in each scene or beat. 31 What gets in the way of the character‘s achievement of his or her objective in the scene or beat.

62 overall motivation in the play which is to gain the respect of the court. 32Claudius urges Hamlet to remember that everyone loses their father at some point, and moreover, his grief is —unmanly“ (94). Gertrude continues with her objective of pleasing Claudius by parroting his new tactic, appeasing Hamlet. The choice of this objective requires that the actress ignore Hamlet‘s —cold mother“ thrust and move forward with soft words, —Let not thy mother lose her prayers, I pray thee stay with us, go not to Wittenberg“ ( 118-119). She knows she has achieved her objective of pleasing Claudius when Hamlet replies, —I shall in all my best obey you, madam“ (120) and the king reads this as a positive response, —Why tis a loving and fair reply“ (121). In the 2004 RSC production, in order to highlight Gertrude‘s alliance with Claudius and separation from her son, this scene was staged with Hamlet as far as possible from Gertrude. Gertrude retained her seat beside Claudius and did not move from the throne to comfort Hamlet. While former productions, notably the Olivier film version (1948) as well as the New York Shakespeare Festival Kevin Kline production (1990), present the Oedipal Hamlet with Gertrude as the cloying mother–in each Gertrude stays uncomfortably close to Hamlet--the rhetoric of the script seems to point towards a different Gertrude. It is clear in this first exchange that she has no desire to nurture Hamlet. In order to achieve her objective of pleasing Claudius it is necessary for her to isolate herself from Hamlet‘s feelings. By the end of the scene she has achieved her objective, but she has sacrificed her son to do so. What can be read as Gertrude‘s motivation in this scene, indeed in nearly all the scenes of the play up through act three scene four? According to the Ghost of Hamlet senior, Gertrude was seduced by Claudius and her lust overcame her reason, —So Lust, though to a radiant angel linked, will sate itself in a celestial bed“ (I v 55-56). The ghost could be read as echoing a view of women that Maxwell argues is a holdover from the medieval era but which still held some sway in the Renaissance that —women were … insatiably lusty creatures and dangerous to men“ (Maxwell 256). However, Sian Thomas offers a useful alternative view to reading Gertrude. Thomas argues that Gertrude‘s neglect for Hamlet has been as result of her reborn sexuality in her marriage to Claudius. According to Thomas, it has blinded her menopausal mind to anything else, Gertrude, after marrying Claudius, is able to regain her sexual potency and for a while she doesn‘t have to face up to her age or her responsibilities as a mother. In that sense, Gertrude‘s is a dilemma familiar to most menopausal women. Gertrude‘s objective for scene after scene all through acts one and two can be read as driven by her desire to please Claudius driven by this newly discovered sexual potency. However, her objective changes when Hamlet literally holds a mirror to her face and makes her see her lust for what it is: an unhealthy obsession that is robbing her of her ability to —care in relationships“ to borrow Gilligan‘s phrase, or —to tend, “ to borrow

32 Claudius had already achieved his objective in his opening speech on a politically sensitive topic, —Though yet of Hamlet our dear brother‘s death / The memory be green, and that it us befitted / To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom / To be contracted in one brow of woe“ (I ii 1-5). Claudius, always the politician, understands that his audience must make sense of the two feelings they have at the moment: on the one hand, they feel grief for what has been lost–a beloved king; on the other hand, they recognize they must muster up joy for the new king and revamped monarchy. He gives them permission to feel torn, —Have we, as ‘twere with a defeated joy, / With an auspicious, and a dropping eye“ (10-11) and that is exactly what makes him a successful politician.

63 Taylor‘s phrase, as she ought as a mother and queen. Further, as Gilligan and Taylor argue, the tending and networking with other women that she is missing out on could not only insure the health of the family and kingdom, but also her own emotional health. Throughout acts one and two, Gertrude continues her objective to please Claudius, even as she distances herself from her son. This alliance she chooses with Claudius excludes both her child and the other women in the court. We see the effects of this as the court deteriorates, and the ultimate failure of her objective when Claudius, in despair, says, —O Gertrude, Gertrude, when sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions“ (IV v 71). Paralyzed by her desire, Gertrude remains static, a fixture who merely agrees with Claudius and Polonius as they orchestrate the use of Ophelia as the bait to lure Hamlet into revealing the secret of his madness, hoping to trap him into a healing, though not through any desire to heal him for his own good, but for theirs. Claudius is driven by his desire to maintain the goodwill of his people; Hamlet is his obstacle. He fears Hamlet may reveal his crime to the people. Polonius is motivated by his need to maintain his political importance to the king, though age is making it more and more difficult. If Hamlet is healed, he can marry Ophelia and solidify his family‘s position and power at court. Gertrude, blinded by her single-minded desire to please Claudius, sees none of this, and her most basic protective instinct as a mother is usurped. It is fury at her son‘s clear responsibility in staging the play designed to upset Claudius, as well as his utter rudeness with Ophelia during the play that finally drives her to the one on one conversation with Hamlet in act three scene four. She demands Hamlet come to her room at once, and he does so. Her objective at the beginning of this scene is to make Hamlet feel shame for upsetting Claudius. To achieve this she says, —Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended“ (III iv 8). What she means, of course, is that Hamlet has offended Claudius, his uncle. She wants so desperately to forget the old family unit and move into a new one that she attempts to yank Hamlet with her, forcing an unwanted stepfather on an unwilling child. Hamlet bristles immediately and points out to Gertrude the harsh reality of who she is and what she is doing, —Mother, you have my father much offended“ (III iv 10), to which Gertrude responds, —You answer with an idle tongue.“ Gertrude is so immersed in her own reality that she will never achieve her objective for this scene; she wants desperately to believe that Hamlet has bought into it as well. When Hamlet raises the stakes of the stychomithic exchange, accusing her of being wicked, —you question with a wicked tongue“ (12), Gertrude is bewildered. She knows herself to have been neglectful, but the accusation of wickedness catches her off guard, and stuns her into silence. She is finally able to say that she needs someone else to speak with him since he will not speak sensibly with her, —I‘ll set those to you that can speak“ (17). Hamlet‘s candor frightens her, and her objective changes. She wants to get away from Hamlet. When she moves to bring someone else into the room with her, he says, —Come, come, sit you down,“ no, I want to speak with you alone. It is at this point that she screams, Polonius moves behind the curtain, and Hamlet stabs him. It is Gertrude‘s reaction to the murder that clues us in to her psychological state. She is surprisingly unmoved by the murder; her objective in this moment has little to do with grieving for Polonius and all to do with preserving her dignity. She draws Hamlet back immediately to the place he left off : —What have I done that thou dar‘st wag thy tongue / In noise so rude against me?“ (37-38). It is not until Hamlet paints a clear picture of the murder of his father and Gertrude‘s role in solidifying Claudius‘s power

64 (53-85) that Gertrude relents, admits her guilt (87-90), and begs Hamlet to be quiet; she does not want to hear anything further about her own guilt (95). It is at this point that the ghost appears reminding him that he is not after his mother but Claudius. The ghost reminds him that imagination is strong in the weak; that Gertrude believes what she wishes to believe. Sian Thomas sees this as a turning point for Gertrude: When the Ghost first appears and she can‘t see him she says of Hamlet ”alas he‘s mad‘. Those are the first glimmerings of real concern she shows for her son. By the end, it‘s Hamlet who does all the talking: she gets quieter and quieter until finally she says ”what shall I do?‘ She‘s become helpless, but is able then to feel more. Those are the first glimmerings of a maternal air. That‘s when she lets go of her power, of her sexuality, of being a queen. In that scene she‘s forced to choose between her husband/lover and her son and she chooses her son. By the end of the scene you know she‘s on Hamlet‘s side, even if she‘s a bit wobbly. Hamlet makes Gertrude swear that she will not reveal that Hamlet knows how his father was murdered; he has her promise to continue the myth of his madness. Gertrude does so. She does not reveal to Claudius that he has been found out. She continues to play the role of the good wife and loyal partner. What does Gertrude feel? Because of her uncertainty, this is difficult to ascertain. However, Sian Thomas chooses to play this as part of Gertrude‘s loyalty to Hamlet, When she sees Claudius at the start of the next scene, her view of him has changed. He isn‘t the same man: He‘s a murderer and I think she‘s genuinely scared. Hamlet has told her not to go to Claudius‘s bed and possibly, hopefully, she doesn‘t. But then again, perhaps it would be too dangerous not to. Gertrude, then, seems to follow Hamlet‘s plan. We see her defending Hamlet next, not in a guarded moment alone with Claudius, but in full vision and hearing of the entire court while at Ophelia‘s grave. Ophelia‘s death seems to awaken something in Gertrude. Carolyn Heilbrun argues that she alone feels true grief when Ophelia dies (12). At Ophelia‘s funeral, when Laertes and Hamlet struggle in the newly dug grave, Hamlet reveals the depth of his feeling for Ophelia. —I lov‘d Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers / Could not with all their quantity of love/Make up my sum“ (V i 269-270). The men dismiss his words as a rant, but Gertrude‘s mother‘s heart hears the truth in her son‘s lament, and she takes a stand, a feeble one, but a stand nonetheless against Claudius when she says to Claudius, —For the love of God forbear him“ (273). Be patient and listen to him, she says. Can‘t you hear that these are the words of his heart speaking? She is immediately silenced by the men around her, and, perhaps remembering her promise to keep up the pretense of Hamlet‘s madness, she backs down and agrees with the men that Hamlet is, indeed, mad. Her objective has changed. She is no longer pleasing Claudius but protecting and tending Hamlet. Tending Hamlet becomes her primary objective in the final scene of the play. First she wishes to wipe his brow with her handkerchief, —Here, Hamlet, take my napkin, rub thy brows“ (287), and then again later, she says, —come, let me wipe thy face“ (294). Indeed, her final words in the play are words of compassionate concern for Hamlet: she has been poisoned by the drink, and she warns him not to drink lest he be poisoned as

65 well, —No, no, the drink, the drink–O my dear Hamlet–the drink, the drink! I am pois‘ned“ (310). Of course, it is too late; he has been wounded by the poisoned sword, but her words give him the courage to both wound Claudius with the poisoned sword as well as make him drink the poisoned drink. Gertrude ends the play a seemingly changed woman. She has gone from cold hearted, but perhaps highly charged sexual partner of Claudius to a more emotionally and physically protective mother. It could be argued that her moving safely into her role as tending mother occurs concurrently with proper order being restored in Denmark. Gertrude has the power and position to effect change before she dies: Hamlet dies having served justice in doing what he believes to be the right thing. Ophelia is not so lucky. Indeed, in Ophelia‘s death, we see the most tragic consequences of both Gertrude‘s inability to tend, and her inability to forge alliances with the women in her court. V. Ophelia Alone On the stage Ophelia‘s madness has been presented as the result of either her overbearing father (National Theatre 1989, RSC 1992), Hamlet‘s cruelty (RSC 1980, Branagh 1992), or her own inborn insanity (RSC 2001). Bloggers on the —Talking to William Shakespeare“ website suggest that Ophelia‘s madness is simply the sane response to an insane world in which her father and brother in turn speak harshly, ignore her, and then leave her. Elaine Showalter argues that these stage presentations are, in fact, cultural readings, and that Ophelia‘s madness is seen through the lens of the culture to which the play is presented (91). A convincing argument (as seen through my own admittedly narrow cultural lens) is made in the RSC‘s most recent production by actress Meg Fraser, who plays Ophelia, and says that Ophelia goes mad because in her grief and silence she is utterly alone: Ophelia‘s mad scenes make perfect sense to me. Her madness is a culmination of things. Ophelia‘s quite quiet, unable to communicate; she‘s had to suppress her thoughts and feelings. But I think no matter how badly her father treated her, she liked him. He was just about all she had œ there is no mum and Laertes has gone off to France. She‘s fairly smart but it‘s not a very stimulating environment. She has no female company. A recurring theme, then, for Ophelia is the loss of those whom she loves. Her brother to whom she appears quite connected leaves early in the play advising her to stay away from Hamlet. Because Ophelia seems to have no other connections with people, her father being obsessed with the retention of Claudius‘s power and the tracking of Hamlet‘s madness, Ophelia is alone. She has neither female alliance nor female friend; she doesn‘t even have anyone she can tend. From the perspective of Taylor‘s theory, Ophelia alone is doomed. Ophelia‘s first entrance is with Laertes. It is obvious at the top of the scene that the relationship between Ophelia and Laertes is a close one. Laertes asks Ophelia to write him before she even goes to sleep that night. Ophelia happily agrees, but then he abruptly changes course and without bothering to smooth the rough edges of his warning, he tells Ophelia that Hamlet only pretends to love her, and that he really does not love her. As the audience, we are not privy to the information that leads Laertes to this assertion. The action, however, is in Ophelia‘s response. The words take her back, quite literally in some productions of the play. Helena Bohnam Carter‘s Ophelia (Warner Brothers, 1990)

66 steps back as if to avoid contact with the barbed comments Laertes is making. What he tells Ophelia is that while Hamlet may believe himself in love with her, —Perhaps he doth love you now, And now no soil nor cautel doth besmirch / The virtue of his will“ (I iii 14- 15). But, Laertes continues, he will either grow out of it, or, at some point, be forced out of it because as a —great“ person, he has no choice in whom he marries. —He may not, as unvalued persons do, / Carve for himself, for on his choice depends / The safety and health of this whole state“ (20-21). His bride will be decided for him, —And therefore must his choice be circumscrib‘d / Unto the voice and yielding of that body/whereof he is the head“ (23-24). Thus, Ophelia must guard her heart from becoming too attached. He especially wants her to guard her virginity and takes several lines underlining this point. Laertes‘ advice to Ophelia, —Then weigh what loss your honor may sustain / Or ….your chaste treasure open to his unmast‘red importunity. / Fear it“ (29-32). Without the support of a mother, a friend or even a nurse, Ophelia must take Laertes‘ commentary on her relationship with Hamlet at face value. However, by the funeral scene when Hamlet reveals his deep love for Ophelia, the audience understands that Laertes has misread Hamlet‘s intentions. After Laertes has made it plain to Ophelia that Hamlet‘s only wish is to compromise her chastity, he continues speaking as if in love with his own voice. He is a verbose as his father and wastes several minutes preaching to Ophelia what it is she should do and be. At some point, Ophelia‘s objective changes from wanting Laertes to stay as long as he can to trying to shut him up so he will leave, and she advises him to be certain to heed his own advice. It is this speech that makes it clear that Ophelia is mentally healthy at the beginning of the play: I shall the effect of this good lesson keep As watchman to my heart. But, good my brother, Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven Whiles, a puff‘d and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads, And reaks not his own rede. (45-51) Thus, we see an Ophelia strong enough to stand up for herself. However, as soon as Laertes leaves and Ophelia is left alone with Polonius, her sails seem to wilt and she shrinks under the unwavering hostility of her father‘s interrogation. —What is‘t, Ophelia, he has said to you?“ (87). Her objective is to have her father trust her, so she immediately tells him that Laertes has given her advice about Hamlet. Polonius responds with a spiteful, venomous charge that she has been —free and bounteous“ in her audience, implying that she has engaged in licentious behavior. Still seeking his trust and now his approval, she assures her father that Hamlet has been chaste and virtuous in his advances. However, as Polonius pelts her with questions and advice it becomes clear that her objective will never be achieved because of the obstacle that is her father, she must change her objective, this time to simply getting him to tell her what to think and therefore do. —I do not know, my lord, what I should think“ (103). Her father tells her she has been a fool to think that Hamlet wants anything more from her than her body, and he has forbidden her to talk to Hamlet further. By the end of this scene, Ophelia needs a girl‘s night out to make sense of all the patriarchal excrement that has been shoveled her way. Whatever voice Ophelia had in the scene with Laertes seems to have been lost by the time her father finishes with her. As an obedient daughter, she does

67 what he asks and stops allowing Hamlet to visit or talk with her, furthering her isolation, and robbing her of someone to tend. The result of her actions as Ophelia reports to her father in II i is that Hamlet —turns“ mad. In this scene, her second stage appearance, Ophelia is with Polonius to whom she is relating the story of Hamlet‘s mad visit. Of course, the audience understands that Hamlet, having just been visited by the ghost of his father and having learned of his mother‘s indiscretions is already mistrustful of the most important woman in his life. When shortly after, presumably, Ophelia does —repel his letters and denied his access“ (II i 106-107), Hamlet has been doubly hurt. The two women in Hamlet‘s life whom he must trust have abandoned him, one by betraying his father, the other by suddenly refusing to see him or receive his letters. Ophelia‘s character is weakened when she is forced to ally herself with men rather than being free to seek out the support of women. It is clear later in the play that Gertrude, the woman that she seeks out for alliance and community, refuses to see her. When Ophelia reveals to Polonius that she has been obedient in following through on his wishes and refusing to see Hamlet, Polonius responds with —That hath made him mad“ (108), at which point Ophelia must choose as her objective winning back Hamlet‘s love. Again, however, the script presents her with no one with whom to process this information, no girlfriends, not even a nurse. Polonius runs straight to Claudius with the news. At the beginning of the scene, Gertrude is cognizant of exactly what is bothering Hamlet, Claudius: He [Polonius] tells me, my dear Gertrude, he hath found/The head and source of all your son‘s distemper. Gertrude: I doubt it is no other but the main,/His father‘s death and our [o‘erhasty] marriage. (II ii 55-59) By the end of II ii, however, Polonius and Claudius have convinced Gertrude that Hamlet is out of sorts because he cannot have Ophelia. They plan to spy on Hamlet as he talks with Ophelia. Ironically, Gertrude, who might actually have been able to pierce her shield of rediscovered sexuality and tend and befriend her at this point, is kept from viewing the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia by the two men. Gertrude is asked to leave so that Polonius and Claudius can spy on Hamlet as he talks with Ophelia, effectively isolating the two women from any alliance. Since the spying scene takes place much later, (III i), it is easy to believe that Hamlet has gotten wind of it and is thus aware of Ophelia‘s complicity. His anger smolders so that by the time he meets with her, he is awash in fierce criticism which he levels on Ophelia. From this she never recovers. Nonetheless, the plan precipitates the only direct conversation that Ophelia has with another woman in the entire play: there is one moment during which Gertrude speaks to Ophelia in Act three scene one, and she says, And for your part, Ophelia, I do wish That your good beauties be the happy cause Of Hamlet‘s wildness. So shall I hope your virtues Will bring him to his wanted way again, To both your honors. (III i 37-40) To which Ophelia replies, —Madam, I wish it may“ (III i 42). This exchange portrays a woman who would love, at this point in the play, to believe that the problem with her son has nothing to do with her own —o‘er hasty marriage“ and the death of his father. Her

68 words to Ophelia are indicative of a failure to accept the position of one who tends. The hope is that Ophelia‘s virtues rather than maternal intervention will bring Hamlet to where he belongs. Gertrude‘s own needs–to be rid of guilty concerning her son, and her somewhat ironic insistence on Ophelia‘s honor and virtue block her from acting on the raw need of Ophelia for friendship, compassion and mothering. Ophelia hears Gertrude wish her and Hamlet her best; she expresses the desire to see love take its natural course, for Ophelia‘s beauty to capture Hamlet‘s love so that she can tend his emotions. However, this is not what transpires. While we may recognize at this point the necessity of allowing this to happen, Gertrude does not intervene to make it happen. Instead, the men spying on the lovers are discovered by Hamlet who believes Ophelia to be on their side and not his. This, then, is the last sane moment that Ophelia has, for after the following scene in which the men conspire to keep Ophelia away from Hamlet, Opheila is actually prevented from providing Hamlet with the tending he needs; Hamlet treats her harshly, and she is undone. Unable to either tend or befriend, Ophelia goes mad. Indeed, later in the play (III v) when Gertrude is called upon to help Ophelia, she at first flat out refuses, and then she does the minimum of upkeep, ultimately turning over the tending to Claudius who is, indeed, manipulatively gifted at making all the characters in the play, except Hamlet, feel calmed. Claudius can be played as one who reads people well, and tells them what they need to hear. In this, her final cry for help (III v), Ophelia seeks audience with the only other woman in the play, Gertrude. However, Gertrude denies her request and sends her away. The scene opens quite dramatically. The queen, Horatio, and a gentleman enter. Apparently, we are hearing the end of what has been a long conversation. At the moment the scene opens, Gertrude is perturbed. —I will not speak with her,“ ( IV v 1) Gertrude says. The gentleman implores Gertrude to please speak with Ophelia saying that she is pathetic, distracted, and pitiable. She needs another woman; she has asked for another woman, but in this moment of moral choice, Gertrude appears coldheartedly resolute. —What would she have?“ (4), she asks; the gentleman reveals that Ophelia‘s words do not make sense, that she is distracted, and that she rambles on. Gertrude is still unmoved, paralyzed, it seems, by her own guilt, until, finally, Horatio manipulates Gertrude into speaking to her by telling her that if she doesn‘t, Ophelia may spread nasty rumors about her. —‘Twere good she were spoken with, for she may strew / Dangerous conjectures in ill-breeding minds“ (15). He understands the political necessity of a woman‘s tending for Ophelia, and he also understands that the only way he is going to get Gertrude‘s help is to scare her into it. In Gilligan‘s language, this is when Gertrude is caught in the conventional notion that —responsiveness to other impedes a recognition of self“ (127). Gertrude relents, but, in her aside reveals that her guilt will render her unable to reach out to Ophelia. Her obvious struggle seems to indicate that she is coming to some recognition that what is —valuable“ and in her case impeded by her own guilt, is what Gilligan names that which —can only be sustained by care in relationships“ (127). To my sick soul, as sin‘s true nature is Each toy seems prologue to some great amiss, So full of artless jealousy is guilt, It spills itself in fearing to be spilt. (19-20)

69 Guilt has gotten in the way of compassion, and Ophelia, with no female nurturing is as good as lost. Indeed, Gertrude is alone with her for less than 10 lines before the king comes in and takes control of the conversation (40-70). Claudius steps in and tries to understand and calm Ophelia. —How do you pretty lady?“ and Ophelia replies, —Well, God‘ield you! They say the owl was a baker‘s daughter.“ This, of course, is Ophelia‘s mad scene. Indeed, it becomes clear in this scene that what little desire Gertrude may have had to tend Ophelia has been completely obliterated by her desire to please Claudius and hide her own culpability, —Alas, look here my Lord,“ she says to Claudius, turning the entire situation over to him to sort out. By the end of this scene, Gertrude is strangely, almost eerily silent. Ophelia has succumbed to madness, and Gertrude neither wishes to nor is she able to penetrate Ophelia‘s shell. It could be argued that Gertrude‘s silence in this scene is Ophelia‘s death knell. Without Gertrude‘s providing Ophelia with the supportive tending that she desperately needs, Ophelia just a few hundred lines later has committed suicide. It is however, exactly the jolt Gertrude needs. It is in the very next scene, the graveyard scene, that Gertrude is finally able to defy those around her and speak up for Hamlet sounding like a mother for the first time in the play, —For the love of God, forbear him“ she implores Claudius to silence him so that Hamlet can mourn Ophelia.

70 CHAPTER 6 Othello —O, lay me by my mistress‘ side.“ (V ii 236) In Othello, Emilia chooses to ally herself with her husband in a marriage of exclusivity, one that paralyzes her ability to form stable alliances with female friends. While it could be argued in Hamlet, that because of her inability to tend, Gertrude is indirectly responsible for Ophelia‘s death, I will be arguing in this chapter that Emilia‘s choice to ally herself with her husband and exclude the needs of Desdemona triggers Desdemona‘s death. When Emilia realizes her mistake, she regrets it, but it is too late to save either Desdemona or herself.

I. Synopsis Othello and Desdemona marry without the blessings of family or friends, and set off for Cyprus where Othello is to defend the port from Turkish invasion. Othello asks his trusted ensign, Iago, to be in charge of Desdemona on the journey, and his wife, Emilia, to tend her. Iago, furious that Othello has chosen Cassio rather than himself to be his lieutenant, plots to ruin both Cassio and Othello by making Othello believe Cassio and Desdemona are lovers. He ruins Cassio by provoking his drunken disorderliness that Iago then calls Othello to witness. Othello believes Iago‘s insinuations about his wife, and is further convinced by discovering his mother‘s handkerchief, now Desdemona‘s, in the possession of Cassio. He is enraged and murders her only to discover that Iago was lying, that the handkerchief was taken from Desdemona by Emilia and given to Iago who planted it on Cassio. Iago kills Emilia for telling the truth, Othello kills Iago for killing his wife, and Cassio is instated as Governor of Cyprus.

II. Critical Overview

While the majority of the recent criticism on Othello has focused on the relationship between gender, race and power (Loomba; Greenblatt; Newman) and the central issue of Othello‘s jealousy and his relationship with Iago and Desdemona, the focus of this chapter will be the relationship between Emilia and Desdemona. Carol Thomas Neely argues that this play at its most basic level is about the values of men versus the values of women. She argues that while in the comedies it is the values of women that dominate; in the tragedies it is the values of men that are dominant. My argument is in some ways very similar to Neely‘s, though there are two major differences. The first is in our readings of the character of Emilia. While she sees Emilia as the binding force of the play, the even voice of reason, I read Emilia as a destructive force, representative of the danger inherent when women ally themselves to men in a relationship of exclusivity. Kenneth Burke also points out the dangers of exclusivity in relationship by linking the sort of marriage that Othello and Desdemona have contracted with the land enclosure disputes that were destroying entire communities in which the land owner re-appropriated his land for luxury crops like wheat that required vast tracts of land to support, effectively displacing former tenant farmers. The breakdown in these

71 communities is similar to the breakdown in female alliances that occur when marriage becomes privatized, a relationship that excludes rather than invites community. The second point of difference in our arguments is this: while Neely views the friendship between the women as growing gradually closer throughout the play, arguing that, —Emilia‘s and Desdemona‘s lack of competitiveness, jealousy and class consciousness facilitates their growing intimacy which culminates in the willow scene“ (144), I would argue instead that while Desdemona seeks friendship with Emilia, as is suggested in this scene and, indeed, throughout the play, Emilia is unable to form a healthy alliance with Desdemona because of her unhealthy alliance with her husband. In fact it seems clear to me that the values she voices in the willow scene are, in fact, the values of her husband rather than the values reflective of a tending alliance. When Desdemona asserts she wouldn‘t cheat on her husband for all the world, —Beshrew me, if I would do such a wrong/For the whole world“ (IV iii 73-74). Emilia counters with, —Why who would not make her husband a cuckold to make him a monarch? I should venture purgatory upon it“ (IV iii 70-73). We see two things here, first that Emilia‘s alliance with her husband is exclusive–she will risk her —soul“ in order to gain for him what he wants, and second she makes it quite clear that for her, position is more important than relationship. This reflects Iago‘s motivation throughout the play in which he severs relationships in order to gain a more powerful position. Desdemona, here, voices that values of community in which relationship with husband, with wives, with others is privileged. Ultimately, the friendship between Desdemona and Emilia is breeched by the theft of the handkerchief. Emilia is unable to truly choose the values of the tending community by realizing Desdemona‘s need for her and her need for an alliance with Desdemona until the final scene of the play after Desdemona is dead. For Neely, women in Shakespeare‘s tragedies are —constrained by the male characters from exercising their traditional role as mediators“ (134). She frames her argument with a reading of one of Shakespeare‘s possible source materials for Othello, the seventh tale of Gli Hecatommithi in which Neely argues, —the wives, even when wronged often succeed in mending the relationships. The women in Othello similarly seek to secure harmonious relationships but fail to do so“ (135). While I agree with Neely that the women in Shakespeare‘s play fail to operate as mediators, and would further argue that this is an important part of creating healthy community alliances, in my reading of Othello, the women are not so much constrained by the male characters themselves as they are by their misalliance with those male characters. III. The Tragic Consequence of Misalliance My argument, then, is that like Gertrude, Emilia is presented by the text as being part of an unhealthy alliance with her husband, one that not only limits her capacity to tend and befriend. This alliance is also one in which Emilia, like Gertrude, parrots her husband‘s deception in order to please him and as Nelly also argues, —creates the catalyst for the play‘s crisis“ (151). While in Hamlet the women are somewhat isolated from female friends, Othello takes this isolation a step further. In fact, the isolation is all the more bitter here because we actually see the two women together, in the willow scene for example, in an intimate setting that holds out the potential for friendship and support. The two women have followed their military husbands to Cyprus, far away from a safe network of family and friends. What is shown in this drama is that as loyal friends are removed and women are distanced from the potentially supportive family network,

72 so, too are a woman‘s emotional and physical safeguards removed. Shelley Taylor offers insight into the psychology of isolation for women. She argues that women separated from their family and female support groups are almost twice as likely to be abused by their husbands. According to Taylor, women cut off from support networks live less long and are more subject to violent treatment from their spouses or significant others. This finding is based not only on studies done in modern urban settings, but also those done in primitive rural societies (95-96; 101-104). Shakespeare‘s presentation of these two female characters, then, is well within the boundaries of psychological credibility. The military setting is transitory with few of the traditional societal safeguards for women. It is not surprising that Desdemona is murdered by her own husband and Emilia by hers. In this way, it is a very contemporary play as it grapples with the issues created by a mobile population. In this atmosphere, it is doubly important, that, as Othello says to Iago, —Men should be as they seem“ (III iii 127). From the first act of the play, it is clear that both marriages are troubled, one because it falls outside the accepted social order, and the other because the husband has no love for his wife. Desdemona and Othello have married in the dark of the night, with no family present, a white girl marrying a black man. While Brabantio was happy to be Othello‘s friend, indeed Othello was a privileged guest in his home, he did not see Othello as an appropriate husband for his daughter.33 While it is a legal marriage, her father having reluctantly agreed, and the Duke having joyously sanctioned it, her father‘s pride is injured by it (I iii 190-199). Indeed, he warns Othello, in his bitterness, —Look to her, Moor, if thou has eyes to see / She has deceiv‘d her father, and may thee“ ( I iii 292- 93). On this ominous note, the newlyweds begin their life together. The marriage completely isolates Desdemona from any family ties. When the Duke suggests she stay home with her father while Othello goes to fight the Turks in Cyprus, Brabantio says no. Desdemona‘s response is —Let me go with him [Othello]“ (I iii 259). Her request is followed by Othello‘s assurance to the duke that she will not distract him from his duties; that in granting her wish, they are doing it solely for Desdemona and not for Othello: —Let her have your voice/Vouch with me heaven, I therefore beg it not/To please the palate of my appetite“ (I iii 260-261). The Duke grudgingly grants them leave to go together. While they have violated social custom, they have done it with the belief that their marriage will not suffer because of it. Othello feels his life of service gives some surety, —If virtue no delighted beauty lack / Your son-in-law is far more fair than black“ (289-290), and the Duke concurs. Both Othello and Desdemona fill the spot Aristotle holds for tragic heroes; each is admirable, and at the same point human. In this moment they are presented as human in their naïve belief that their love transcends social norms. From the onset, the script presents us with an uneasy alliance between Desdemona and Emilia that can be read as the catalyst for tragedy, compounded but not created by the filching of the hankie. Their first encounter suggests that friendship is an achievable objective. The lines that make up their first exchange reveal a problematic marriage between Iago and Emilia. Iago presents himself as a bad husband early in the scene. While his complaints are lighthearted, and the stage direction calls for laughter, Desdemona proves herself a loyal friend in the opening lines of act two scene one. When

33 For a careful discussion of the magnitude of the racial injustice of the time as reflected in the play, please see Ania Loomba‘s Gender, Race and Renaissance Drama.

73 Iago accuses Emilia of being a shrew, Desdemona defends her immediately, —Alas! She has no speech!“ she says (102), and follows up by calling Iago a slanderer when he continues to berate his wife. Rather than shaming Iago, as Desdemona‘s objective might be, this speech incites him, and he uses his next line to situate himself as an enemy to both of the women: Iago accuses all women of being whores, —You rise to play, and go to bed to work“ (II i 115). Desdemona‘s objective in the scene is to ally herself with Emilia and belittle Iago. Desdemona consistently defends herself and Emilia against Iago‘s lightly veiled malicious verbal volley. Throughout the play, Iago serves as the antagonist; the obstacle to their friendship and the counter-example of Taylor‘s tending and befriending community. Later in the scene, Desdemona foreshadows her own doom and the tragic flaw that will bring Emilia down: —Do not learn of him, Emilia, though he be thy husband“ (162). Desdemona‘s words have as their objective the desire both to empower Emilia and ally her with Desdemona. It is the sort of communally empowered exchange that protects women from abusive husbands. Unfortunately for them both, Emilia is unable to heed her advice and does, indeed —learn of“ her husband; she allows him to teach her how to behave rather than allying herself with the woman who is now protecting her from his insults. An important obstacle to their friendship occurs when their soldier husbands are not needed as soldiers, and must define themselves as husbands. Before Othello‘s ship has even landed in Cyprus, the war is over, and his purpose for being there is no longer clear. Iago, recognizes the folly available in idleness and uses it to his advantage. His plot for bringing Othello down is intricate, but, a key element of the plan involves weakening the tie between the two women in order to destroy the tie between Othello and Desdemona. The alliance he has with his wife is for his own convenience, Othello‘s alliance with his wife his reason for being. In Act II scene iii, Iago reveals his objective: to undermine Desdemona, he must involve Emilia, her closest friend. —My wife must move for Cassio to her mistress / … / I‘ll set her on“ (382-84). This line assumes a close alliance between servant and mistress. In order to gain access to Desdemona, Cassio must go through Emilia. —I have made bold, Iago/ to send in to your wife. My suit to her/Is that she will to virtuous Desdemona/ Procure me some access“ (III i 32-35).34 Though her husband‘s rank is less than Othello‘s, the tie that binds them seems to be friendship rather than servitude. Emilia is not Desdemona‘s servant; she is a fellow military wife. This alliance is also deliberately misread by Othello in act four, this time as the relationship between madame and whore. Iago recognizes that admission to Desdemona is through Emilia, and this is true not only for Cassio but for himself as well. But, as we have seen in act four scene two when Desdemona must gain access to Iago through Emilia, just as surely as Emilia guards admittance to Desdemona, and in that way can choose to protect her or not, so also does she guard the same admittance to her husband. Her choice to protect him over Desdemona unravels her alliance with Desdemona. However, still throughout act three scene three, the script suggests a close and trusting relationship between Emilia and Desdemona. They enter the scene together and exit together; Emilia guards access to Desdemona and Desdemona will not leave the room until Emilia is with her, —Emilia, Come“ (III iii 90).

34 Emilia is not Desdemona‘s servant; she is a fellow military wife

74 Ironically, it is at the end of this scene in which they have established their reliance upon one another that Emilia makes her perilous error. In attempting to —please the fantasy“ (299) of her husband, she betrays her friend and steals the handkerchief that is one of Desdemona‘s most prized possessions, the first thing Othello ever gave her. Emilia admires the embroidery work so much, she plans to copy it. Before she gives the handkerchief to Iago, she‘ll —have the work ta‘en out“ (296). She assumes that Iago is equally attracted to the fine silk (says Othello of the hankie, —the worms were hallowed that did breed the silk“ (III iv 73) and she plans to make a gift of it to her husband.35 While it is difficult to know how to read this text, it is more difficult still to interpret Emilia‘s objectives. The text offers some clues. That this was more than a trifle that she was stealing and an important one is made especially clear when Desdemona asks if Emilia knows where it is: Where should I lose that handkerchief, Emilia?.../Believe me I had rather have lost my purse/Full of crusadoes. And but my noble Moor/Is true of mind and made of no such baseness/As jealous creatures are, it were enough/To put him to ill thinking. (III iv 22-23). Rather than giving the handkerchief up at this point, Emilia denies any knowledge of it, pointing up the need to choose between loyalty to her friend and loyalty to her husband. The tragic consequence of this choice suggests that if you must choose between an honest female friendship and a fickle lover, the choice is clear: choose the friendship; otherwise you will end up in an emotional mess, or worse. We only have to look at Titania and Oberon of A Midsummer Night‘s Dream for validation; Titania was unwilling to violate her friendship with a dead women: she had promised to look after her friend‘s son, and was willing to incur the wrath of her husband for that friendship. In one of the most beautiful poems to female friendship in the English language, Titania paints a picture of her friendship with the mother of the child Oberon wants for his own: The fairy land buys not the child of me. / His mother was a vot‘ress of my order, / And in the spiced Indian air, by night, / Full often hath she gossip‘d by my side, / And sat with me on Neptune‘s yellow sands, / Marking the embarked traders on the floor; / We have laugh‘d to see the sails conceive / And grow big-bellied with the wanton wind; / Which she, with pretty and with swimming gait, / Following (her womb then rich with my young squire) / Would imitate, and sail upon the land / To etch me trifles, and return again, / As from a voyage, rich with merchandise. / But she, being mortal, of that boy did die, / And for her sake do I rear up her boy; / And for her sake I will not part with him (II i 121-135). In contrast to this model of faithful friendship is Emilia‘s theft of Desdemona‘s handkerchief which can be read as Emilia‘s attempt to please a husband impossible to please. She says of him later in the play, —tis not a year or two shows us a man;/they are

35 Handkerchiefs were prized possessions; according to Helen Gustafson, by 1000 AD, the handkerchief had become —a gift of betrothal similar to the modern engagement ring“ (7). It was an item for the aristocracy and had a meaning beyond mere nose blowing. Hankies began being exchanged during the medieval period as tokens of favor and affection between men and women. Othello later maintains that this hankie was given to his mother by an Egyptian who told her that as long as she kept it on her person, her husband would love her, but the moment she lost it, he would loathe her and look elsewhere for love (III iv 55-70).

75 all but stomachs, and we all but food; / They eat us hungerly, and when they are full / They belch us; (III iv 102-105). This is the typical psyche of the abused woman: she knows her husband to be cruel, and yet she holds on to the belief that if she finds the right gift, the right action, she can win his approval and he will no longer be cruel. So, Emilia filches the hankie, and then asks for some reward from her husband. —What will you give me now for the same hankie?“ (III iii 360). The script presents a less than grateful Iago who takes the hankie from Emilia in the next beat. When Emilia asks him why he wants it, he responds with —what is that to you“ and sends her away, —go, leave me“ (III iii 363, 367). By the end of the scene in which she gives the hankie to her husband (III iii) , Emilia realizes the mistake she has made, but it is clear that it is too late and that she will not be able to retrieve it. —If it not be of some purpose of import, / Give‘t me again. Poor lady, she‘ll run mad / When she shall lack it“ (III iii 316-318). Iago ignores her and in the next scene, Iago gives the hankie to Othello, saying he found it on Cassio. We understand this to be the beginning of the end for Desdemona. Othello voices his utter despair, —O now, forever / farewell the tranquil mind! / farewell content!“ (III iii 347-48). IV. Emilia and Desdemona on Stage Why does Emilia betray Desdemona and steal the handkerchief? It is a central question for any actress who attempts to play the role. In the RSC‘s 2004 production of the play starring Sello Maake ka-Ncube as Othello and directed by Gregory Doran, Lisa Dillon, who played Desdemona discusses the problem: If the women have known each other for a long time, it‘s difficult to understand why Emilia does what she does in terms of the handkerchief. It makes her look like a fool and an accomplice and I don‘t think she should… At this point, Dillon was only three weeks into the rehearsal process, and the director was feeling out the problem with the actresses playing Emilia and Desdemona. Ultimately, the decision was made that —they like each other a lot but don‘t have a shared history“ (Dillon). Anna Jameson suggests that Emilia simply serves to —place in brighter relief the exquisite refinement, the moral grace, the unblemished truth, and the soft submission of Desdemona“ (Jameson 156). This is fine for a literary reading, but how do you play this on stage? In discussing his 1996 production of Othello at Florida State University, seasoned Shakespeare director George Judy likewise recognizes the importance of the closeness of the relationship between Emilia and Desdemona. Judy believed that because Desdemona was alone in Cyprus, she relied heavily on her friendship with Emilia. He staged this by keeping the women in close proximity to one another whenever they were on stage. Both directors and actors must grapple with important questions about the relationship. Is it static? Dynamic? Do the women grow to trust each other? What does the script suggest? In the 1996 film version starring Laurence Fishburne as Othello and Kenneth Branaugh as Iago, there is no relationship between Emilia and Desdemona until after the handkerchief is stolen. The relationship between Emilia and Iago is clarified after the theft of the handkerchief. When Emilia steals the handkerchief, it is by —fortune“ as she reveals to Othello at the end of the play. Othello drops it because it is too small to soothe his headache; she sees it, and takes it. Our first insight into her relationship with Iago in

76 this 1996 version is when she presents the handkerchief to him in exchange for sex. Emilia appears at Iago‘s bedchamber door as if she were a visitor rather than his wife. She speaks softly to him trying to rouse him from his sleep. He first ignores her, and then, when she rubs his back and whispers to him, he belittles her. It is not until she reveals the handkerchief that he becomes sexually aroused. Their coupling is Iago‘s triumphant ride for Iago‘s pleasure, not Emilia‘s. Her exchange of the hankie for sex was a bad bargain. However, Iago‘s violent ride does not seem to shock her. This slice of their life together gives us insight into their marriage. The camera‘s eye makes it clear that Iago does not love Emilia; he can barely abide her. She spends her time trying to win his favor. Emilia is presented as lonely and seemingly unaware of Iago‘s treachery. In the next scene of the film, when Desdemona reveals to Iago that Othello has accused her of infidelity, Iago piously swears to help Desdemona. There is a moment in which a look is exchanged between Emilia and Iago. It is obvious that Emilia believes that her husband will help Desdemona; her look is loving and grateful; she believes her alliance with him to be protective, trustworthy and sure. However, his look is guarded, revealing nothing. The blocking in this scene emphasizes the nature of the alliances: Iago stands in between Emilia and Desdemona throughout the scene with Iago the obstacle to the alliance between Emilia and Desdemona. The separation in this scene acts as a sharp contrast to their closeness in the next scene, the willow scene, in which Desdemona requests that Emilia stay in her room even though Othello has ordered Desdemona to dismiss her. Emilia washes Desdemona‘s back, and then brushes her hair. In this production, this is a mothering/tending scene, and can be seen as a directing choice that supports Neely‘s argument that this is where the relationship is solidified. Emilia recognizes Desdemona‘s need to be tended, and Emilia responds by doing so. By the end of her tending, Desdemona has relaxed, and Emilia shows her delight. They laugh together, and Emilia bids her good night. When it is Emilia who discovers her dead a short while later, she is horrified. The movie ends with Emilia lying beside Desdemona sharing death as they shared their brief friendship. It is reminiscent of the tomb scene of Cleopatra in which her dear friends and serving women die with her. So, why did Emilia steal the handkerchief in the Fishburne/Branaugh production? Careful editing of the text enabled the director, Oliver Parker, to offer an alternative motivation for Emilia. Because he chose to cut the scene in which Desdemona reveals to Emilia that her handkerchief is missing, and she really needs it back, Emilia is innocent of any wrong doing. V. Without the Protection of Friends While this production does not follow the women‘s misalliance to its conclusion, it could be argued that the script of the play presents an ongoing enactment of the way friendship loses its protective power: when Emilia is drawn into Iago‘s scheme, Desdemona has no protection. The rhetoric of this play suggests that it is less husbands than friends who protect women. However, Desdemona does not lose her mental health; she is not as separated from other women as is Ophelia or Lady Macbeth. Instead, she is betrayed. She is murdered when a female friend exchanges loyalty to her for loyalty to her own husband. Emilia, unable to put two and two together and figure out that Iago has told Othello that he has the hankie is one of the credulous fools of whom Iago speaks when he says, —Thus credulous fools are caught / And many worth and chaste dames even thus /

77 All guiltless meet reproach“ (IV I 44-45). Had Emilia not violated the sacred bonds of female friendship, she would have protected not only Desdemona but also herself. Instead, in order to please a husband who is unappeasable she betrays her friend, and brings them all down. For Shakespeare, it seems, wisdom lies in being able to accurately discern friend from foe. In Shakespeare, your personal goals are more easily achievable with good friends. This is especially true in the comedies, as Carol Thomas Neely argues. But, the tragedies also provide the counter-example that reinforce this view. Into this sad state of affairs descends Desdemona‘s cousin, Lodovico. When Othello unexpectedly strikes Desdemona, she responds, —I have not deserv‘d this“ (IV i 240). In spite of the deus ex machina ending his entrance might suggest, he is unable to save Desdemona, or effect any change. By the conclusion of the scene, Othello‘s —madness“ inspired by Iago‘s poisonous suggestions, and, by the very idleness and isolation of the command outpost is clear to the Venetian contingency. Indeed, it is hard to know which has more influence in the fall of Othello and Desdemona. Certainly, had they been among friends at home, Iago‘s promptings would have been seen for what they were. Indeed, Iago has never had the respect of his superiors; otherwise, he would have been promoted years earlier. Thus, isolated from the wisdom of friends and family, Othello becomes so unreasonable that he strikes Desdemona in front of her cousin for no good reason. For the audience, this is the beginning of the end of Othello‘s treachery; we understand that the community of Desdemona‘s friends and family will come to her rescue as soon as they get wind of Othello‘s‘ change. However, as we know, it will be too late. Separated from community censure, order is sacrificed. In her final scene with Emilia, Desdemona has some premonition that she will die soon; she asks Emilia to shroud her in her wedding sheets. Emilia suggest that she is being silly, —Come, come, you talk“ she says to her (IV iii 26). Desdemona appears stricken by the emotional pain Othello has laid upon her by accusing her of cheating on him. Apparently horrified by the accusation, she swears to Emilia that she would never do such. We believe her. Indeed, Desdemona is certain that most women would —Dost thou in conscience think œtell me Emilia-- /That there by so men do abuse their husbands/In such gross kind?“ (59-63). Desdemona simply cannot imagine it. However, like the consummate healer of Shelley Taylor‘s research, Desdemona ends the conversation telling Emilia that she will not repay bad with bad, but will stay on course and repay bad with good. —Good night, goodnight. God me such uses/send,/ Not to pick bad from bad, but by bad mend (103-105). In the next scene she is murdered. Emilia, unaware of her mistress‘s murder, continues to be a fool, and binds herself with men instead of women. In the fifth act, when Bianca holds the dying Cassio in her arms, Emilia calls Bianca a slut, and sends her away, —away, strumpet!“ (V i 118). Emilia is still allowing Iago to be her eyes. According to the text, Bianca has been faithful to Cassio. She maintains her alliance with Cassio only throughout the play. Emilia‘s objective in this scene is tending neither Cassio nor Bianca; instead, she is preoccupied with pleasing and thus agreeing with her husband. She does not believe Bianca when Bianca truthfully tells her that she is honest, and therefore Iago is the liar, —I am no strumpet, but of life as honest As you that thus abuse me“ (V i 122-23). Emilia eventually discovers her husband‘s fraud, and calls herself an imp and a fool for believing him and trusting him. She is murdered by Iago as surely as Desdemona is murdered by Othello. In choosing to ally herself with Iago in the same way that Gertrude is allied with Claudius,

78 Emilia raises the question of whether self preservation for these women can be dependent upon the good will of a husband rather than a healthy female community. In answer to this question a through line of the play seems to be how devastating it is when women bond solely and in isolation with men instead of maintaining healthy ties with other women. Emilia furthers this point when she says at the end —Good gentlemen, let me have leave to speak. ”Tis proper I obey him; but not now“ (V ii 195- 197). With these lines she suggests a truth beyond the law; it is a truth that all wise women in Shakespeare‘s plays understand. Her final lines after being stabbed by Iago are these, —Lay me by my mistress‘s side“ (V ii 237). It is here that she wishes to take her eternal rest. Carol Thomas Neely reads this as another example of the triumph of male values: —the play ends as it began, in a world of men–political, loveless and undomesticated“ (137). However, she also sees that —friendship between women is established and dominates the final scene… just as Emilia, stealing the handkerchief is catalyst for the play‘s crisis; in revealing its theft, she is the catalyst for the play‘s denouement“ (144, 151). In this dénouement we are able to read both behind and ahead. We are reminded of Gertrude‘s end; her final embracing of her role as mother/tender to Hamlet in death just as Emilia allies herself with Desdemona in death as her advocate and protector. What happens when there is neither female friend to ally oneself with nor child nor community to tend? In utter isolation, the tending and befriending desire becomes perverted, indeed unrecognizable as we shall see in Lady Macbeth.

79 CHAPTER 7 Macbeth Tis safer to be that which we destroy/ Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy.“ (III ii 5-7)

Produced for the first time in 1606, less than a year after King Lear, both Macbeth and Lear have in common communities of women with evil intent, as well as single women whose isolation is a factor in their demise. The weird sisters in Macbeth openly practice witchcraft; the sisters in Lear do evil. While the isolation of Lady Macbeth as well as Cordelia is clearly a factor in their mental demise, Cordelia‘s alternative– alliance with her evil sisters–is simply not a possibility in this play. The isolation of both Lady Macbeth and Cordelia from the contact of other nurturing females, in Shakespeare‘s world, dooms them to either bodily harm or mental breakdown. Cordelia is betrayed then murdered in prison; Lady Macbeth dies, an apparent suicide.

I. Synopsis

The action of Macbeth is sent in motion by the prophecy of the three weird sisters. Macbeth is told by the witches he will be king and writes a letter to his wife with the news. She plans to make it happen by having King Duncan murdered while he is a guest in their castle. Once he is murdered, Macbeth finds it necessary to kill more people in order to feel safe on his throne. Lady Macbeth retreats from these murders disappearing from the action of the play after the ghost of the murdered Banquo appears at a banquet over which she presides. Unable to wash her hands clean of the dead king, she dies offstage. Macbeth is brought down by the rightful heir to the throne, Malcolm, championed by Macduff.

II. Critical Overview I read Macbeth as a play that negates community, and associates that negation of community with evil. The role of the witches has been debated since Samuel Johnson‘s 1745 article in which he argues that the real purpose of the witches was to please King James, noting that Shakespeare was very careful to borrow from the Daemonologie, James‘s dialogues on the —practices and illusions of evil spirits, the compacts of witches, the ceremonies used by them, [and] the manner of detecting them“ (Johnson 207). He finds that most of Shakespeare‘s details about the witches‘ practices, their words, their pets are straight out of these dialogues. Kenneth Muir in his introduction to The Arden Shakespeare Macbeth suggests that based upon Shakespeare‘s possible source material, De Origin, Moribus et Rebis Gestis Scotorum, —the weird sisters are devils disguised as women, as they may be in Shakespeare‘s play“ (Muir 28), while Stephen Orgel sees the witches as simply a part of the theatricality necessary to sustain audience attention (346). Both the witches and Lady Macbeth have been read by Janet Adelman as yet more of Shakespeare‘s threatening mother figures who fill the male characters with fear of

80 emasculation (294). I read the sisters as forces of evil in the play, clear examples of negative tending. The most compelling criticism relating to my argument, however, has to be a single line by Kenneth Muir in his article —Image and Symbol in Macbeth in which he says, —Lady Macbeth can nerve herself to the deed only by denying her real nature; and she can over come Macbeth‘s scruples only by making him ignore his feelings of human- kindness–his kinship with his fellow-men“ (255).

III. Tending Turned Upside Down

My focus in this final chapter is Shakespeare‘s presentation of the world of tending women and healthy female alliances turned completely upside down. In this play, the only tending that happens is between men, and the one who tends is King Duncan who is almost immediately murdered. Derek Jacobi who played Macbeth in Adrian Noble‘s 1993 production, describes the scene in this way: Macbeth —notices that Duncan actually touches Banquo: ”let me enfold thee/And hold thee to my heart‘ ( II iv 32-33). He didn‘t do that to Macbeth; he was much more formal with him. I was aware that Banquo was getting a hug and a kiss and that I wasn‘t“ (332).

Only two instances in the play associate Lady Macbeth with female companionship, and, I would argue, in neither scene does the text signal any tending. Rather, in these scenes Lady Macbeth is clearly isolated from the women around her, first by her waking sleep and then by her death. In act five, scene one, the Gentlewoman appears waiting with the doctor she has summoned to observe Lady Macbeth‘s strange behavior. The Gentlewoman convinces the doctor to stay, though he is frustrated that after two nights Lady Macbeth has yet to reveal the behavior that has so troubled her female observer. When, on this third night, Lady Macbeth speaks of the things that the Gentlewoman will not repeat for the doctor, it is clear that she needs the doctor to witness Lady Macbeth‘s behavior for himself in order to be convinced of the frightening power of the lady's sleepwalking monologues: —Wash your hands, put on your night-gown; look not so pale.---I will tell you yet again, Banquo‘s buried: he cannot come out of his grave…what‘s done can‘t be undone“ (60-65). The doctor‘s horrified response to her monologue, —unnatural deeds to breed unnatural troubles“ (69-70), seems to satisfy the Gentlewoman. When the doctor says, —My mind she has mated, and amaz‘d my sight./I think, but dare not speak“ (75-76) he reveals that what he has seen and heard is so horrific that he is unable to speak. The Gentlewoman‘s immediate response to this is, —Good night, dear doctor,“ (76), signaling that she has accomplished her objective. It is up to the actress playing the part to determine what, exactly, that objective is. One reading would be to assume the Gentlewoman simply wants to help Lady Macbeth. If so, it seems that telling the doctor of Lady‘s Macbeth‘s sleepwalking and requesting his advice would have been appropriate. However, what the text calls for is that she insist on the doctor staying and watching for three nights until he actually sees, and more importantly, hears Lady Macbeth‘s troubled confession. Once he has heard, she is satisfied and no longer requests that he stay.

81 Two actresses have chosen two very different objectives in this scene. In the 1983 BBC Macbeth with Jane Lapotaire as Lady Macbeth, the Gentlewoman chooses as her objective —to get help from the doctor“ for the ailing Lady Macbeth. It is clear from her body language throughout the scene that she seeks to tend and protect Lady Macbeth. This is especially clear when Lady Macbeth utters in great pain, —to bed, to bed.“ The Gentlewoman reaches out her hands to Lady Macbeth trying to help her, but Lady Macbeth cannot see her. To make this reading believable, the director was forced to move some lines about. The Gentlewoman‘s final —Good night, good doctor,“ is uttered in response to the doctor‘s very practical advice to —look after her; remove from her all mean‘s of annoyance“ rather than as a response to —I think, but dare not speak,“ which is what the text indicates. A very different reading of the scene, and one, I would argue, more in keeping with the through line of the play is that given in the 1978 television version directed by Philip Casson with Judith Dench as Lady Macbeth. In this production, rather than the Gentlewoman being presented as one who tends, she is presented as a nun seeking to reveal rather than forgive Lady Macbeth‘s sins. When the Gentlewoman says, —I would not have such a heart in my bosom for the dignity of the whole body“ (50) she says it as pure condemnation, as opposed to the woman in the 1983 version who utters these same words to reveal her compassion for Lady Macbeth, and her shared grief. In this 1978 version, the actors say the final lines of the scene as they appear in the text. The gentlewoman‘s line, —good night, good doctor“ is said with the objective to prove that she was right in her assessment of the sins of Lady Macbeth. In this interpretation, then, it is clear Lady Macbeth is not tended.

The second time the text mentions women as being involved with Lady Macbeth is in Act V, scene five when Macbeth asks, —What‘s that noise,“ and Seyton responds with, —It is the cry of women, my good lord“ (8-9), followed by the announcement that the queen is dead. Who are these women, and why are they so eerily absent from the other four acts of the play? On this issue, the text is silent. What is clear is that the cries of the women, what might be argued cries of compassion, are lost on Lady Macbeth.

To say that Lady Macbeth is presented as neither nurturing nor tending would be an understatement. The woman who would bash her baby‘s brains out if the baby got in the way of her keeping a promise to her husband is not a tending woman, and Shakespeare‘s language is designed to make his audience cringe:

I have given suck, and know How tender ”tis to love the babe that milks me. I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums And dashed the brains out, had I so sworn as you Have done to this. (I vii 54-58) The world of the play, as Kenneth Muir argues, is a play of contrasting images, an un- sexed woman, a womanly man. However, the ultimate contrast is good versus evil. I would argue that one manifestation of the evil inherent in the play is the inverting of healthy female communities, the most obvious symbol of this being the witches. The witches exist to wreak havoc, turn order into disorder, and, Banquo warns,

82 To win us to our harm, The instruments of darkness tell us truths, Win us with honest trifles, to betray‘s In deepest consequence. (I iii 125-129) The whole notion of tending, befriending, and healing through a healthy alliance of women is reversed. Instead of tending, the witches drive their victims to self-harm; instead of befriending, the witches pit friends against friends, and instead of healing they create in their victims a drive to complete destruction. Their unhealthy alliance is a gathering place for swapping stories of who tortured whom with sleeplessness and worse over a cozy cauldron of baby fingers boiling in murderer‘s blood.36 While the witches present a dramatic, other-worldly evil, a psychology of negative tending is also outlined by Shelley Taylor who uses a modern day story of failure to thrive as a result of negative tending. While this story is far removed from Shakespeare, and certainly from Macbeth‘s Scotland, there are some striking similarities.

IV. Shelly Taylor and Negative Tending

According to Shelly Taylor, when women are unable to tend properly, the entire community suffers. She offers the example of a group of orphans in a home shortly after WWII with failure-to- thrive syndrome. One study revealed that two orphanages were given the same plentiful food ration, clean clothes and access to fresh air. One group of orphans thrived; they gained weight, were healthy, and were happy. The other group did not do so well. They lost weight, they became sick more often, and they were less happy than the first group. The experiment was repeated. This time, the fortunes were reversed. The previously healthy group became unhealthy, and the unhealthy group became healthy. After investigating other variables, the researchers discovered that the orphanage‘s director had gone from one house to the other. Her name was Frauline Schwarz, and she was —cold and cruel.“ She punished children for no good reason; even if children were not punished, they were not loved. When she appeared at each house, the children lost weight, became less healthy and less happy. The director at the healthy children‘s orphanage was loving and kind with always a hug or a word of encouragement to her charges (Taylor 7-9). According to Taylor, positive tending has a constructive effect on the surrounding environment, and, the opposite is true as well. It is interesting that Lady Macbeth, arguably one of Shakespeare‘s most villainous females is also a woman who is, for the most part, alone, and one who encourages her husband to quell any desire he has to seek the goodwill of others. When in act one scene seven, Macbeth determines that he will not murder Duncan, it is because he is enjoying the communal nature of his accolades. He tells Lady Macbeth, We will proceed no further in this business. He hath honored me of late, and I have bought Golden opinions from all sorts of people, Which would be worn now in their newest gloss Not cast aside so soon (I vii 30-35)

36 For a close reading of each element in the witch‘s brew, see Samuel Johnson‘s —Miscellaneous Observations.“

83 Her response is to pull his focus from the desire for communal goodwill to his individual ambition. She equates this desire for community with cowardice, and fulfilling of personal ambition with bravery: Art thou afeard To be the same in thine own act and valor As thou art in desire? Wouldst thou have that Which thou esteem‘st the ornament of life And live a coward in thine own esteem, Letting —I dare not“ wait upon —I would.“ (I vii 40-45) Shakespeare presents a Lady Macbeth who is the antithesis of the tending woman. But the play itself is full of women who are placed in positions to tend, but are unable to do so. From the waiting Gentlewoman who does not take seem to wait on Lady Macbeth to Lady Macduff, the women in the upside down evil of this play cannot tend. This is a time when the air is full of —strange screams of death/And prophesying with accents terrible/of dire combustion and confused events/New hatched to the woeful time“ (II.ii.53-54). Part of the confusion of this woeful time is the lack of effective nurturing and tending.37 In act four scene two, Shakespeare presents us with Lady Macduff. Her husband has fled to England in order to get help against Macbeth from Malcolm. Lady Macduff expresses her resentment at her husband for leaving her alone and unprotected, Wisdom! To leave his wife, to leave his babes, His mansion and his titles in a place From whence himself does fly? He loves us not; He wants the natural touch. For the poor wren, The most diminutive of birds, will fight, Her young ones in the nest, against the owl. All is the fear and nothing is the love, As little is the wisdom, where the flight So runs against all reason. (IV ii 5-10) The irony here is that she proves herself to lack the —natural touch“ as well, for the stage directions are very clear. While the murderers are killing her son, she flees. In this upside down world, not only are the mothers unable to tend their children, but the young children tend their mothers. Macduff‘s son tends his mother as is clear when with his dying breath he urges his mother to run away from the murderers, —He has killed me mother/run away, I pray you!“ (82). Shakespeare‘s text also offers a view of Macbeth‘s own confusion over Lady Macbeth‘s personae. We have a hint that she has been a mother; perhaps she was once nurturing. When Macbeth first hears the predictions of the weird sisters, he appears flattered, frightened, and forced to confront the darkness of his own desires. He has the possibility of becoming King, and he realizes that he would be quite willing to kill anyone in his way. In an aside that is part lament and part plan, he says: —Stars hide your fires; / Let not light see my black and deep desires“ (I iv 49-50). Shortly after, he writes Lady Macbeth and tells her of the predictions. He finishes the letter with a quaint Biblical allusion imploring her, like Mary to hide these things in her heart (I v 13). Shakespeare

37 It could also be argued that Macduff falls short of his protective role as husband and father, a further consequence of a world turned upside down.

84 has set up his audience for a type of the Madonna. He creates the irony of expectation here. What we expect to happen and what actually happens are in such stark contrast that, like a diamond on black velvet, Lady Macbeth‘s villainy shines in bold relief. From here, Lady Macbeth wastes no time in declaring her dismissal of any nurturance. She says of Macbeth after reading his letter, —Yet I do fear thy nature, / It is too full o‘ th‘ milk of human kindness“ (I v 16-17). Indeed, she can hardly wait to talk to him, —Hie thee hither, / That I may pour my spirits in thine ear, / And chastise with the valor of my tongue, / All that impedes thee from the golden round“ (I v 25-29). Lady Macbeth is a character whose objective is destruction rather than nurturance. Macbeth desires power and glory, and it is clear that he is aware that to take the necessary steps in achieving the throne, he will have to kill. He is hesitant. He seeks wisdom from Lady Macbeth. She urges him to fight. Indeed, she is conscious that in order to urge her husband to do what he must do to become king, she must cast off what Taylor would call her —feminine desire“ for tending and befriending., —Come you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, / and fill me from the crown to the toe topful / Of direst cruelty!“ (I v 40-45). Lady Macbeth‘s actions directly counter what Taylor might consider the innate desire of her gender for mothering all who come within her circle. She fights this presumed maternal instinct with her next words, —Come to my woman‘s breasts, / and take my milk for gall, you murthring ministers, / Whenever in your sightless substances you wait on nature‘s mischief!“ The play on the word murthring and mothering underlines her exchange. But this is not enough. In resisting the —compunctious visitings of nature (I.v.47) she still voices the fear that her mothering nature, the tending nature of a good woman will rise to the surface when she sees Duncan about to be murdered, and so she tells herself, —Come, thick night / And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, / That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,/Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark/To cry, ”Hold, Hold.‘“ (I v 53-54). Lady Macbeth‘s struggle is clear. Shakespeare presents her as recognizing her desire to tend, to be kind, to take care of, to mother. She fights against it. She thus creates an atmosphere of death for her family. We see a contrast, too, between what Macbeth expects of a woman‘s tending nature, and the nature that his wife exhibits when he arrives home in Act one. In Act I scene vi, Lady Macbeth‘s objective is to prepare Macbeth to harden his heart against Duncan; she knows it will be hard because Duncan presents himself as kind, generous hearted and loving. In Duncan‘s fifteen lines to Lady Macbeth, he thanks her sincerely, and speaks of her love for him exhibited by the good care she takes of him (I vi 10-14). He then speaks of the great love Macbeth has for him (21), and finally of his great love for Macbeth (29). Clearly, Duncan is a king who inspires love. Macbeth changes his mind about killing Duncan. Duncan, he reasons, is like a babe at his mercy. Further, he is his kinsmen and his guest, three good reasons not to kill him (5-25). He‘s here in double trust: First, as I am his kinsman and his subject, Strong both against the deed; then as his host, Who should against his murtherer shut the door, Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been

85 So clear in his great office, that his virtues Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongu‘d against The deep damnation of his taking off; And pity, like a naked new-born babe Striding the blast, or heaven‘s cherubin, hors‘d Upon the sightless couriers of the air, Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye, That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition, which o‘erleaps itself, And falls on th‘ other. (I vii 12-28)

It is a speech of deep compassion, and honest fear of the repercussions of the murder, and by end of it, Macbeth has changed his mind about killing Duncan. In this upside down world, where as Kermode argues —man is unmanned and woman unwomaned“ (1356) it is Macbeth whose thoughts are of tending rather than betraying his friend. In a healthy world, his wife would validate his compassion, and there would be no murder. But the order of this world has been turned upside down. As Dominic Cooke suggests, all order has gone from the world: the masculine has overridden the feminine. The very next lines following Macbeth‘s soliloquy are those of Lady Macbeth who berates Macbeth when he reveals to her his thwarted intentions. She makes fun of his fear and chides him for being unmanly; she knows she has struck a chord when Macbeth replies, —Prithee peace! / I dare do all that may become a man; / Who dares more is none“ (I vi 45-47). She then accuses him of having broken his word to her. She swears that her promises to him are more important than even her children. Of course Lady Macbeth has already cast doubt upon her own mothering instincts, but with these lines, she clarifies just how far removed she is from that traditional role, favoring exclusive relationship or excessive loyalty to her husband instead. Underneath this horrifying revelation is Shakespeare‘s commentary on unhealthy relationships between husbands and wives where one aids or encourages the other in evil. But Macbeth sees none of this as evil. Instead, he expresses that wish that he were as good a man as Lady Macbeth has —prov‘d“ herself to be, Bring forth men-children only! For thy undaunted mettle should compose Nothing but males. (73-74) Because Lady Macbeth has no children compounded with the absence of other women, Macbeth is her only companion. The spousal intimacy between the Macbeths that Stephen Greenblatt calls —terrifying“ (138), has at its roots, in the Adrian Nobles production, the shared memory of a lost child38 (—I have given suck, and know / How tender ”tis to love the babe that milks me“ I vii 54). Her natural desires perverted having lost her child, Lady Macbeth casts about for a reason for being. According to Frank Kermode, —In no other play does Shakespeare show a nation so cruelly occupied by the powers of darkness“ (1355). And Macbeth is not simply metaphorically dark; in production, it is literally dark as well. In fact, stage lighting is

38 Derek Jacobi discusses this in his article on playing Macbeth, —We had decided that somewhere in the past of their relationship they had lost a child“ (335).

86 often kept so low that one director argues that the origin of the belief that the play is cursed, and thus referred to as —The Scottish Play“ rather than as Macbeth, lies in the fact that so many accidents occurred back stage due to the utter darkness of the set (—Go on, Just Call it Macbeth!“). Ironically, in spite of all her ability to convince Macbeth to do the murdering, Lady Macbeth is unable to do it herself. Some compassion for Lady Macbeth, which I would argue is necessary in order to keep the audience interested is called for by the script here. In Act II, fearing that Macbeth will not be able to complete the deed, she goes in to Duncan‘s chamber and is set to murder Duncan, but Duncan reminds her of her father and she can‘t do it, —had he not resembled/My father as he slept, I had done‘t“ (II ii 12-13). From this moment we see the beginning of Lady Macbeth‘s remorse and some small changes in the dynamics of their relationship. She offers some tentative tending by reminding Macbeth to wash his hand and clean himself up. Nor does she take part in any of the rest of the assassinations. However, it quickly becomes clear that her tending inspires a reverse response. When Macbeth begins his downhill spiral, seeing knives, unable to sleep, she mothers him into a perverse healing. He is —healed“ from his mental illness and goes on to kill everyone else who might get in his way of the throne. When Macbeth, responding to the —horror“ of discovering Duncan dead says, —Who could refrain, That had a heart to love, and in that heart / Courage to mak‘s love known?“ Lady Macbeth passes out. It is unclear whether she is afraid Macbeth is going to reveal that he himself has murdered Duncan, or if, overcome by remorse, she can not bear to hear him speak of love in the same breath with which he speaks the name Duncan. She is carried out and in the following scene delivers her famous lines, —Nouth‘s had, all‘s spent, Where our desire is got without content; / Tis safer to be that which we destroy / Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy“ (III ii 5-7). Lady Macbeth can be played as horrified by the measure of violence she has unleashed, but she is quite unable to mother herself. When Lady Macbeth begins showing signs of depression, sleeplessness, and sleepwalking, a doctor is summoned. The doctor tells Macbeth of his findings, that the Lady is in need of something that he, the doctor cannot provide. What she needs only she can provide, —therein the patient must minister to herself“ (V iii 48). Unable to mother herself, and with no one to tend to her needs, no nurturing love, she spirals down into depression and finally suicide. Shakespeare makes it quite clear that Lady Macbeth is isolated from everyone; her sleepwalking symbolizes the interiority of her world. To limit Lady Macbeth to crushed femininity, however, may be to undercut her power in the play. In John Singer Sargent‘s portrait —Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth,“ Lady Macbeth is a regal but solitary figure. Sargent catches her just at the moment when she has lifted her crown from a small cushion to her left and is placing it on her own head, crowning herself queen. There is no retinue of serving women, not even a single lady in waiting to help her. She is a woman alone. Isolation seems to be the source of her crushed femininity and, ironically, her destructive power. V. Isolation in Production The tragedy that ensues from the isolated women is apparent in the 2004 Royal Shakespeare Company‘s production of Macbeth. Director Dominic Cooke stages Lady Macbeth‘s isolation quite dramatically. The inciting incident of the play occurs in act one

87 scene five when Lady Macbeth receives a letter from Macbeth revealing the prophecy of the weird sisters. In the Cooke production, Lady Macbeth receives the letter and later meets Macbeth himself in a large banquet hall. The long banqueting table, meant to seat a dozen or more people, has a place setting for only one. The dramatic effect is startling. Lady Macbeth takes her meals as she lives her life: in isolation. It is from this space that Lady Macbeth gives birth to her plan for securing the throne for Macbeth, —Thou wouldst be great, / Art not without ambition, but without / The illness should attend it“ (17-18). What is it about the isolation that nurtures a Lady Macbeth bent upon securing the throne for her husband whatever the cost? Sian Thomas, who played Lady Macbeth in the 2004 production, suggests that Lady Macbeth is bored silly. She has no purpose, she has no one with whom to talk, nothing to give shape to her days. The letter presents itself to her as a purpose: she can nurture Macbeth to become king (—Power and Control“). And as it turns out, nurture she does. Isolated from any community, most isolated from a healthy female community, she makes unhealthy choices, and has a perverted concept of nurturing. Sian Thomas embodies Dominic Cooke‘s vision of Lady Macbeth‘s loneliness and frustration as emblematic of the world of the play having cut off her femininity, —set in a very male world in which femininity is crushed. And by femininity, I mean the archetypal feminine values have been crushed, and by that I mean nurturing, instinct, collective values…“ (—Power and Control“). And, in fact, Dominic Cooke, director of the 2004 RSC production, sees perverted femininity at the root of the evil in the play. His proof is not only the frightening power of Lady Macbeth, but also the weird sisters, whom he sees as a concrete example of crushed femininity. Their sisterhood is based on destruction and violence; they are isolated from others rather than community building mother/friends. Cooke sees their destructive forces and their isolation as —the dangers of that splitting off of the feminine forces“ causing the supernatural forces to —worm their way into the world in other forms“ (—Power and Control“). Cooke‘s production, then, brings to the forefront my reading of the play: crushed femininity, the distortion of the nurturing instinct is a metaphor for the evil in the play. The nurturing instinct, crushed in Lady Macbeth, obliterates the collective values necessary for healing a community, in this case, the community of the Macbeths.

88 CONCLUSION

—Had I not/Four or five, women once that tended me?“ (Miranda to Prospero, The Tempest, I ii 46)

The only memory Miranda has of her early childhood before being marooned on the island with her father, Ariel, and Caliban is this: a group of women tending her. Prospero prods her memory; —But how is it/That this lives in they mind? What see‘st thou else in the dark backward and abysm of time?/If thou rememb‘rest aught ere thou can‘st here,“ ( I ii 49-50). Miranda‘s reply is a negative; —But that I do not.“ It is enough that her most solid and lasting memory is being tended by a community of women. It is what she most misses, and Prospero‘s realization of this most basic need is, perhaps, the spur he needs to find a way to get them both back home. His daughter, having reached womanhood, needs a community of women. As illustrated in the preceding chapters, this basic need of women for one another echoes throughout Shakespeare‘s canon. It was cold February night in London in 1979 and I was watching The National Theater‘s presentation of As You Like it, a performance that included the actual cutting open of a deer and the smearing of blood and guts on the face of one of the players. Interestingly, in the intervening decades, I completely forgot about this bloody aspect of the performance until I encountered a description of it while reading a review of the play. What I remember instead of the blood is the close friendship between Celia, played by Marjorie Yates, and Rosalind, who was played by Sara Kestleman. It was clear to me then that theirs was the most important relationship in the play. That was three decades ago, and still I am intrigued by the privileging of female friendships on Shakespeare‘s stage, friendship that has the ability to upstage blood and guts. It is, I hope, what this work has been about. Shakespeare‘s concern about the psychological health of women spans his opus. In his comedies he makes clear the necessity for a community of women in restoring harmony to kingdoms, islands and homes. He traces the gradual demise of a woman‘s psychological health when she is isolated from other women in both the histories and tragedies I have discussed. Doll Tearsheet must go to prison because she and Mistress Quickly are isolated from other women. In the world of the play, it is one prostitute and one female tavern keeper trying to maintain community amidst a bevy of men. Similarly, and more tragically, Desdemona and Emilia are isolated from healthy communities of women because they are on a military outpost, an isolated assignment that is minus any formal communal structure for women. Gertrude and Ophelia, too, operate in isolation from other women. What happens within the context of these plays is that when women are isolated from other women they lose their sense of balance and sometimes become involved in marriages of exclusivity, that is, a marriage turned in upon itself to the exclusion of the community around it. A healthy community of women balances commitment to their mate with commitment to the community. Even Cleopatra‘s desire to please Antony is guided and directed by her female friends, Charmian and Iras. Because this is so, within the rhetoric of Shakespeare‘s play, her death does not have the tragic overtones of

89 Desdemona or Ophelia. If suicide can ever be considered a sane choice, Cleopatra‘s is. She dies with the complete understanding that to live would be to suffer a shame at the hands of the new Caesar. That is more than she can bear, and would have negative consequences for her kingdom and subjects as well. I placed Lady Macbeth in the final chapter because she is the most starkly alone of all of Shakespeare‘s heroines, and, I would argue, the one most responsible for catastrophic evil. For Shakespeare, the more isolated a woman, and indeed, an individual is, the more cut off from the forces of good, and the more that person is enabled to become an agent of evil. We only have to examine Don John in Much Ado About Nothing to see an example of how Shakespeare associates isolation with evil. Don John is the cultivator of evil and deception in the play; it is he who sets Claudio and Don Pedro against Hero, and he who has a history of abusing the kindness of his brother, Don Pedro. Don John revels in isolation; at the play‘s conclusion, he flees, alone. On the other hand, the most cheerful comedies, and the brightest moments within his comedies are moments of community, driven, more often than not, by the direction of a close community of women. This is most clearly evidenced in the final scene of As You Like It, as Hymen blesses the merry gathering with these words: —Then is there mirth in heaven, When earthly things made even atone together“ (V iv 108-109). In reviewing the recent literary criticism of Shakespeare and its relative silence on Shakespeare‘s privileging of women in community,39 I have at the same time, pointed out how contemporary directors of Shakespeare‘s plays have not been so silent. In fact, directors from Dominic Cooke to George Judy have consistently created stage tableaux in which the necessity of community for emotionally healthy women is obvious. I have also suggested that this reading of Shakespeare is actually more in keeping with the historical records of women of the period. These women, exemplified by Queen Elizabeth, are less likely to suffer and be still than to lead armies into battle, run small and large businesses, and guide the emotional health of their families. But, they do all of these things with the help and support of solid networks of female friends.40 To explore this idea more completely would mean examining more carefully Shakespeare‘s men in community and seeking an answer to the question, —what is the relationship between a man‘s place in his community and his emotional health? How has this been staged? Are modern directors more cognizant of men‘s reliance on community than women‘s? As we have seen, Shakespeare himself is a man operating very much within a communal structure. Nothing is more communal than theatre, a place where actors must rely on one another to keep the performance moving forward, where it is as important to please an audience as it is to please your mistress. Ironically, it is a place that completely lacked what Shakespeare writes so carefully into his plays: women.

39 Dusinberre calls for recognition of these alliances in her introduction to the Arden Shakesepare As You Like It (29), and Phyllis Rackin certainly calls for more empowering readings of women in Shakespeare. 40 Jean Howard suggests of her own research and that of those in the collection by Frye and Robertson, Maids and Mistresses: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England, that —in recognizing the variety of strategies by which early modern women made discursive and material alliances with other women to get what they individually and collectively desired, scholars are rewriting the narratives that construct women, especially women in past eras, as victims, pure and simple“ (308).

90 REFERENCES

Ackroyd, Peter. Shakespeare: The Biography. New York: Doubleday, 2005.

Adelman, Janet. —Escaping the Matrix: The Construction of Masculinity in Macbeth.“ Macbeth: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Robert S. Miola. New York: Norton, 2004. 293-316

---—”Man and Wife is One Flesh:‘ Hamlet and the Confrontation with the Maternal Body.“ Hamlet: Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Ed. Susanne L. Wofford. New York: Bedford/St.Martins, 1994. 256-283

Alexander, Bill. Director. —Picture Gallery: RSC.“ Merry Wives of Windsor, 1987. Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/searcharchives/item/item_main.jsp?item_id=7086

Anderson, Bonnie and Judith P. Zinnser. A History of Their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to the Present: Volume I. New York: Harper and Row, 1988.

Anderson, Misty G. Female Playwrights and Eighteenth-Century Comedy: Negotiating Marriage on the London Stage. New York: Palgrave, 2002.

Anger, Jane. —Her Protection for Women to Defend Them against the Scandalous Reports of a Late Surfeiting Lover and All Other Like Verians That Complain So to Be Overcloyed with Women‘s Kindness.“ Written by Jane Anger, Gentlewoman (1589). Ed. Henderson, Katherine Usher and Barbara F. McManus. Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1985. 172-189

As You Like It. Dir. Basil Coleman. Perf. Helen Mirren and Richard Pasco. BBC Time Life Films, 1978-84. DVD, 1987.

Astell, Mary. A Serious Proposal to the Ladies for the Advancement of their True and Greatest Interest Part I. The First English Feminist: Reflections upon Marriage and Other Writings by Mary Astell. Ed. Bridget Hill. New York: St. Martins, 1986.

Barton, Anne. —Introduction to Comedy of Errors.“ The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997.

Barton, Anne. —Introduction.“ The Merry Wives of Windsor. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997.

91 ---. —Falstaff and the Comic Community.“ Shakespeare‘s Rough Magic: Renaissance Essays in Honor of C.L. Barber. Eds. Peter Erickson and Coppelia Kahn. Newark: Delware, 1985.

Bate, Jonathan and Russell Jackson. The Oxford Illustrated History of Shakespeare on Stage. New York: Oxford UP, 2001.

Belsey, Catherine. Shakespeare and the Loss of Eden. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1999.

Bennett, Paula. —”The Orient is the West‘: Emily Dickinson‘s Reading of Antony and Cleopatra.“ Women‘s Revisions of Shakespeare: On Responses of Dickinson, Woolf, Rich, H.D., George Eliot and Others. Ed. Marianne Novy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1990. 108-123

Bindoff, S.T. 5 Tudor England. The Pelican History of England. New York: Penguin, 1978.

Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth. New York: Penguin, 1991.

Brown, Elizabeth A. —”Companion Me with My Mistress‘: Cleopatra, Elizabeth I and their Waiting Women.“ Maids, Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England. Eds. Susan Frye and Karen Robertson. New York: Oxford UP, 1999.

Callaghan, Dympna. Shakespeare Without Women. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Cantarella, Eva. —Homicides of Honor: the Development of Italian Adultery Law over Two Millennia.“ The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present. Eds. David Kertzer and Richard P. Saller. New Haven: Yale, 1991.

Castan, Nicole. —The Public and the Private.“ Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. A History of Private Life: Passions of the Renaissance. Eds. Philippe Aries and Georges Duby. Harvard: Belknap, 1988. 403-447

Chartier, Roger. —Introduction to Community, State and Family: Trajectories and Tensions.“ A History of Private Life: Passions of the Renaissance. Eds. Philippe Aries and Georges Duby. Harvard: Belknap, 1988. 397-403

Christine de Pisan. The Book of the City of Ladies. Trans. and ed. Rosalind Brown-Grant, New York: Penguin, 1999.

Chute, Marchette. Shakespeare of London. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1949.

92 Cohen, Robert. —Introduction to Merry Wives of Windsor.“ The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard and Katharine Eisaman Maus. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2008.

Cooke, Dominic. Interview. —As You Like It Current Production.“ Royal Shakespeare Company. 3 April 2006. http://www.rsc.org.uk/home/3687777.aspx.

Cooke, Dominic. On Directing As You Like It. Royal Shakespeare Company. 9 Mar. 2006. http://www.rsc.org.uk/content/3687.aspx

Daileader, Celia. E-mail correspondence. 3 Nov. 2005.

Daughtery, Leo. —A Good Popular Biography.“ Shakespeare Quarterly 34.3 (Autumn 1983): 372-374.

Deats, Sara Munson. —”Truly an Obedient Lady:‘ Desdemona, Emilia and the Doctrine of Obedience in Othello.“ Othello: New Critical Essays. Ed. Philip C. Kolin. New Haven: Routledge, 2005. 233-35

DiGangi, Mario. —Queering in the Shakespearean Family.“ Shakespeare Quarterly 47 (1996): 269-90.

Dillon, Lisa. —Desdemona.“ The Actors. The Current Production. Othello. Learning. The Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/Othello/current/home.html 3 Apr. 2006 http://www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/learning/rsc_cru_2006_background.pdf.

Duckworth, George E. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1952.

Dusinberre, Juliet, ed. The Arden Shakespeare: As You Like it. London: Thomson, 2006.

---.. —Introduction.“ The Arden Shakespeare: As You Like it. Ed. Juliet Dusinberre. London: Thomson, 2006.

---. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. New York: St. Martins, 1975.

Erickson, Carolly. The First Elizabeth. New York: Summit, 1983.

Erickson, Peter. —Sexual Politics and Social Structure in As You Like It.“ Patriarchal Structures in Shakespeare‘s Drama. Berkeley: U of California P, 1985. 15-38.

Fabre, Daniel. —Families: Privacy versus Custom.“ Trans. Arthur Goldhammer. A History of Private Life: Passions of the Renaissance. Eds. Philippe Aries and Georges Duby. Harvard: Belknap, 1988.

93 Fraser, Meg. Learning. —Ophelia: Her Choice?“ Characters and Relationships. —Ophelia“ Hamlet. Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/exploringshakespeare/hcharacterrelationships/opheliaherch oice.htm

Frye, Susan and Karen Robertson. —Introduction.“ Maids and Mistresses. Cousins and Queens: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England. Eds. Susan Frye and Karen Robertson. New York: Oxford, 1999.

Garber, Marjorie. —The Education of Orlando.“ Comedy from Shakespeare to Sheridan: change and Continuity in the English and European Dramatic Tradition: Essays in Honor of Eugene M. Waith. Ed. A.R. Braunmuller and Jamce C. Buman. Newark: University of Delaware P, 1986. 102-112

Gibson, Joy Leslie. —What is the Play about?“ Learning. King Lear. Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/lear/learning/about.html

Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. —Introduction to Mary Astell.“ The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women: the Traditions in English. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1996.188

Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women‘s Development. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1982.

—Go on, Just Call it Macbeth!“ Where I Live: Coventry and Warwickshire. BBC Homepage England. Mar. 2004. 9 Mar. 2006. www.bbc.co.uk/coventry/stage/stories/2004/03/dominic-cooke-interview.shtml

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: Norton, 2004.

Greer, Germaine. Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP, 2002.

Greer, Germaine. Shakespeare‘s Wife. New York: Harper Collins, 2007.

Gufstafson, Helen. Hanky Panky: An Intimate History of the Handkerchief. Berkeley: Ten Speed P, 2002.

Haynes, Allen. Untamed Desire: Sex in Elizabethan England. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole B, 1997.

Heilbrun, Carolyn. Hamlet‘s Mother and Other Women. New York: Columbia UP, 1990.

94 Heilman, Robert. —Introduction.“ The Taming of the Shrew. The Signet Classic Shakespeare. Ed. Sylvan Barnet. New York: Signet, 1966. xxiii-xlii

Helgerson, Richard. Adulterous Alliances: Home, State, and History in Early Modern European Drama and Painting. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000.

Henderson, Katherine Usher and Barbara F. McManus. Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1985.

Howard, Jean. —Afterward.“ Maids, Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England. Eds. Susan Frye and Karen Robertson. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 305-311

---. The Stage and Social Struggle in Early Modern England. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Hufton, Olwen. —Women, Work and Family.“ Ed. Natalie Zemon Davis and Arlette Farge. A History of Women in the West Volume III: Renaissance and Enlightenment Paradoxes. Harvard: Belknap, 1993. 15-46

—Interpreting a Stage direction: Enter Celia and Rosalind.“ —Directors Talk.“ —As You Like It Learning.“ Royal Shakespeare Company.

Jacobi, Derek. —Macbeth.“ Ed. Robert S. Miola. Macbeth: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 2004.

Johnson, Russell, and Robert L. Smallwood, eds. Players of Shakespeare 2: Further Essays in Shakespearean Performance by Players with the Royal Shakespeare Company. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988.

Jameson, Alice. Shakespeare‘s Heroines: Characteristics of Women: Moral, Poetical, and Historical. New York: Gramercy, 2003. (Reprinted from 1832 edition).

Johnson, Samuel. —Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth.“ Macbeth: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Robert S. Miola. New York: Norton, 2004. 206- 211

Jones, Ann Rosalind. —Maidservants of London: Sisterhoods of Kinship and Labor.“ Maids, Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women‘s Alliances in Early Modern England. Eds. Susan Frye and Karen Robertson. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. 21-32.

Judy, George. Personal Interview. Oct. 2001.

95 Kermode, Frank. —Antony and Cleopatra.“ The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. 1391-1394 Kermode, Frank. —Macbeth.“ The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. 1355-59.

King, Margaret. Women of the English Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Korda, Natasha. —The Merry Wives of Windsor: A Modern Perspective.“ Folger Shakespeare Library: The Merry Wives of Windsor. Eds. Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Washington Square P, 2004. 227-241

Lakoff, Robin. —Language and Woman‘s Place.“ The Story of English Study Guide and Reader. Eds. Janet Holmgren McKay and Spencer Cosmos. Dubuque: Kendell/Hung, 1986. 251-271.

Lasch, Christopher and Elisabeth Lasch-Quin. Women and the Common Life: Love, Marriage, and Feminism. New York: Norton, 1997.

Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Feminist Consciousness from the Middle Ages to Eighteen-seventy. New York: Oxford, 1993.

Loomba, Ania. Gender, Race, Renaissance Drama. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.

Macaulay, Alastair. —As You Like It, Novello Theatre, London. Financial Times.com. 8 Mar. 2006. 1 Apr. 2006.

Macbeth. Dir. Dominic Cooke. Perf. Greg Hicks and Siam Thomas. Royal Shakespeare Company, London, 2004.

Macbeth. Dir. Philip Casson. Perf. Ian McKellen and Judith Dench. A &E, 1978. DVD, Thames Shakespeare Collection, 2004.

Macbeth. Dir. Jack Gold. Perf. Nicol Williamson And Jane Lapataire. BBC Time Life Films, 1978-84. DVD, 1987.

Maxwell, Marilyn. —Portraits of Menopausal Women in Select Works of English and American Literature.“ The Meanings of Menopause: Historical, Medical and Clinical Perspectives. Ed. Ruth Formanek. New York: Routledge, 1990. 255-281

The Merry Wives of Windsor. Dir. Jack Manning. Perf. Gloria Graham and Leon Charles. Shakespeare Society of America, 1970.

The Merry Wives of Windsor. Picture Archive. Education. Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/searcharchives/search/text?text=merry+wives

96 Macfarlane, Alan. Marriage and Love in England: 1300-1840. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Ruth Borker and Nelly Furman, eds. Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger, 1980.

McDonald, Russ. —Introduction to The Merry Wives of Windsor.“ The Pelican Shakepseare. New York: Penguin, 2002. xxx-lv

McKewen, Carole. —Counsels of Gall and Grace: Intimate Conversations between Women in Shakespeare‘s Plays.“ The Woman‘s Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare. Ed. Carolyn Lenz. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1980. 117-132.

McManus, Barbara R.. —Cleopatra‘s Coins.“ Antony, Octavian, Cleopatra: The End of the Republic. Rome: Republic to Empire. http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus./antony.html

Montrose, Louis Adrian. —The Place of a Brother‘ in As you Like it: Social Process and Comic Form.“ Shakespeare Quarterly 32 (1981): 28-54.

Montrose, Louis Adrian. The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the Elizabethan Theatre. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Muir, Kenneth. —Image and Symbol in Macbeth.“ Macbeth: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Robert S. Miola. New York: Norton, 2004.

--- —Introducton.“ Macbeth: The Arden Shakespeare Second Series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

Much Ado About Nothing. Dir. Kenneth Branagh. Perf. Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson. MGM, 1993. DVD, MGM Home Entertainment, 2003.

Neely, Carol Thomas. —Feminist Modes of Shakespearean Criticism.“ ADE Bulletin. 087 (1987). 15-18

Newman, Karen. Fashioning Femininity and English Renaissance Drama. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991.

Novy, Marianne. —Daniel Deronda and George Eliot‘s Female Re-Vision of Shakespeare.“ Women‘s Re-Visions of Shakespeare: On Responses of Dickinson, Woolf, Rich, H.D., George Eliot and others. Ed. Marianne Novy. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1990. 89-108

O‘Faolain, Julia and Laura Marines, eds. Not in God‘s Image: Women in History from the Greeks to the Victorians. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

97 Orgel, Stephen. —Macbeth and the Antic Round.“ Macbeth: A Norton Critical Edition. Ed. Robert S. Miola. New York: Norton, 2004. 342-357 Othello. Dir. Oliver Parker. Perf. Laurence Fishburne and Kenneth Branaugh. 1996. Videocassette. Turner Broadcasting, 1998.

Paster, Gail Sterns. —A Modern Reading.“ Much Ado About Nothing. Folger Shakespeare Library. Eds. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine. New York: Washington Square Press, 2006. 213-230.

Park, Clara Claiborne. —As We Like It: How a Girl Can Be Smart and Still Popular.“ Eds. Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz, Gayle Green, Carol Thomas Neely. The Woman‘s Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1983. 100-117

Plutarch. —Antony.“ Plutarch‘s Lives. Great Books of the Western World. Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chicago: Encylopaedia Britannica, 1952, 1977. 748-780

—Power and Control.“ —Macbeth: The Key Ideas.“ RSC: Exploring Shakespeare, Hamlet and Macbeth. 2004. (8 March 2006). www.rsc.org.uk/learning/hamletandmacbeth/keyidea/macbethkeyidea.htm.

Preest, David. —Mark Antony.“ A Dictionary of Ancient History. Ed. David Speake. Cambridge, MA.: Basil Blackwell, 1984. 44-45

Quilligan, Maureen. The Allegory of Female Authority: Christine De Pizan‘s Cite Des Dames. Ithica: Cornell UP, 1991.

Rackin, Phyllis. —Androgyny, Mimesis, and the Marriage of the Boy Heroine on the English Renaissance Stage.“ PMLA 102 (1987): 29-41.

Rackin, Phyllis. Shakespeare and Women: Oxford Shakespeare Topics. New York: Oxford UP, 2005.

Santaniello, Amelia. —Arranged Mall Marriage Still Going Strong.“ Local News. WCCO.Com, May 22, 2006. http://wcco.com/watercooler/local_story_141210042.html.

Shakespeare, William. Antony and Cleopatra. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 1391-1440.

---. As You Like It. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 399-437

---. As You Like It. Ed. Juliet Dusinberre. The Arden Shakespeare, third series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

98 ---. Hamlet. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. 1183-1246

---. Hamlet. Thompson, Ann and Neil Taylor, eds. The Arden Shakespeare, third series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

---. Henry V. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 974-1022

---. Macbeth. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. 1355-1391

---. Merry Wives of Windsor. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 320-361

---. Much Ado about Nothing. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 361-399

---. Much Ado about Nothing. Ed. Claire McEachern. The Arden Shakespeare, third series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

---. Othello. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 1246-1297

---. —Sonnet 30.“ The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 1848

---. 2 Henry IV. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 928-974

---. The Winter‘s Tale. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 1616-1635

Shannon, Laurie. Sovereign Amity : Figures of Friendship in Shakespearean Contexts. Chicago: Chicago U.P., 2002.

Shaw, Glen Byam, director. —Picture Gallery: RSC.“ Merry Wives of Windsor. RSC, 1955. http://www.rsc.org.uk/searcharchives/item/item_main.jsp?item_id=4669

Showalter, Elaine. —Representing Ophelia: Women, Madness and the Responsibilities of Feminist Criticism.“ Eds. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman. Shakespeare and the Question of Theory. London: Methuen, 1985.

Smith, Hallett. —Introduction to The Winter‘s Tale.“ The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G.Blakemore Evans. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1997. 1612-1616

99 —Soldiers.“ The Roman Empire. www.theromanempire.net 23 Jan. 2006.

Stone, Lawrence. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800. Abridged Edition. New York: Harper, 1979.

—Talking to William Shakespeare.“ Shakespeare‘s Answers. http://www.talkingto.co.uk/ttws/html/ttws_answ.asp?quesID=1537&CatID=353 (30 March 2006).

Taylor, Shelley E. The Tending Instinct: Women, Men and the Biology of Our Relationships. New York: Holt, 2002.

Thomas, Sian. —Gertrude.“ Learning. The Current Production. Hamlet. Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/hamlet/home/home.html. 29 March 2006.

Waddington, Raymond B. —Moralizing the Spectacle: Dramatic Emblems in As You Like It.“ Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 33 no.2 (Summer 1982). 155-163

Watson, Robert. —As You Liken it: Simile in the Forest.“ Back to Nature: The Green and the Real in the Late Renaissance. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Weir, Allison. The Life of Elizabeth I. New York: Ballantine, 1999.

—Who is Ganymede?“ —Sources for As You Like It.“ Royal Shakespeare Company. http://www.rsc.org.uk/asyoulikeitpack/about/sources.html Accessed 3 April 2006.

Wilders, John. —Introduction.“ Antony and Cleopatra: The Arden Shakespeare Third Series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006.

Weir, Allison. The Life of Elizabeth I. New York: Ballantine, 1998.

Weller, Barry and Margaret W. Ferguson, editors. The Tragedy of Mariam the Fair, Queen of Jewry by Elizabeth Cary, Lady Falkland and The Lady Falkland Her Life By One of Her Daughters. Berkeley: U of California P, 1994. Womankind, 1540-1620. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1984.

Woodbridge, Linda. Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind: 1540-1620. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984.

Zeffirelli, Franco, director. Hamlet. William Shakespeare. Warner Brothers, 1990.

100 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Milinda received her undergraduate degree from Florida State University during which she spent a year at their London Center, studying, among other things, Shakespeare in performance. She taught Drama at Bradford High School in Starke, Florida then received her M.A. in English from University of Florida with a major area of concentration in feminist theory and nineteenth century female writers and a minor area of concentration in theatre performance in which she studied techniques of acting and directing. As an associate professor of English and Theatre at Gulf Coast Community College, Milinda taught literature, composition and theatre. Grants include an NEH grant awarded through the Florida Humanities Council for a women‘s history month celebration including the production of her play, Palmetto Cradle, a play about her great grandmother‘s life as a settler on the coast of the Florida Panhandle. She has directed plays for community theatre as well as GCCC. Her newspaper publications have included theatre criticism and book reviews, and her magazine publications have ranged from sewing magazines to devotional journals. Milinda worked as an NPR commentator for her local affiliate station, WKGC. Her scholarly presentations include papers presented for S.A.M.L.A., N.C.T.E., Comparative Drama Conference, Rocky Mountain Medieval Association, and Tennessee Philological Association among others. Currently Milinda teaches Introduction to Shakespeare at Florida State University in Tallahassee and Memoir Writing at the FSU Panama City Campus. She is working on a memoir about her great- great grandmother, a prequel to her play, Palmetto Cradle.

101