_edited.png)
The period between 1558 and 1603 in which Queen Elizabeth I was the ruler of England, known as the Elizabethan Era, was a complex time for how women were viewed and portrayed. This Women's History Month, Maeve Korengold offers her personal perspective on how Shakespearean literature was both influenced by gendered expectations, and discusses the relevance of this work in modern society.
Elizabeth I was the second Queen of England, after Mary I, but was the first and only to remain unmarried and childless for her entire reign and life. Instead, she was devoted to her subjects and personal interests, such as religion and education. Queen Elizabeth took heavy criticism for her choice to stay unmarried, and the issue of her virginity was questioned by many. Her femininity, maternal approach to how she ruled her subjects, and her demonstrated disinterest in marriage made people, especially the men, uncomfortable with the power she held, without a husband to tame her and guide her through her rule.
Femininity and power were, and arguably still are, thought of as mutually exclusive. Elizabeth I’s confidence in her ability to rule without a husband wasn’t compatible with the expectations of how she should act according to her gender, and, if she did act in a way that was seen as womanly enough, her ability to govern the country would diminish.
Women like Queen Elizabeth I, who were confident and vocal about their opinions during this time period were classified as “shrews” or “scolds.” Until 1967, being a “shrew”— speaking loudly, talking back, or badgering their husbands— was illegal and punished using charivari, cucking stools, and bridals. Female power was feared by society, and laws like this attempted to stifle it. However, the ideas of femininity and power going hand in hand, and the societal views and expectations of women during this time. can be analyzed further using the work of another key figure of the Elizabethan Era: playwright William Shakespeare.
The clearest example of Shakespeare’s dissection of female power and the “shrew” is one of his earlier plays, The Taming of the Shrew, in which the headstrong “shrew” Katherina is “tamed” by Petruchio, using psychological tactics such as not allowing her to eat, drink, or sleep until she becomes obedient to him. Katherina and Petruchio’s courtship ends in their marriage, and the destruction of Katherina’s character due to Petruchio’s taming.
The Taming of the Shrew is considered to be a comedy, but it’s really a story about the dissolution of Katherina from a strong-willed and self-confident young woman into a submissive and socially desirable shell of who she was before. During his efforts to tame Katherina through starvation, Petruchio is described to have “killed her” (Act 4, Scene 1), and, at the very end of the play, Katherina declares that she is “ashamed” of the women who are strong-willed and resistant to their suitors like she once was. Katherina’s internalization of the attitudes the men in The Taming of the Shrew have towards marriage. and what makes women desirable, results in her becoming what they desire, and her admonishing of women like her past self. She was worn down by the deprivation of food, water, and sleep, and was tired of being in an environment where her every action was monitored and judged. Her surrender to Petruchio’s taming, the eventual “killing” of her original personality, and her passing on the judgments of what a woman and a bride should be, are framed as a warning about what happens when conformity to social expectations is forced.
Some may argue that Katherina’s eventual assimilation into the perfect wife, and rejection of who she once was, was her taking control of her future, and should be read as a positive thing because she was then able to take power. However, regardless of whether she shed her shrewdness because she was tired of Petruchio’s abuse or in order to rise in power, the fact that, in order to attain power, she had to change who she was and get married is a sign that women’s status was far too dependent on how the men in their lives, as well as the rest of society, view them. Katherina’s true motive aside, her marriage and what she had to do to go through with it displays the way that living in a patriarchal society affects women’s choices to move ahead in life.
The effects of living in a society that passes heavy judgments on women’s behavior, personalities, and feelings toward marriage are still visible today. There’s intense pressure to be the perfect, subservient, married, and constantly pleasant woman, and women who do fit these ideals are pitted against women who don’t by the idea that there’s only one way to have value as a woman. Plenty of women today start as Katherina did— as strong young women who say no to societal standards and mean it— and gradually have that part of themselves “killed” by the wearing of their character as they move through the world, and are tested by societal standard, as she did.
During the Elizabethan Era, marriage was a key part of a woman’s status. Who married who was determined through economic and social standing. This is exemplified in the secondary storyline of The Taming of the Shrew, in which Lucentio is only allowed to marry Bianca when he can prove how wealthy he is. Whether the couple loved each other wasn’t considered as a factor for the marriages that took place in the play; they were solely about how each person would benefit from them. Katherina saw how her marriage, or lack thereof, would impact her place in society, and this contributed to her eventual submission to Petruchio.
As mentioned before, Queen Elizabeth I was unique because of her unenthusiasm towards marriage, but she was also unique in her ability to escape from a marriage she didn’t want. Unlike Katherina, her shrewdness remained unchallenged by the people around her, because she had much more power than Katherina and Bianca. Katherina and Bianca were higher-status noblewomen, but they still had to do what their father wanted them to. Elizabeth I was the ruler of England, and could do whatever she wanted to. She wasn’t as bound to the constraints that were put on women at the time because of her power and the privilege that came with it. At this time in history, marriages were huge deals for the future economic and social well-being of families; there were many Katherinas who had to marry against their will because of economic and social needs.
The idea of the “shrew” was also included in Shakespeare’s other work, A Midsummer Night's Dream. In Act 3, Scene 2, Helena says “Oh, when she’s angry, she is keen and shrewd,” referring to Hermia. At this moment in the play, Hermia and Helena, two best friends, are arguing, because Helena thinks that Hermia conspired with Lysander and Demetrius to humiliate her. There are many personal insults during this argument, including Hermia’s height, with Helena calling her a "dwarf" and an "acorn".
The way that Hermia’s supposed shrewdness is considered worthy of an intense attack on her character is telling of what people thought about women who stood up for themselves during the Elizabethan Era. The scene of two women, who love each other like sisters, attacking each other so intensely highlights how internalized misogyny can harm women's friendships. The interaction illustrates how women internalize societal expectations of how women should act, and weaponize them against each other, even women they're extremely close to. Like Katherina weaponized her internalization of societal standards of women at the end of Twelfth Night, Helena uses Hermia’s anger and sharp-wittedness to insult her because she feels ashamed of her own.
In addition to this, A Midsummer Night’s Dream showcases the effect that living in a patriarchal society, where women were forced to obey their male counterparts, had on their lives. Hermia’s father wants her to marry Demetrius, but Hermia is in love with Lysander, and refuses to obey her father. Her father then goes to the Duke of Athens’ court, and requests that Hermia be given the highest penalty possible, even if it means that she’ll be executed. Because of this, Hermia and Lysander plan to escape Athens and get married at Lysander’s aunt’s house.
This situation shows the hold that fathers had on their daughter’s lives at this period in time. Hermia couldn’t reason with her father, and the only way she could break free from his expectations was to run away. The events that follow this scene during the play are ultimately a result of Hermia’s father’s stubbornness and control over his daughter that elicited Hermia and Lysander’s decision to flee.
Another vehicle that Shakespeare used to examine the roles of and perception of women was Queen Titania from A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Titania is a queen like Elizabeth I, and is shown to be strong-willed and “shrewd” like her. Unlike Elizabeth I, she is married. Her husband appears to be resentful of her determination, and goes to far lengths to trick her out of spite. When Titania brings a young Indian prince back from her travels, her husband is upset that she won’t allow to him make the young boy a knight, so he deceives her into falling in love with a man with the head of the donkey and eventually takes the Indian prince. Although Titania is the Queen of the Fairies and has more power than ordinary women, she still comes second to her husband when it comes to influence and the power dynamic within her marriage. This insight into Titania and her husband’s partnership shows how being married and essentially under her husband’s control hinders Titania’s ability to go after what she wants.
At the time when Shakespeare was alive, women belonged to their fathers, brothers, and husbands under law. They weren’t allowed to own property, and nor were they allowed on Shakespeare’s stages. Queen Elizabeth I wasn’t under the same constraints that Titania was - because she stayed unmarried. Titania’s story in A Midsummer Night’s Dream offers an explanation as to why Queen Elizabeth I desired to stay unmarried and keep all of her autonomy.
Today, the actual performance of Shakespeare’s plays is much different than it was during the Elizabethan Era. Female characters are actually played by women instead of men, and performers and directors work with a different understanding of topics Shakespeare explored, including the societal roles of women. Casts are more diverse than ever, and women, actors of color, and queer actors are bringing authenticity and vibrancy to roles that were once one-dimensional due to white, cisgender, heterosexual men being their only portrayers. Shakespeare’s intertwining of commentaries on gender roles, femininity, and power is incredibly valuable for our understanding of the Elizabethan Era.