Resolving the Social Order in The Tempest

Because most of Shakespeare’s comedies use marriage as a symbol of a harmonious and healthy social order and The Tempest does not, I was intrigued by the ways in which he uses conflict to reach, one assumes without finishing the play, a resolution. In Shakespeare’s comedies, misunderstandings erupt, blocking situations are used and conquered, and at the end, love triumphs and marriage sets everything right. The social order is restored.  Although The Tempest is considered a romance rather than a comedy, social order is an important aspect of the play, both in terms of the explicit conflict of the play (Prospero’s fight to become Duke of Milan again) and in terms of the play’s constant exploration of the master-servant dialectic, especially when the dynamic appears unsettled or discordant. Prospero creates a masque that will describe to the couple the importance of marriage versus love and lust.

Just as Shakespeare seeks to resolve the conflict of his lost dukedom through the marriage of his innocent daughter Miranda with the Duke of Naples’ son, Ferdinand, the masque uses social and dramatic associations of marriage, and underscores them heavily with the seriousness of the masque.  In doing this, a sense is created that, even though the play’s major conflict is still unresolved, the world of the play is beginning to heal itself. The fact of marriage itself, as it is presented in the masque, is enough to settle the turbulent waters of the story.

The masque begins with a pastoral description by Iris, Goddess of the rainbow and messenger of Juno, starting the show with color and beauty.  Iris declares to Ceres (Greek Demeter, Goddess of agriculture, growth, prosperity and rebirth) that they are there for “A contract of true love to celebrate” on the “blest lovers” (4.1.84,86). Once Ceres ensures that Venus and Cupid are not involved (because they are the gods of lust, not conjugated marriage) and Iris confirms “they to have done/Some wanton charm upon this man and maid,/Whose vows are that no bed-right shall be paid/Till Hymen’s torch be lighted,” we know that Prospero’s insistent theme in the masque is to have them legally wed before any sex take place between them.  Just as the queen of all gods blesses their marriage, she also blesses the children that will come from their union.  Instead, he explores marriage as part of society and family. Juno, the symbol of marriage and family life in Roman mythology, descends declaring, “To bless this twain that they may prosperous be/And honoured in their issue” (4.1.104-105).  In so doing, marriage is subtly glorified as both the foundation of society and as part of the natural order of things, given the accord between marriage and nature in Ceres’ speech when she says,

CERES:  Earth’s increase, and foison plenty

Barns and garners never empty,

Vines with clust’ring bunches growing,

Plants with goodly burden bowing;…

Scarcity and want shall shun you,

Ceres’ blessing so is on  you”

(4.1.110-113,116-117). 

Thus, Prospero has managed to communicate to Ferdinand that his virginal daughter will be his only after their legalized marriage ceremony while blessing their union and, with that union, social order is restored.

Does Shakespeare want to change the status quo

       This was not one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. I've tried to like it. Really, I did. But I just can't. It all seems so familiar. We have a gaggle of confused lovers, rumors, mis-identification and the threat of actual violence. This play is perhaps the easiest to update for the twenty first century, and wouldn't look out of place on any television network, at any hour of the day. Perhaps that universality is what makes the work so timeless. Once again, Shakespeare uses the cloak of comedy to address social issues and questions to be grappled with at the time. After having read a few plays, it's interesting to draw parallels between the works.
       Like the other works we've read thus far this semester, marriage plays a huge roll in "Much Ado". Once again, we are presented with a pair of lovers who've yet to cement they're feelings with marriage (Claudio and Hero). Pretty standard. We're presented with two lovers who don't quite know they're lovers yet, indeed who seem like adversaries (Benedick and Beatrice). This is reminiscent of the start of "A Midsummer Night's Dream", with two pairings who we assume will wind up together in the end (being a comedy, we can assume this happy outcome).
       Once again, the plot is influenced by the power of the state over the individual, as embodied by our villain, Don Jon. This has been a running theme through out the plays we've read thus far, but  The "Bedford Companion" reading about property, marriage and children opened up a world of new idea's that I had not considered before, including why so many of Shakespeare's plays thus far revolve around marriages and the trouble arranging them can raise. The idea of protecting a piece of property by designating heirs for the good of the house is an interesting one, even though it is fraught with dangers to the family as a social body. Don Jon becomes a tragic example of how such a system can affect an individual.
      While not a direct parallel, this issue of property and succession is a theme that runs through all that we've read thus far. Viola wouldn't have had a problem in "Twelfth Night" without such a system. The need to flee out of the city is removed for Lysander and Hermia without the system in place. But is Shakespeare commenting on any unfairness of the situation, or merely using it because it is the policy of the times and he can build a story around it? In this interest the plot resolution results in the embodiment of the unfairness of policy fleeing the city, removing himself from the society. The couples are joined, and the status quo is upheld. While he does address interesting concepts regarding females and their roles in society, thus far it seems Shakespeare favors the status quo. Only more readings will tell.

Why are there so many strong women in Shakespeare's works?

One thing that stands out immediately in Much Ado About Nothing is the presence of a strong, central, female figure.  I find this to be slightly ironic considering during Shakespeare’s time women were not very highly regarded, especially when they are married, as seen through the “Marriage and Money” article previously read.  Through the first two acts, primarily the first one, I see Shakespeare setting the stage to enhance Beatrice’s role as a strong woman.  Shakespeare clearly demonstrates this powerful aspect of women when he puts Benedick vs. Beatrice in a verbal showdown.  After the two provide insults back and forth, primarily Beatrice towards Benedick, Benedick has enough and backs down, “I have done” (I.I.116-117).  I found this moment to be extremely interesting while reading because what man during this time would let a woman win such a match of insults?

            To further demonstrate Beatrice’s strong-will and dominance, when she provides a reason to not get married she makes a valid, religious based point which undermines the male gender.  She basically tells her uncle, Leonato, that she refuses to be overmastered with a piece of valiant dust?” (II.I.51-52) .  Although Beatrice believes she will be overpowered by whomever she marries she still refers to the man as a miniscule piece of dirt.  This is a powerful insult not only to men but also God and Adam from Genesis.  But, what is more interesting than Beatrice’s control is the acknowledgement Shakespeare makes in the men, that women seem to be the person in the marriage who “wear the pants”.

            As shown in our study guide questions, we also see the quote from Don Pedro in Act I Scene I, line 213 “Well, as time shall try.  In time the savage bull doth bear the yoke” while discussing marriage.  Even Don Pedro recognizes that once a man enters marriage he will become tamed and part of the yoke.  This is the lifestyle that Benedick appears to want to avoid for the rest of his life so he can remain a bachelor but we all know this is not practical during Shakespeare’s time just as it seems impractical to have a woman “in-charge”.  It is funny to think that a woman would be the one to put the man in his place and tell him what to do and how to act, especially from all the commentary we have read about societal roles.

            One thing I also noticed while reading that almost contradicts the idea of women’s roles once they are married is when Benedick and Don Pedro are communicating.  In Act One, Benedick sees marriage as the end of his individuality.  He sees that the woman is going to take over his life and over power him and he will be a tool to her.  Benedick says, “In such great letters as they write ‘Here is good horse to hire’ let them signify under my sign ‘Here you may see Benedick, the married man’” (I.I.218-219).  This is extremely ironic to me considering all that has been embedded in the minds of readers of Shakespeare is that women are not supposed to be in power.  I think this quote directly addresses the oppression Benedick will feel from being married to any woman. 

            What does this say about Shakespeare as a writer?  We have already seen powerful women in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and even in Twelfth Night.  Are these women supposed to represent the few women who, during the time actually stood out or maybe this is Shakespeare’s way of calling out all the women and get those who are a bit more timid to stand up and take control of the life they lead and the men in society?  It is unfortunate that no one ever will know the answer to any of these questions but I think they are reasonable to be asking, otherwise why would the women in Shakespeare’s plays have so much strength?

Marriage in various forms

“A Midsummer Nights Dream” starts with an interesting preface in my edition of the Norton. The text examines a rumor surrounding the history of the play. According to a story, the play was originally written to be performed in front of a wedding party, with Queen Elizabeth the first in attendance. The book paints a nice picture, presenting the play as an intergral part of the proceedings, commenting on the real world event through a lens of social farce. Fictional or not, this story got me thinking about what lies at the heart of this play, being mentioned in the first line; marriage. 

That hand out we read before peaked my interest. I’ve never been particular to examine Shakespeare in social context. To be fair, I’ve never particularly examined Shakespeare at all. But I’ve never noticed the ambiguity of some of Shakespeare's works, particularly the subversive elements in the language. From the get go, “Midsummer” starts as a reflection on marriage, in all its forms. 

The first act of the play, from the first scene, sets up that this will be a play about marriage, in all it’s forms. First off, we have the marriage between Thesus and Hippolyta, set up as the spoils of war. Thesus has defeated Hippolyta and her Amazons, and taken her to be his wife. The second is a marriage situation between Hermia and Demetrius, in which Hermia is betroved, and is in love with Lysander. This conflict is also another examination on marriage, that of elopement for true love. There is also the spurned relationship between Demetrius and Helena. This makes for a situation that is ideal for a popular comedy, but it also sets up a dialogue on the act of marriage itself. In reading some of the other blog posts, I found it interesting to note that marriage at this time was not merely for love, but also a way of shifting finances and alliances between families- in a sense it was also political. 

I’m looking forward to continuing to examine these themes as the play progresses. Also, I will be interesting in watching the development of the female leads, as they both exhibit interesting qualities for their time period. Hermia is extremely bold, standing up to nearly all other characters in the play. Helena may have had an inappropriate relationship with Demetrius, again, something socially discouraged for the times. I am excited to see how these characters further advance the marriage critique outlined thus far.

Marriage as form of punishment...

I found it very odd that marriage is used as a punishment to the male characters in this play. If marriage is a sacrament then why is it being used as a punishment? Throughout the entire play, it seems as though marriage is viewed as something trivial and almost materialistic to the male characters. For example, in Act III, we find out that Angelo broke off his marriage with Mariana because her dowry was lost...
"There she losther marriage dowry; with both, her combinate husband, this well seeming Angelo" (III.1. 216-218)

In Act V, the sacrament of marriage of even further spit upon when the Duke begins giving out punishments to the male characters. For Lucio, he is to marry the prostitute he impregnated. Lucio even says to the Duke, ""Marrying a punk, my lord, is pressing to death" (V.1. 515). For Angelo, he is to marry Mariana, the woman he abandoned when her dowry was lost. Isabella is to marry the Duke, whether she likes to or not.

I have very mixed emotions regarding why Shakespeare would choose to use marriage as a form of punishment in this play. On one hand, I can understand making characters take responsibility for their actions, like Lucio. I can also see how Shakespeare is portraying the harsh reality that marriage is not always a fairy tale. However, this conclusion still leaves me with a feeling of confusion. Maybe it is because I, like the rest of us, am so far removed from the time period that my “independent woman” is kicking in and I’m finding it hard to believe that any woman would accept being married off to a man who dismissed her in the first place. I’m curious to see what the rest of you think of this. Why do you think Shakespeare used marriage as a punishment in this play?

Can you really call that love?

I'm realizing that more often than not, I find myself questioning the "love" that comes about in Shakespeare's plays. In Shakespeare's plays i see love as generally being defined more along the lines of 'wants' or shallow 'desires,' but not as something to be considered 'true' or deep and definitely nothing that will typically result in a lasting happiness for both parties.

In "A Midsummer Nights Dream," I constantly found myself asking 'Why does Demetrius love Hermia?' It either has something to do with her looks, or her status, or even a mixture of both, but is that really enough for him to be declaring love, and so adamantly? The whole idea of the juice from a special flower having the ability to control who a person falls in love with has me questioning the true feeling of all the couples in this play. I've always had this idea of true love not having the ability to be hindered or changed, and as something that can overcome anything, even a potion.

In "Twelfth Night" as well I don't believe Orsino or Sir Andrew are really in love with Olivia for who she is as a person in a deeper sense, but rather for who she is in society. Sebastian as well. He didn't meet Olivia or even know of her existence until the day he married her. I can't comprehend how this can be considered normal or even socially acceptable. Did true love hold such little meaning in marriage at the time? or was their definition of love only relating to status and appearance?

In "Much Ado About Nothing," we come across Hero and Claudio. Neither of them speak with each other until deeper into the play, and she is wooed for Claudio by another man. Yet all the same they are due to get married almost immediately afterwards and they both seem to be ecstatic at the prospect. Possibly having to do with the fact that getting married was important during the time of the play and having nothing to do with actually being in love.

On the other hand, the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick is probably the closest to 'legitimate' i've come across in a Shakespeare's play thus far. This mostly having to do with the amount of time and the connection involved in their relationship. It is mentioned that the two have a history, suggesting that they've known each other since before the time of the play, leading us to believe that there may have been a previous connection between the two. Their bickering though seemingly hateful, i believe underlies love more then anything.

It may be argued that they were tricked into loving each other by Pedro and the others, but i would argue that they have always loved each other but they just didn't know it. They are both stubborn characters and i am sure they were both under the impression that they were hated by the other, which is why i think they needed to be 'tricked.' Their relationship leads me to wonder why there are so many shallow relationships in the Shakespeare plays that i know of when he was clearly capable of creating a relationship that i believe can be considered true love?

Worthless Hero: The Importance of Virginity and the Absurdity of Marriage

We’ve been discussing in our class how clothes constitute identity in Shakespeare’s comedies, from Viola’s clothing in Twelfth Night being the deciding factor of what gender she is, to the masks in the party scene of Much Ado About Nothing that completely hide the wearer’s personality. Yet in Act IV and Act V of MAAN (the play’s title makes an interestingly masculine acronym, doesn’t it?), we see an entirely different marker of identity: virginity.

Although I was previously aware of the importance placed on premarital virginity in Shakespeare’s time, I found the reaction to Hero’s suspected de-floweration to be overwhelmingly spiteful. The man that only a day prior was lovesick over her wants absolutely nothing to do with her, telling her father:
“There, Leonato, take her back again.
Give not this rotten orange to your friend.
She’s but the sign and semblance of her honor.” (1.4.27)

However, the most shocking hatred is found in Leonato’s monologue, in which Hero’s father says:

“Do not live, Hero, do not ope thine eyes,

For, did I think thou wouldst not quickly die,

Thought I thy spirits were stronger than thy shames,

Myself would, on the rearward of reproaches,

Strike at thy life. Grieved I had but one?

Chid I for that at frugal Nature’s frame?

O, one too much by thee! Why had I one?

Why ever wast thou lovely in my eyes?

Why had I not with charitable hand

Took up a beggar’s issue at my gates,

Who, smirchèd thus, and mired with infamy,

I might have said, ‘No part of it is mine;

This shame derives itself from unknown loins’?” (4.1.122)

Harsh. Hero’s father is saying that he’d rather she die than not be a virgin, that he doesn’t know how he ever loved her, and that his only child is worthless to him. In such a short amount of time, a father’s love has been completely reversed due to the value of the prized possession of his loins being decreased; in other words, Hero is considered useless and unworthy of life if she isn’t a virgin.

This objectification of femininity contrasts severely with Shakespeare’s other representations of women in his comedies. His other female characters show strength and individual personality: Hippolyta is an intelligent Amazonian warrior queen, Hermia is willing to chase after the man she loves, Helena defies her father, Titania defies her husband, Viola bravely disguises her gender, Olivia rejects the traditional feminine role of submission, and Beatrice displays a sharp and clever wit. Among these great woman characters lies Hero, who is given no remarkable personality, whose only value lies in her virginal innocence. So why create such a weak, bland character as Hero?

Through Hero, Shakespeare is making a statement about marriage itself. Marriage is the core subject of this play, which is titled “Much Ado About Nothing.” This could have two meanings: marriage, as represented by the shallow relationship between Hero and Claudio, is nothing of any substantial value. Or, marriage has a great deal to do with female genitalia and sexuality, based upon the slang definition of “nothing” in Shakespeare’s time. Either way, Shakespeare is conveying the institution of marriage as being comically superficial. I say “comically” because the importance placed on Hero’s virginity is outrageous, enough to not only make her worthless as a potential wife but also to make her unworthy of existence.

What is also comical about Shakespeare’s treatment of matrimony is the contrast between marriage as represented by Hero and Claudio, and marriage as represented by Beatrice and Benedick. Unlike the younger couple, Beatrice and Benedick are two characters with multi-dimensional personalities and a witty and frequent exchange of dialogue. These two reject marriage throughout most of the play, and when they do end up together, their relationship is comical because their mutual affections were only revealed because of phony gossip.
So despite their relationship’s more substantial, personality-based qualities, Benedick and Beatrice are still getting married over “nothing,” just as Claudio and Hero are. Once Hero’s virginity is proven, everything returns to normal and the couple are happily together again- despite Hero now knowing that Claudio’s love is entirely conditional, that he is in love only with her virgin identity. We saw a similar return to normalcy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, in which the couples were happily together despite Demetrius still being under a spell and Titania still being unaware of her abuse. Although Shakespeare may challenge convention in his plays, whether he challenges traditional femininity or the institution of marriage, he still completes the cycle of comedy with creation and returns the audience to reality. Hero’s virgin identity is restored, and we are left to believe that both marriages- however absurd they may be- will be successful ones.

Property & Desire

I was immediately intrigued by the male/female relationships in the opening scenes of A Midsummer Night’s Dream because they illustrate the hierarchy of the power relations in Athens while serving as example with which to contrast the homosocial bonds. The play begins with Theseus expressing his impatience for his wedding day. His fiance, Hippolyta, expresses the exact opposite feelings, and understandably so, since she has in effect been coerced into the marriage: she is basically one of the spoils of Theseus’s victory over the Amazons, which reminds me of King Henry V and his courtship of Catherine. He has “wooed” her through violence, and she is an extension of his military political conquest. I noticed that Quince refers to the wedding as “his,” and not “theirs,” which emphasizes that it is a fulfillment of his desires, not hers. The other male/female relationships mirror this one; this may be because Theseus is the Duke, the ultimate authority, and so in a process of hegemony, or “the revels of power,” the morals/beliefs of his subjects echo his own. Egeus considers his daughter to be his property, as evidenced when he says “She is mine.” His language is rampant with evidence of his almost capitalistic (?) relationship to Hermia, who he only understands in terms of worth: her obedience is “due” to him, Lysander has “stol’n” her love and “filched” her heart. He dehumanizes Hermia by saying that he wishes to “dispose” of her, which distances him from the ontological implications of his request. He reminds me of Shylock, who trades in flesh as a capitalistic venture, as do Bassanio and Portia’s father in The Merhcnat of Venice. It is ironic that he says Lysander “filched” Hermia’s heart because the OED defines the word as “to steal something, especially of small value.” It’s no surprise that he would think Hermia’s heart is of small value, (Hermia as a person is so inconsequential in his eyes that he considers Lysander to have filched her heart from him, not from her) but it is what is causing problems for him. Her heart - her desire - is what is allowing her to be able to exert some agency and challenge his authority, which is something that Hippolyta does so hesitatingly that Theseus doesn’t even respond to it, and she remains mute for the rest of the 2 acts. Perhaps if Hippolyta’s desires were positive, in that they were more than not wanting to marry Theseus, if they could be realized in the form of another person, she would be more able to test her situation. Theseus, meanwhile, upholds this system of dehumanization through determining worth by telling Hermia that Demetrius is the “worthier” suitor because Egeus approves of him. So the men in the play are subject to the same rules of valuation: however, the system is made more complex beacause it is the richer men who make the rules (the Duke) and the less rich who must abide by them (Demetrius.)

Of course, all this is disrupted by the fairies, but I thought it was interesting that Titania attributes her taking the Indian boy (also a trade in human flesh) to the homosocial bond she had with his mother while Oberon maintains he had been “stol’n” (again) by her.These observations aside, I don’t think Shakespeare is depicting a thoroughly patriarchal world. After all, the word most said is “moon” and they all escape into the woods, both of which are always associated with women.