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.
