Re-Reading Shakespeare on Women and Power

By Kylee Rutkiewicz

I sat down at my kitchen table after another day of remote learning. My family passed around bowls of food, and I put a helping of asparagus and spaghetti onto my plate.

“What English classes are you taking this semester”, my Dad asked.

“Advanced Shakespeare and a capstone”. It’s the fall of my senior year, and the one class I held off on was an upper level pre-1800. It seemed the least interesting to me. I had already taken British Literature I and II and a Tragedies course. How would Advanced Shakespeare be any different?

“Is taking a Shakespeare course still relevant?” my dad started, “I mean with all that’s going on in this country, with Trump, the cops, and politicians trying to push women back a hundred years—what does Shakespeare really do?”

“Actually, this might be one of my most relevant classes this semester”, I replied, “all of these current power struggles are present in Shakespeare. The world has turned over an uncountable number of times, but tyrants and oppressors are consistently in power”.

As an English major, I am constantly asked about the relevance of Shakespeare. His work has been studied for centuries, and there are thousands of interpretations on the meaning of his work: was it social commentary? Was he speaking out against current rulers by using leaders from the past to represent them? Or was he merely rewriting the past as a form of entertainment for the people? I think it’s foolish to assume that Shakespeare was not making a social commentary: his works are rich with the intersectionality of gender, class, race, and politics. His history plays follow a vicious cycle of rebellion, restoration, and rebellion again. He presents his audience with an array of tyrants and rebels, and then even the rebels themselves become tyrants. After reading some of Shakespeare’s more obscure plays, along with the history plays this semester, one this has become increasingly clear: the shift of power is a white man’s game in Shakespeare.

Literary critics maliciously dissect and analyze female characters that they view as domineering. If a Black actress plays a traditionally white role - such as with Sophie Okonedo as Margaret in The Hollow Crown - there is an uproar among Shakespeare scholars and enthusiasts. While fourth wave feminism declared that true feminism is intersectional between gender and race, among Shakespeare scholars a true feminist reading of the most analyzed texts in the world is rare. Here, I specifically focus on the Europeanization of Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra and then turn to dismantling the scathing critique that Margaret in the Henry VI trilogy is “domineering” and power hungry.

In Joyce Green MacDonald’s book, Women and Race in Early Modern Texts, she wades into uncharted territory as she examines the underrepresentation of Black women in early modern English texts. In her first chapter, she uses race theory to deconstruct the critics of white Shakespeare scholars that are firmly against an Afrocentric reading of Cleopatra. Her character is often forced into a Greek molding and Europeanized for the comfort of a white audience. Gates suggests that Black Cleopatra threatens American democracy because “ancient Greece has been intimately connected with the ideals of American democracy” (MacDonald 29). The idea of a white Cleopatra feeds into the perception of a raceless world, which refers to the absence of Blackness. In White Fragility, Robin DiAngelo explains that “people of color are often seen as having race, and described in racial terms, but whites rarely are” (DiAngelo 60). Cleopatra’s Blackness presents a Shakespearean text with race - it makes white people unreasonably discomforting when characters don’t look like them, and conform to their idea of a “raceless” world.

Cleopatra’s character is often dismembered by critics that observe her sex and race. Male critics view her as the epitome of womanhood - a female sorceress who relies solely on her feminine charms to gain power and distract Antony. Shakespeare critic Edward Dowden writes:

“At every moment we are necessarily aware of the gross, the mean, the dis-orderly womanhood in Cleopatra, no less than of the witchery and wonder which excite, and charm, and subdue. We see her a dissembler, a termagant, a coward; and yet 'vilest things become her'. The presence of a spirit of life quick, shifting, multitudinous, incalculable, fascinates the eye, and would, if it could, lull the moral sense to sleep” (313-314).

The complexities of Cleopatra’s character remain unanalyzed by Dowden. He describes her as a witch with animal-like tendencies, and a lack of moral capability. Dowden places both the “voodoo Black woman” and “Angry Black women” stereotypes upon her. Cleopatra’s Ambiguous Racial identity undoubtedly factors into her portrayal as an exotic and domineering seductress. Her descriptions are hand-fed to the audience by the Roman characters—who are equally as attracted to her beauty, as they fear her temper. In the play text, Enobarbus describes her as an illogical dominatrix with untimely beauty:

“Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale / Her infinite variety. Other women cloy / The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry / Where most she satisfies. For vilest things / Become themselves in her, that the holy priests / Bless her when she is riggish.” (II.iii.276-281)

Critics also describe Margaret of Anjou (who appears in four of Shakespeare's history plays) as a bloodthirsty and power-hungry woman. David M. Bevington tries to convince readers of Margaret’s desire to have “mastery over the men” and uses “enchanting spells to ensnare their intended victim” (Bevington 51). I argue that Margaret does not seek to have power over men, but uses her position as queen to secure her own agency. Even though she is promised as Henry's wife she has almost no social standing: she is a woman from enemy territory and defies the norms of dowry at the time. She was at the mercy of Suffolk; her beauty turning her into a diamond amongst the rubble of war. I would like to suggest that Margaret is Suffolk's prisoner rather than his lover - she was disliked by all in England and adopted the role of lover to secure survival. After Suffolk’s death, Margaret uses her political agency to save her family from death but is ultimately unsuccessful. Margaret’s actions are direct and decisive and rely on little feminine charms, and she is “the strongest female counterpoint the destructive of men” (Pagliaccio 2016). The description of Margaret as an enchantress is completely outlandish. With Cleopatra, the Roman characters directly referred to Cleo as an enchantress that relied on her feminine wiles, but there is very little evidence to support that perspective in regards to Margaret. It seems that Bevington is hyper-critical of Margaret’s gained agency, and her commanding and decisive nature in regards to her womanhood.

Throughout this semester, I have enjoyed dismantling the opinions of male critics. It’s important to take everything they say with a shovel full of salt. Critics like Gates, Edward Dowden, and David Bevington have grounded most of their literary opinions on their problematic feelings about strong female characters. Their opinions are not based on the facts presented in the texts, and they whitewash Shakespeare while demonizing female characters. The criticism towards the potential Blackness of Cleopatra showed a lack of emotional control from the critics, and they used the pathological appeal of American Patriotism to combat notions that Cleopatra can be considered Black. This is a blatant ignoration of the intersectionality between race, sex, and history within Shakespeare’s text. Critics that focus solely on analyzing white male characters are sucking the relevance out of Shakespeare, and make the text emotionally inaccessible to women and Black people. According to the critics, Cleopatra and Margaret are blood-thirsty, power-hungry, and have no sense of moral reasoning. They are projected as ab-human, which validates the oppression the male characters have forced upon them. These critics are projecting their fear of the insurgence of female power and Black representation in literary work because it threatens their idea of a “raceless” patriarchy.

Works Cited:

MacDonald, Joyce Green, Women and Race in Early Modern Text, Cambridge University Press. (2002)

Edward Dowden, Shakespeare: A Critical Study of His Mind and Art (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957 [first published 1875]), pg. 313-314.

Bevington, David M. "The Domineering Female in 1 Henry VI." Shakespeare Studies 2 (1966): 51.

Pagliaccio, Sarah. In Defense of Shakespeare’s Queen Margaret of Anjou. Diss. 2016

Shakespeare, William. Antony and Cleopatra. Eds. Barbara Mowat and Paul Werstine. Folger Shakespeare Library.

#shakespeare # #ENG253 #margaret #henry6 #antonyandcleo #race #gender