This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
For many readers, the works of William Shakespeare are merely enjoyable plays; however this aesthetic quality disguises a deeper relevance and a more sophisticated artistic agenda. That is the hypothetical mediation, by which I mean the dispersion, of the prominent social struggles and anxieties of the early modern period, such as patriarchal ideologies and female suppression. Using Much Ado About Nothing (c.1599), Measure for Measure (160304) and The Two Gentlemen of Verona (c.1590), I intend to explore the extent to which Shakespearean plays concentrate on these contextual problems. My focus on gender will reference Shakespeare‟s presentation of the respective masculine and feminine crises and the contrasting dissidence and adherence to the ideas of femininity using the female characters in the three plays. With the aid of contextual resources, such as the popular Elizabethan preacher Henry Smith I intend to use a new historicist approach to the plays; described by Betty S Travitsky as “a receptivity to their intertextuality and contextuality” 1, to prove that the texts do interact with and mediate the gender struggles and anxieties of the time. As the endings of the plays do not offer a resolution of the noted issues, I will argue that they conclude with tenuous stability and an artificial resurrection of patriarchy. I thus propose that instead of mediating gender anxieties, the plays conversely act as proponents of the established patriarchal structure of Renaissance culture and society. The ascension of Queen Elizabeth to the throne in 1558 inspired an interrogation of gender hierarchy for many decades to come, as her infiltration into the masculine territory of monarchy questioned the validity of patriarchy and the role of women in the political and
Betty S Travitsky. “Placing Women in the English Renaissance”. The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print: Counterbalancing the Canon. Eds. Haselkorn Anne M and Betty S Travitsky. (Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1990) 3-4.
Biblical focus on woman‟s source also emphatically implied that her purpose was wifehood and thus pressurised woman to conform to the institution of marriage. Public and Private in the English Renasissance . Eds. 5 William Shakespeare. Stephen.. Marion Wynne-Davis agrees with this interpretation and comments that Elizabeth‟s presence in the court unsettled the concept of masculine and female spheres and “questioned the legitimacy of absolute male power”3.Cerasano S P and Marion Wynne-Davis (Detroit: Wayne State University Press. et al. 1992) 80.domestic settings2. “With a good leg and a good foot.. By her renunciation of men into 2 Peter Stallybrass.. The Norton Shakespeare. To demonstrate Shakespeare‟s engagement with these issues I will firstly analyse Much Ado About Nothing. He is not saide to make man a wife. Eds.. on woman‟s dependency. Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. “Patriarchal Territories: The Body Enclosed”. 2 . Greenblatt. 2008) 1. posed to the stability of patriarchy.. Gloriana’s Face: Woman. 1987) 131-132. Society was therefore reminded of woman‟s dependent subjectivity. “The Queen’s Masque: Renaissance Women and the Seventeenth -Century Court Masque”. dissents from the Smith‟s emphasis above.. (London and New York: Norton. In addition.13-15.. 3 Marion Wynne-Davis. but to build him a wife. The confident and assertive language adopted by Beatrice. “God tooke a rib out of Adams side. and thereof built the woman. This is evidenced by Henry Smith‟s 1591 statement. Eds. the intense religious atmosphere emanating from the reformation and consequential theological redefinition inspired a renewed emphasis upon woman‟s innate inferiorit y because of her origin in man and Eve‟s central role in the fall of mankind.1591: STC 22685) 8. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press. creates a masculinised female who rejects society‟s call for her physical and linguistic submission to the authority of patriarchy. “Much Ado About Nothing”. / such a man would win any woman in / the world. in which the correlation and dissention of the stereotypical notions of gender and specifically women is evident in the characters of Beatrice and Hero. The independent construction of Beatrice‟s self as distinct from man displayed here. 4 Henry Smith.. A preparatiue to marriage. the necessity of suppression and the threat that the uncontrolled female like Eve or the Queen. nd 2 ed. (London: Thomas Orwin.3. Ferguson Margaret W et al..”4.”5.
(Oxon: Routledge. Eds.. “reduction into parts. 1190-1220. Howard. Also the inner worlds of the text. (London and New York: Norton. 1620. (London: Routledge. but in the dissident manner of woman dissecting man into parts in the creation of her individuality. I briefly noted that to subvert this was to deny one‟s womanhood. word or dialog within the written texts to explore. Eds. appropriating religious themes to naturalise the order of dominance in marriage. Marriage duties briefely couched togither out of Colossians. with Smith proclaiming if “God made the Woman for Man” then woman 6 Jean E Howard. Shakespeare allows Beatrice to act as a challenge to societal suppression of women by “resisting the patriarchal dictum that the natural destiny of all women is marriage. STC 11667) 9.. 1995). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 9 Jonathan Sawday.. 7 Understanding dialogic as related to heteroglossia. 3 . [in the] cultural of dissection. Leitch Vincent B et al.. 3. and also spiritual patriarchy8. as well as the institution itself. Beatrice‟s dissent from this belief is inconsistently portrayed and her resistance is neutralised with the introduction of a crisis of femininity. 1-2. Beatrice‟s speech also shows a contextual relation with the early modern anatomical exploration discussed by Jonathan Sawday in Body Emblazoned (1995).constituent parts. create and interact with the real world. (London: William Jones. with Beatrice placed above man. including ideologies and other constructions. 19 . the Early Modern Period exerted an immense pressure on woman to fulfil her prescribed socioreligious duty as man‟s servant in marriage. The suggestion of female independence.”6. Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology . 2001). challenge. Jean E and Marion F O’Connor... [aiding or accompanying] the construction of individuality”9. scorning his companionship and rejecting both secular masculine superiority.. Shakespeare engages with the contemporary anatomy studies which were conducted by men. As Smith‟s quote demonstrates.. particularly in regard to marriage clearly dissents from the controlling and dogmatic treatises such as Smith above which sought to theologically instruct and edify their readers. 2005) 180. See Mikhail M Bakhtin “Discourse in the Novel”. Body Emblazoned. 8 Thomas Gataker. Her subversion of the contextual focus upon “woman as the body” displays a dialogic7 dissidence from theological theories regarding the bodily inferiority of woman and from the Genesis hierarchy. “Renaissance antitheatricality and the politics of gender and rank in Much Ado About Nothing”. 18.
96. Shakespeare‟s utilisation of Beatrice to dialogically relate this theory. Beatrice‟s outspoken challenge is thus neutralised whilst the danger of silent female submission provokes male suspicion and becomes the symbol of masculine anxiety.”.50-52. Unlike her cousin Hero does embrace her duty and willingly submits to marriage. Irrespective of the simultaneous silence and chastity which evinces her character. Hero is presented as another threat to masculinity with her supposed infidelity and premarital cuckoldry.1. Thus her destabilising effect is a temporary manifestation of her female crisis and not a rebellion against patriarchy. When Claudio learns of her supposed transgressions he exclaims. its linguistic contrast of both genders and Genesis imagery of man originating in dust. “Not till God make men of some other mettle than / earth. “Thou pure impiety and impious purity.4.. the theological quality of his reaction relates her perceived sexual transgression through religiously suggestive language 10 11 Henry Smith. and the threat is therefore destroyed by her symbolic silencing in Act 5. William Shakespeare. 2. The invocation of the ultimate patriarchal figure of God indicates a yearning for subordination within Beatrice‟s outspoken ways and highlights her excessively inferior status by centring God‟s power over both man and woman. “Much Ado About Nothing”. 5. “Peace. 12 Ibid. 1. Would it not grieve a woman to be overmastered with a / piece of valiant dust? ”11. and thus marriage precipitated the realisation of woman as she was meant to be10. This speech directly interacts with the sentiment expressed in Smith‟s A Preparatiue to Marriage by referencing God and the creation. / For thee I‟ll lock up all the gates of love. I will stop your mouth”12. thereby engaging with patriarchy‟s reliance upon the foundations of chastity and the control of femininity. yet still acts as a destabilising agent when Don John‟s plot suggests that infidelity has destroyed her chastity and placed her outside of patriarchal control. A preparatiue to marriage.could only truly exist through man who was her origin. 4 . is evinced through her surprising desire for conformity..
. 1625: STC11595) 44. Instead of mediating gender crises and 13 14 William Shakespeare. but the initial critical stance is abandoned yet again for a reassuring finale in which patriarchal restoration takes precedence and marital hierarchy removes any social anxieties. Characters and Essayes by Alexander Garden.2 (1993) 398. “Male honour and reputation apparently depend. 4.. [with] masculine fears. 19.which conjures images of heaven and hell13.1 102-103. As she becomes an agent of salvation when in Act 5 Scene 4 her rebirth offers social stability to the others when her innocence is restored. “Much Ado About Nothing”. As the critic Mark Breitenberg comments. 15 Nicholas Breton.. 5 . it is possible to view Hero and woman as unthreatening and the masculine crisis as selfperpetuating. suggests a doubt in the origins of the masculine crisis. Mark Breitenberg. her kisses killes. (Aberdene: Edward Raban. and cozin Men. is all her care”15. is resonant of Nicholas Breton‟s Characters and Essayes by Alexander Garden (1625). patriarchy would lose its legitimacy without female chastity and fidelity... As indicated above....... on the regulation and control of women‟s sexual lives. “Anxious Masculinity: Sexual Jealousy in Early Modern England”.. The implication that a dual religious and secular insurrection is evident in Hero‟s actions reveals the paranoia of a patriarchal system which sought to control every aspect of female sexuality. This engagement with a contextual rhetoric that undermined the play‟s female characters and categorized their sexual freedom as endangering men. Eve was the defining feminine archetype and it was her disobedience which caused the beginning of sexual awareness and implicated the significance of the suppression of female sexuality. which proclaimed “A wanton woman „s vicious. To catch. Feminist Studies.. Shakespeare seems to portray the fear that female sexuality would usurp the position of men in society and weaken the hold of patriarchy. Yet the fusion of the whore and the saviour in Hero. [and an] obsession with female chastity”14. as she represents the perfect chaste woman but is made to personify the lascivious and uncontrolled female after masculine interference.
Shakespeare strongly supports the theory of patriarchal infallibility which will always triumph in the end.. Isabella thus represents the dangers of female rebellion. “Measure for Measure”. An unstable presentation of contemporary gender anxieties is also evident in Measure for Measure.”17. “Renaissance antitheatricality and the politics of gender and rank in Much Ado About Nothing”. male dominated social order and to treat challenges to that order. Eds... 6 . et al. self possessed speech acts as a linguistic usurpation.anxieties. The Norton Shakespeare. 18 George T Wright. In several obvious ways the ending seems to affirm the „naturalness‟ of hierarchical. where Isabella like Beatrice presents a contradictory female figure that simultaneously epitomises and challenges the contextual notions of the feminine. / Most ignorant of what he‟s most assured. proud man. 2008)2. pious figure that evinces female fidelity and like Hero appears to be unthreatening.2. As Jean E Howard recently commented. nd 2 ed. Shakespeare Reread: The Texts in New Contexts. Greenblatt. 180-181. 1994) 57.. / Dressed in little brief authority. The stylistic change noted by George T Wright. her confident. the play concludes in a reassuring manner and any mediation is dispersed. Consequently.120-122. Bodily rebellion in her refusal to kneel (submit) links bodily dissent 16 Jean E Howard. with the repositioning of masculine primacy and the emphasis of female submission. as mere illusions or temporary aberrations.. (London and New York: Norton. “the ending of Much Ado has a strongly recuperative function. 17 William Shakespeare. (New York: Cornell University Press.. Yet when she rejects Angelo‟s demand to possess her body in exchange for Claudio‟s life. Stephen. As a nun she initially presents a virtuous. into “sophisticated rhetoric [and] deviant metrical style” linguistically symbolises her transformation into a figure of masculine anxiety 18 . Critique of Angelo‟s masculine authority acts as an opposition to the structures of patriarchy and by focusing upon the word „authority‟ Shakespeare employs her to challenge the hierarchical system by questioning the validity of man‟s power. as the intensification of her initial bodily resistance is depicted as transgressively attacking Angelo‟s political and patriarchal authority. “Troubles of a Professional Meter Reader”..”16. Ed McDonald Russ.. “But man.
God’s Arithmeticke: “God had giuen him the woman as a gift worth all the world”21... Isabella‟s unsettling of the gender hierarchy culminates in the following speech: “Better it were that a brother died at once / Than that a sister. The Sixt Lampe of Virginitie Conteining a Mirrour for Maidens and Matrons. In this Bentley states: “Teach the younger women to be sober minded. 7 . 21 Francis Meres.to her linguistic disobedience and conforms to the contemporary patriarchal requirements for the verbal and physical containment of the woman.. (London: Richard Iohnes. 1582: STC 1893) 26. Isabella‟s rebuttal destabilises the aptness of this concept by rejecting such a passive (ie accepting and obedient) state. Thus the play is implicated in a symbolic relationship with contemporary emphases upon the servitude.... showing the necessity of masculine physical dominance and the expectation of female submission 20 . in silence with all subiection. (London: H Denham. Shakespeare constructs Isabella as a dissident figure who contrasts with this subjugation and questions the system which enforces it. neither to usurp authoritie over the man.. However. including Francis Meres 1597 text. Shakespeare‟s patriarchal critique is continued with Angelo‟s attempt to sexually possess Isabella acting as an exposition and condemnation of the inherent contradictions of patriarchy which made the achievement of idealised femininity impossible. “Measure for Measure”. / or else let him suffer” objectifies the female body. keeping at home. chaste. 2.”19.. 20 William Shakespeare. His demand “You must lay down the treasures of your body.. Shakespeare‟s metaphoric use of treasure concurs with many contemporary sources. by redeeming him...4.. 1597’ STC 17833) 14. an example of which is found in Thomas Bentley‟s 1582 work The Sixt Lampe of Virginitie Conteining a Mirrour for Maidens and Matrons. physical and verbal repression of women. discreet. Gods arithmeticke.96-97. / Should die 19 Thomas Bentley.
25 Ibid. as Beatrice does in Much Ado. 2. Therefore Isabella‟s subjectively oriented socio-religious views undermine the contextual assertion that the divinely ordained authority of man over woman was symbolic of God‟s power over all. as shown by the dichotomy in Angelo‟s views of sex as “filthy vices” or a natural act of female submission24.4.107-109. 11.45-46.”22.4. patriarchal position he demands sexual obedience and the acquisition of Isabella‟s virginity. she threatens the domestic and theological institutions on which society rests. As a figure of authority he represents the contextual control of female sexuality and idolisation of fidelity or chastity.4.134-138. Shakespeare‟s use of Isabella‟s resistance as an interrogatory agent within the play ridicules masculine anxiety with its need to control or dominate. 2. Marriage duties.4. Secondly. Firstly. Isabella challenges the origin of female subjectivity. “Measure for Measure”.. This elevation of her life and dismissal of her brother‟s corresponds with two contemporary elements of gender anxiety. “As God hath appointed him. 24 Ibid. to be her superiour as he is her husband and her head. by exalting the value of herself above a masculine self. Thomas Gataker.forever. yet to reinforce his authoritative. female desire to escape the confinement and containment of patriarchy. Thomas Gataker‟s Marriage Duties (1620) says. she [should] be willing to weare the yoake and beare the burden that God in his ordinance hath imposed on her”23. Isabella does not just destabilise patriarchy or insult masculinity.. familial and religious terms evince the masculine fear of female rebellion. Thus the ease of physically breaching woman and the independence of 22 23 William Shakespeare.. 8 .42 and 2. 2. Angelo‟s disgust at illegitimate conception: “[The] saucy sweetness that do coin God‟s image / In stamps that are forbid” depicts early modern male anxiety at the impossibility of controlling the physical nature of the female body25.
. undercuts the 26 27 Jonathan Sawday. The evident power of the Duke which is evinced by his role as the final speaker. Helkiah Crooke.”28. 5. irrespective of the text‟s dissent from contemporary theorizing. „a separate animal. The focus on possession links back to the authoritative metaphors also found in the images of jewel and treasure. both the masculine crisis and female struggle to exist outside of woman‟s prescribed sphere are undermined at the end of the play. she becomes a figure of reassurance whose attempts at independence are challenged by the restoration of patriarchy as symbolised by the Duke‟s return. The critic Sawday agrees. EHL. ( London: William Iaggard... believing the anxiety to be centred on “the uterus. Body Emblazoned. 29 William Shakespeare. Rather than mediate Isabella‟s crisis through a satisfactory affirmation of her ability to control her life whilst conforming to the respected position of a nun. 60.486.1. This demonstrates the play‟s concurrent relationship with contemporary works such as Helkiah Crooke‟s Mikrokosmographia (1615) which details the anatomical dangers of the female body. However. I agree with the critic Mario Digangi‟s suggestion that Isabella‟s physical and linguistic disobedience of Angelo is indicative of the contextual “anxiety about female autonomy. STC 6062) 252. Mikrokosmographia a description of the body of man. therefore her threat and her crises are negated. In this reading. 9 . and also the contamination of man through this problematic body or uterus. and say you will be mine”29. In the last act she is symbolically silenced just like Beatrice and reduced to a constituent part of the Duke‟s self..her reproductive system could be symbolised by the moral laxity (such as pre-marital pregnancy) which Angelo detests and fears. “Pleasure and Danger: Measuring Female Sexuality in Measure for Measure”. an organ held to possess its own will.3 (1993) 596. 28 Mario Digangi. inside a woman‟s body‟”26. and its threat to male desires for ownership and control. Angelo‟s desire to siege Isabella‟s impenetrable chastity could be seen as a subversion of male anxiety regarding the transgressive female body. 10. “Measure for Measure”. “the wombs of women are the causes of all diseases”27. 1615. “Give me your hand.
Stephen. “Placing Women in the English Renaissance”. A Good VVife Gods Gift and. “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”.depiction of Angelo‟s anxious and weakened masculine state. a VVife Indeed(London: Iohn Haviland. 2008) 2.”33..1. 2 ed. Betty S Travitsky notes that “.. 3.. 12. 10 .. Shakespeare‟s text reveals its concern with the social anxieties and struggles of early modern England. nd et al. submit and subiect herself unto him”31. such as Gataker espousals. role possibilities and patterns of behaviour... The third person form of reference as opposed to the first person linguistically symbolises her dependent subjectivity. The constraints placed upon woman are now carefully criticised as she must resort to physical masculinisation to exercise a modicum of independence or initiative.... Fit me with such weeds / As may beseem some well-reputed page. as Isabella and Angelo‟s aberrations are suddenly meaningless. 32 Ibid...5.. Similarly to Hero and Isabella... “Keep this remembrance for thy Julia‟s sake” 30.”32. 33 Betty S Travitsky. Although.. therefore Julia‟s cross-dressing indicates the text‟s 30 William Shakespeare. women experienced limitations beyond those of men in. The Two Gentlemen of Verona extends the conflicted presentation of contemporary gender anxieties. Shakespeare interrelates with the contemporary image of the model woman that embraced her inferiority and willingly performed her duties. Greenblatt. STC 11659). 22. this depicts Julia as accepting her societal marginalisation by embracing Proteus‟ power over her. as with Much Ado About Nothing the play ends with the unnatural promotion of patriarchy. The Norton Shakespeare.3.. 1623.. be ruled by him. (London and New York: Norton. Women‟s sphere of activity had come to be severely limited.. Eds. When considered alongside contemporary ideology. Shakespeare‟s conformity to this ideal of femininity is mediated by Julia‟s surprising quest to regain the love of Proteus: “.. a figure evident in Thomas Gataker‟s 1623 sermon A Good VVife Gods Gift: “. 31 Thomas Gataker.42-43. Julia initially seems to epitomise the ideal female with her embracement of marriage and fidelity as she promises herself to Proteus by giving him her ring.
. Cultural Materialism. Hero and Isabella. Her physical usurpation both symbolises and accompanies her rejection of masculine authority as she openly meddles in Proteus‟ affairs in Act 4 Scene 4.3 (1990). and the concept of man‟s innate authority over woman. As with Beatrice and Isabella. Thus rather than neutralising social struggles. as shown in Gataker‟s A Good VVife Gods Gift is subverted. Although cross dressing could be seen as critical engagement with the period‟s obsession over the female‟s inferior and problematic state.. early modern female struggle for autonomy is implicated. the subject. turns back upon them. rather than seeking to transcend the dominant structures responsible for oppression and exclusion.concurrence with the contemporary patriarchal anxiety regarding the actions of women who sought to avoid the constraints of their gender. just like Beatrice. the transgressive female body becomes the focus of masculine insecurity and paranoia. Julia‟s bodily liberation insinuates the inefficacy of female physical containment. 11 . 34 Jonathan Dollimore. “Shakespeare.. Feminism and Marxist Humanism”. inverting and perverting. 21. Once more.”34. as the constructed nature of gender division enables her dissidence through disguise. Jonathan Dollimore suggests that female cross-dressing. Julia‟s character validates patriarchal fears when she deviates from the prescribed gender hierarchy.. whereby. New Literary History. However. 483. Julia‟s provocative actions conversely concur with patriarchy‟s assertion that the containment of woman was essential for the stability of society. Shakespeare‟s motivation is underscored by a patriarchal impetus to detail the difficulties of enforcing woman‟s place and the trouble caused when woman ignores this and becomes an object exterior to the prescribed physical and social parameters. “epitomizes the strategy of transgressive reinscription..
whilst he depicts man as healing social ills and resurrecting the old and natural order. 12 . Woman‟s servitude and inferiority is questioned. the inherent contradictions and revisions in the Shakespeare‟s portrayal of woman and patriarchy are illuminated and emphasised. Woman is shown as a figure of danger and instability. capable of damaging society and usurping masculinity. exuding patriarchal control. female submission and the renewal of the natural gendered order. Ultimately. it appears that the plays offer resolutions which could mediate the contextual crises and anxieties. Shakespeare exceeds mediation and ends with accordance. Yet with the reassuring finales. independent women and suggestion of patriarchal imperfection. with their confident. Upon first consideration. the three plays clearly demonstrate an awareness of the contemporary gender anxieties and struggles. When read in tandem with other works of the early modern period such as the sermons of Gataker. Shakespeare recalls his dissidence and concurs with the patriarchal espousals of his contemporaries. reiterating the opinions of patriarchal society and placating the masculinity contained within his audience. along with man‟s biblical precedence for superiority and patriarchy‟s debilitating male suspicion.As I suggested in my introduction.
London: William Jones. Smith. Gataker. A Good VVife Gods Gift and. London and New York: Norton. Greenblatt. 1615. 1597. a VVife Indeed. London and New York: Norton. London: William Iaggard. STC 17833. STC 22685. 2008. STC 11667. “The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Thomas. Helkiah. Thomas. The Sixt Lampe of Virginitie Conteining a Mirrour for Maidens and Matrons. 2nd ed.”. Marriage duties briefely couched togither out of Colossians. 2008. William. Shakespeare. “Much Ado About Nothing”. Stephen. Stephen. et al. Stephen. STC 6062. Henry. London: Iohn Haviland. 1591. London: H Denham. London and New York: Norton. 2nd ed. William. William. 1416-1470. Mikrokosmographia a description of the body of man. Shakespeare. Shakespeare. “Measure for Measure”. Gataker. 111157. 2048-2108. Eds. 1582. The Norton Shakespeare. Gods arithmeticke. The Norton Shakespeare. A preparatiue to marriage. STC 11659. Characters and Essayes by Alexander Garden. 1620. 3. 2008. Breton. Francis. Aberdene: Edward Raban. Greenblatt. Crooke. The Norton Shakespeare. Greenblatt.Primary Bibliography Bentley. Nicholas. Eds. 1625. 2nd ed. 1623. STC 1893. Eds. Secondary Bibliography 13 . STC 11595. et al. Thomas. et al. 19. 18. London: Thomas Orwin. Meres. London: Richard Iohnes.
Oxon: Routledge. 1990. Body Emblazoned. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. EHL. Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology. Breitenberg. 2001. 1995. Stallybrass. Jonathan. Mario. 56-79. George T.3 (1993). 11901220. Howard. Eds. 123-142. Dollimore. Cultural Materialism. Leitch Vincent B et al. Betty S. “Placing Women in the English Renaissance”. McDonald Russ. New York: Cornell University Press. Eds. Shakespeare Reread: The Texts in New Contexts. New Literary History. “Renaissance antitheatricality and the politics of gender and rank in Much Ado About Nothing”. 589-609. Wright. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press. London and New York: Norton. 60. Feminist Studies. “Discourse in the Novel”. Travitsky.2 (1993). Howard. Jonathan. “Anxious Masculinity: Sexual Jealousy in Early Modern England”. 471-493. 1987. 1994. Eds. 14 . 21. “Troubles of a Professional Meter Reader”. Haselkorn Anne M and Betty S Travitsky. “Shakespeare. London: Routledge. “Patriarchal Territories: The Body Enclosed”. Bakhtin. Ed. The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print: Counterbalancing the Canon. 163-188. Jean E and Marion F O‟Connor. “Pleasure and Danger: Measuring Female Sexuality in Measure for Measure”. Jean E. Sawday. 241263. Mark. 377-398. Ferguson Margaret W et al. Peter. 19. Digangi. 2005. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Feminism and Marxist Humanism”. Eds. Mikhail M. Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe.3 (1990).
Marion. 79-105. Wynne-Davis. Public and Private in the English Renasissance. 15 . “The Queen‟s Masque: Renaissance Women and the Seventeenth-Century Court Masque”. Eds. 1992. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Gloriana’s Face: Woman.Cerasano S P and Marion Wynne-Davis.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.