GEORGIA COLLEGE ENGISH DEPARTMENT

Heroines in William
Shakespeare’s Plays
Strong Characters and Tools of Comedy
Whitney Cutler
 Cutler 1

Whitney Cutler

Capstone Thesis

Eustace Palmer

Heroines in William Shakespeare’s Plays: Strong Characters or Tools of Comedy?

I have always possessed a passion for William Shakespeare’s works. The artistic way that

each story is put together and the beautiful language he uses in them has always attracted me on

both the personal and scholarly level. My first college level Shakespeare class opened my eyes to

so many new ways to look at his works and analyze the different themes that are woven into

them. That is why I first wrote this paper. It was my final research paper for the class and I

enjoyed every minute I spent writing it. This was during my second year of college, and since

then, every time I have studied Shakespeare’s works in a class I reflected on how the topic of

Shakespeare’s attitude toward women applied. When it came time to choose a capstone topic, I

immediately knew that this was the paper I wanted to expand upon.

This paper is written in three parts. The first is looking at the history of the Elizabethan

time and the attitude it held toward women. Obviously I expected to find that this era was

saturated with patriarchal tendencies. However, the more I read the more I realized that there was

a slight reform going on at the time. It was not the kind of reform that expected women to be

treated as equally as men, but there was a general realization that women were people and not

objects. Women were still expected to be submissive to the men in their lives and the personality

traits of independence, ambition, and self-reliance that Shakespeare’s characters exemplify were
 Cutler 2

still considered far from normal. Even so, the idea that this time was starting to see a slight

change in view surprised me. Through the whole thesis, this is the section that I learned the most

from my research. Exploring the customs and expectations of the time opened my eyes to see

exactly how different Shakespeare’s characters are from the normal social idea of women.

The second part of this paper presents the main question that the thesis surrounds:

whether Shakespeare meant for his characters to be as strong as they are as a statement or as

comedy. Where I learned the most from the first part of my paper, this is the section that I altered

the most. Originally, I was of the opinion that Shakespeare was a sort of feminist of the time.

That each of his heroine’s outstanding qualities spoke to his personal belief that women were

strong individuals. The more I read however, the more I realized that this was not entirely

accurate, because almost every single female character is dominated in one way or another. Then

I looked at the other side of the argument, that Shakespeare used his female characters as a joke

to entertain his audience. However, I did not agree with this. His characters are too strong,

opinionated, and passionate to simply be a tool of comedy. There had to be a third option; that

though he believed that women could possess the qualities that are shown in his characters, they

still exist in a male driven society where the hierarchy of men over women is incredibly

important and because of this they had to submit to men. As soon as I reached this realization,

my argument became much stronger and as a result so did the rest of my thesis.

The final part to my paper examines different female characters in Shakespeare’s plays

and what their words and actions mean in conjunction to the main argument. Though I learned

the most in the historical part of my thesis, and grew the most through my argument, the

character analysis is what I enjoyed the most. I was able to go through and reread some of my

favorite plays and examine how the female characters added to the plot, as well as look at each
 Cutler 3

woman’s strengths of character. This exploration opened up the idea of female character strength

even more than in the past and enforced the idea of Shakespeare breaking out of the normal view

of women.

When one thinks of William Shakespeare’s greatest works, many plays spring to mind:

Macbeth, King Lear, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet, to name a few. All of these plays center

around a male protagonist, so it comes as no surprise, that if asked to list major characters in

Shakespeare’s plays, the protagonists of the previously mentioned plays are among the first to

come to mind. These are great works of art and are a testimony to the gift of writing that

Shakespeare had during his lifetime; this being said, all of these characters are men. What many

people neglect when analyzing Shakespeare’s play are his heroines. He writes many great female

characters, and their personalities and emotions range in variation as far as all his male characters

do. A few examples of these leading ladies include Hermia, Lady Olivia, Lady Macbeth and

Beatrice. Their characters exhibit loyalty, independence, ambition, and so much more.

The question of why these characters are made the way they are, however, is one that

deserves to be answered. During the time that Shakespeare lived, women were not seen as

individuals with a range of personalities and skills. They were property of their fathers,

husbands, brothers, or any other male figure in their lives, so when one examines the fact that

Shakespeare’s female characters have strong wills, independent streaks, and more ambition than

is good for them, we have to ask the question: why? Why does Shakespeare, in a time when

women were seen as subordinate to men, create women who so desperately defy the patriarchal

norm of the time? By looking at the role women were expected to play in society at this time and

comparing it to Shakespeare’s depictions of women through his characters, maybe some light

can be shed on the answer to this question.

 Cutler 4

In Elizabethan times, patriarchal societies were the norm and women knew their place in

that society. The idea “of women’s chastity, silence, and obedience was proclaimed far and

wide” with every woman expected to know this (Wynn). Men reigned supreme. However,

Shakespeare appeared not to agree. His female characters speak their minds more often than they

keep silent, and the characters who refuse to be dominated outnumber the submissive and

obedient characters by far. Yet this was far from normal. Women were not expected or

encouraged to speak out. In fact “as women, they were expected to be the silently beautiful

beloved and not the balladeer…women were not seen as fit to play the soldier or the judge”

(Kemp 29). This expectation of submission and obedience was bred into every Elizabethan

woman as they “were raised to believe that they were inferior to men” (Elizabethan Woman).

Where the concept that a woman is raised to see herself as underneath men seems foreign to

women today, that was the general opinion during the times of Shakespeare’s plays. As such, it

was normal in society, no one argued or protested over the fact that women were uneducated and

seen as little more than property because that is just the way life worked; Elizabethan women

were “defined primarily in terms of their social standing and in terms of their gendered

relationships to men as maids (daughters to be married), wives, and widows” (Kempt 30).

With this in mind, it is important to remember that this was entering into early modern

times where “ideas about women are often quite contradictory” (Kemp 31). How society worked

in theory and how it worked for real often times did not line up perfectly, “theoretical

discussions on the nature of women present a figure that needs to be contained, view women as

inherently inferior, uncontrollable” and a figure that should be dominated (Kemp 31). In reality,

though many Englishmen of the time believed this, it was not always followed through in the

“actual practices of these Englishmen’s personal relationships with their mothers, wives,
 Cutler 5

daughters, and sisters” (Kemp 31). Because this time was ruled by Queen Elizabeth, widely

known as the Virgin Queen, women’s roles in society and their rights as people began to be

questioned by men and women alike.

Though this was a time where society was dominated by men it was ruled by Queen

Elizabeth the first, who exemplified all the qualities of a dominate woman. She is still known as

one of the strongest monarchs to ever rule over England, which she managed to do without a

man. She began ruling England after years of turmoil and her “dexterous political skills and

strength of character were directly responsible for putting England on the road to becoming a

world renowned economic and political power” (Tutor 1). Queen Elizabeth was educated and

independent. She refused to marry despite the many suitors she had because she did not want to

be a part of the patriarchal society that she knew existed. By never marrying and remaining the

Virgin Queen for her life she was able to continue ruling as she saw fit and did not have to

submit to men. That is why the status of Virgin Queen is so important. By never marrying or

being with a man, she never allowed herself to be dominated by a man. As the monarch of the

time she was fully aware of the complications that would come with allowing a man to have

power over her. Knowing that this independence was one of her strongest characteristics, and

also taking into account that Shakespeare wrote many of his plays during her lifetime, there is

the idea that some of his characters are based off of her. Lady Olivia is one example of such a

character. After the death of both her father and brother, Lady Olivia is left to rule on her own.

At this point, she is then perused by several different men, but like Queen Elizabeth, Lady Olivia

wishes to remain independent. However, this independence and dominance was not a luxury that

every other woman of the time was allowed to have.

 Cutler 6

Growing up, women were bred in two ways but for ultimately the same objective. They

were groomed to be the perfect wives and mothers, with the goal being to enter into marriage

prepared to serve her husband and family like society expected her to. Knowing that women

were subordinate at least in theory during this time might make one assume that almost from

birth girls were treated by their parents with a kind of indifference. However that was not

necessarily the case. During the Renaissance time it was seen as important for a child to be

corrected when they did wrong, at the same time it was expected that they were to be loved and

tenderly cared for the rest of the time. From a father’s perspective, he “had to consider his home

a little state of which he was the ruler. As a father, he ought not be so severe with his children

that he loses the character of father, but at the same time he must take care not to be so gentle as

to cease to be the ruler”(Kelso 40). There was supposed to be a balance between love and

severity in the home. There were those that encouraged fathers “not to turn a cheerful face to his

daughter, lest by his indulgence she become bold enough to do what she would not if she had

proper paternal fear” (Kelso 40). This “proper paternal fear” is what was supposed to keep girls

on the straight and narrow road of submissiveness and chastity.

This paternal fear and submission to can be seen as a theme in Shakespeare’s plays:

“while fathers often play key roles, Shakespearean daughter are more often than not motherless”

(Kemp 66). This lack of mother enforces the idea of male dominance in each daughter’s life. An

example of this is in A Midsummer Night’s Dream; “according to the rules of patriarchy, fathers

have complete control not only over their daughter’s choices, but over their daughter’s very

selves” (Kemp 67). This idea explains why, in this play, even though “Lysander is acknowledged

by all to be Demetrius’s equal (or even superior) in every respect” Hermia’s father remains

adamant that she is to marry the later, and for women at the time “disobedience was seen as a
 Cutler 7

crime against their religion” with society falling back on the biblical idea that men are the heads

of houses and responsible women (Kemp 67, Elizabethan Women). This theory is supported by

the Ephesians 5:22-24, where Paul tells women

“Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the

husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of

which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should

submit to their husbands in everything.”

This expectation that wives should submit completely to their husbands is part of what fueled the

patriarchal society in which Shakespeare lived. Elizabethans were also influenced through the

church because they “inherited a Christian misogyny in which ever since Eve men have been

seduced and betrayed into sexual activity with women” (Mann 160). This idea fueled the idea

that women had to be dominated and controlled. Scottish protestant leader John Knox wrote that

“Women in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man” (Elizabethan Women).

This theory that women were to be controlled first by their fathers and then by their husbands is

the idea that society followed at the time.

The chastity of a girl was so important for multiple reasons, but some thought it so

important that they even considered books as a “great danger to chastity” and the women raised

under this idea would be restricted from books and sometimes learning to read all together: “It

was a pity, some thought, that girls should learn to read at all, and they would have them taught

late” (Kelso 41). However, some girls broke through this idea and did get a form of education.

Normally the upper class girls, from wealthy and noble families, “were allowed the privilege of

an education…taught by tutors at home and Elizabethan women were taught from the age of five
 Cutler 8

or even younger” (Elizabethan Women). Even when provided with the privilege to learn

languages, literature, and many other subjects, noble women were not allowed to proceed to the

university, but were expected to marry and become part of the domestic circle, unlike their lower

class counterparts: “for women of the gentry and above, marriage was typically seen as the only

path to be taken” (Kemp 33).

Lower class women grew up differently from those of the upper class. Where there was a

more of a margin in the submissive nature of the wealthier women, “Elizabethan women from

the lower classes were…expected to obey the male members of their families without question”

(Elizabethan Women). They received little to no formal education and the education they did

receive would have been focused “[mainly] of the domestic nature in preparation for…marriage”

(Elizabethan Women). The poor girls during this time would begin “training around the age of

seven, and they might be apprenticed to learn lace-making, spinning, knitting, and housewifery,

or they might be settled as servants”, whatever they could learn in order begin working to help

support themselves and their families until marriage (Kemp 32). Nevertheless, as time moved

forward there was an increase in the attempt to discourage single women from working in guild

craft or occupation other than service: “by the late 16th century…a general trend toward

women’s increasing exclusion from the more lucrative opportunities of the burgeoning early

modern market economy” (Kemp 34). Women were pushed into the occupation of either service

or inn keeping, both of which fell under the category of “women work”. In 1563, The Statute of

Artificers made a law that put a minimum age requirement on which it was appropriate to leave

an apprenticeship to marry: twenty one for women and twenty four for men (Kemp 36). However

an addition to this statute was a specific part pertaining to women. It “provided local officials the

right to compel all unmarried women between the ages of twelve and forty to ‘live in service,’”
 Cutler 9

whether they could make enough money to live independently or not (Kemp 36-37). This was

supposed to control the time between when a woman could conceive and when she could marry,

“service was thus intended as a sexual as well as a physical and economic constraint on young

women’s liberty” (Mendelson and Crawford 97). Funnily enough, though, “the typical

unmarried mother who was brought before the secular courts was the maidservant who had been

impregnated by her master or fellow servant” (Mendelson and Crawford 98). The law that was

supposed to keep women pure ended up producing the opposite results. Whatever the job was,

however, it was just temporary, “it was assumed that marriage would be the path taken by all

women, regardless of other occupations needed to earn a living” (Kemp 33).

When the time came for marriage, fathers would choose husbands for their daughters. In

the upper class, daughters “were used to forge alliances with other powerful families through

arranged marriages” (Elizabethan Women). Normally one thinks of arranged or forced marriages

more as part of the aristocracy, however, “the pressure was equally strong at the lower end of the

social spectrum” where the necessity for financial and social protection was needed in order to

survive (Kemp 36). For a society that seemed so heavily focused on protecting the chastity and

purity of their women, quite a few of them became pregnant before marriage. The idea of the

importance of purity until marriage, or remaining a “maid”, appeared to be extremely important.

Even in Shakespeare’s plays, the audience sees examples of women being cast off at the mere

thought that they had lost their virtue. Hero, in Much Ado About Nothing, is accused of sleeping

with someone before her marriage by her intended at the altar. This turns out to be a

misunderstanding, but the shock of the accusation is still enough to make her faint and cause the

main dispute of the play. This whole scene is a representation of the theoretical idea of keeping a

woman virtuous till marriage. Keeping this in mind, “a surprisingly large number of brides
 Cutler 10

arrived at the altar pregnant – anywhere from the urban low of 16% to over 20% in more rural

areas” (Kemp 37). Even Shakespeare’s wife was pregnant before they were married. After they

were married Elizabethan women took care of their husbands, children and home no questions

asked. Women were seen as inferior under their husbands and thought of as property. Another

misconception of the time was the age in which couples got married.

As mentioned before there was a statute made out in 1563 that put a minimum age of

when someone could stop working to get married, but even with this men and women were not

getting married till a little later in life. The representation in Shakespeare’s play of the very

young girl and boy falling in love and getting married is a skewed version of the real world.

Shakespeare presents Romeo and Juliet as teenagers, and this young love being the norm is a

misunderstanding of the time, and more than likely a reflection of Juliet’s status in society.

During the years of 1550 to 1700 “the mean age at marriage for men fluctuated between 27.6 and

29.3, while that for women was between 26 and 26.8” (Ben-Amos 32).

Though there were some ideas of misogyny floating around at this time, most people saw

marriage as a positive life choice. Another view of marriage that changed was the idea of it as a

holy sacrament “as it was among Catholics” before the reformation; it was now “to be viewed as

a sacred and indissolvable union lasting until the death of one or both of the couple” (Kemp 38).

This being said if in extreme cases a divorce or annulment needed to be applied, it would have,

but it was not used nearly as loosely as it is today. While several of Shakespeare’s plays toy with

the idea of a fantasy, crazy- in- love couples, like A Midsummer Night’s Dream or As You Like

It, this was definitely not what the average Elizabethan marriage looked like. Marriages were

seen as a way to accomplish several goals: companionship, avoiding premarital sex, and

legitimate procreation (Kemp 40). Though many couples did not enter into their marriages in
 Cutler 11

love, most gained a mutual respect if not eventual love for each other, because as previously

stated one of the points of marriage was to find some kind of companionship.

An important point of discussion when examining marriages in Elizabethan time is that

of domestic violence. Today we have a straight right and wrong; however in early modern

England this topic was widely discussed and debated. Because “the hierarchy put men at an

advantage in terms of worth and prestige” the idea of a husband beating, abusing, or even killing

his wife was thought of differently than if the roles were reversed (Kemp 41). Where a man who

killed his wife would be judged for murder and was typically hanged, women who murdered

their husbands were tried not only for the murder but also treated like a traitor; like “a servant

who killed his or her master or a child who killed his or her parent” (Kemp 41). At this time

there were many forms of literature and plays that described women killing their husbands, but

many times (just as it is now) female victims of domestic violence were more likely victims “at

the hands of their spouses and lovers, rather than perpetrators” (Kemp 41).

On the milder side of things there was the idea of “correcting” wives and unlike the

grander form of violence this was something viewed as a private matter. Today, any sort of

violence against a spouse is seen as wrong but the correction of children is a wide debate and

ultimately a personal decision of the parents. During the Elizabethan time, that is how correction

toward one’s wife was seen. It wasn’t until “the nineteenth century that England and some of the

United States would begin to rescind a husband’s right to beat his wife and it would take at least

another century before such violence would be viewed as assault” (Kemp 41). The point at which

people began to disagree about the idea of correcting one’s wife through beating was with the

emerging of the idea that marriages are to be shared like a partnership with “the dynamic

between a general and his lieutenant, or a governor and his steward”(Kemp 42). The idea of this
 Cutler 12

harmonious relationship clashed with the general principal of it being appropriate to strike one’s

wife.

Within the marriage there was relative “equality”, however this “usually [referred] to

similarities in age, social standing, and intelligence,” not to the equality of men and women

(Kemp 40). Though many marriages were happy with the husbands treating their wives well,

there was a definite hierarchy within the marriage; husbands were dominate and wives

submissive. Where one normally associates women in such a submissive role to only keep house

and raise children, many times women were brought into their husband’s work, where they

would help with their trade. However, the role of “house wife” in this early modern period “was

not necessarily indicative of mental status but rather was considered an occupation” (Kemp 34).

Where in today’s world, a housewife or “stay at home mom” is considered being unemployed, in

the Elizabethan time it was thought of as an actual occupation for women to hold. Though much

of this history makes women in the society sound as if they were relatively equal with their

husbands, there was a definite difference between the standings of men and women.

Knowing what we do about women in Elizabethan time, the strength seen in

Shakespeare’s characters can be surprising. When first approaching the question of

Shakespeare’s view on women it is assumed that there are two potential answers. The first, that

Shakespeare sees women the way he portrays them; with the ability to be strong, witty, cunning,

and independent. This option seems likely because when you look at most of his female

characters, they exhibit these qualities. Even those that are already married show a want for

independence and dominance in their relationship, as seen in characters like Lady Macbeth,

Goneril, or Titania. Then there is the opposite approach; that Shakespeare makes his female

characters with the qualities that they have as a form of comedy. Many of Shakespeare’s
 Cutler 13

strongest female characters are in his comedies, so was making such strong female characters

that can outwit their husbands and suitors Shakespeare’s way of making fun of women or his

way of introducing the idea that they were equal? Women at this time were seen as below men.

The idea that a woman would be ambitious enough to overthrow her father, as in King Lear, or

would resist marriage, like Katharine in The Taming of the Shrew, would have made most men

at the time laugh. However, there could be a third option.

Instead of Shakespeare being only for women or only against women, isn’t it possible

that he was both? Maybe he viewed women as having the potential of these qualities, but being a

man in Elizabethan society, still thought that women should be dominated by the men in their

lives in one way or another. For the most part, each of his female characters meets one of two

endings. They are either married off and submit to their husbands, or they are dominated through

death. Although he gives each of his leading ladies at least one strong quality, be it wit,

confidence, aggression, or dominance, all of his women are put back into their place through

either marriage or tragic death. Whether it was his intention to mock women or not, the “woman

of Shakespeare are strong and outspoken, still ultimately yielding to male power but firm and

cunning enough to outwit the opposite sex in the most critical situation” (Wynn). So even

though his leading ladies are able to match the men around them through strength of personality,

they end up submitting to the patriarchal society of the time.

The reason this idea of women dismissal or submission exists is because, one critic

explains, “‘If you are playing one of Shakespeare’s women’, acknowledging a few

exceptions…’you are by definition in a supporting role’” (Mann 124). Most of the time women

on stage were seen as one dimensional characters with no defining qualities that made them

stand out, just as many supporting roles should be. However, Shakespeare added defining
 Cutler 14

qualities to his women, thus allowing them to stand out in the play even if it was momentarily.

For example, “Shakespeare’s young women in his romantic comedies…are witty and self-

confident, usually well- born, always beautiful…this new breed of young woman is much more

likely to take control of the situation, especially in matters of affection” (Mann 208-209). This is

one place where Shakespeare broke out of the normal stereotypes set aside for the heroines of the

stage, and allowed his characters to be opinionated, feisty and independent. Characters like

Hermia from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, who refuses the man her father chooses for her and

runs away with her own choice of suitor is one example of this “new breed” of character; Lady

Olivia from Twelfth Night who refuses a suitor altogether is another. Other characters that break

out of the submissive roles set by previous play wrights of the time are seen in Much Ado About

Nothing where “we find [a] feisty, quick witted, bright character in Beatrice…and Viola in

Twelfth Night are [both] illustrations of powerful females in the ways in which they are in

command of and manipulate the action” in the play (Tutor 1).

Stereotypes on stage were very important at the time and the idea that someone was

breaking out of the classic idea of a woman on stage was somewhat revolutionary. The purpose

“of stereotyping [was] to provide easily recognizable subordinate characters to support the

narrative,” (Mann 124). When the classic daughter comes on stage it is expected that she

submits to her father and marries who he chooses. This stereotyping was important because it

“allow[ed] instant character recognition” during a short play where there might not be time to

give a long back story about a secondary character (Mann 123). However, this is in so way

saying that Shakespeare did not stereotype characters himself. Quite the contrary, Shakespeare

had several different kinds of women that he reproduced in different plays. What is being said is
 Cutler 15

that he broke out of the typical stereotyping and allowed his female characters to have strong

personality traits before they were dominated by death or man.

The Bard has several types of heroines. Probably the most dominate female type is the

“she wolf” (Mann156). This characteristic is seen in several of his women such as Lady Macbeth

and King Lear’s daughters, Goneril and Regan: “she is beautiful and womanly in appearance but

lacks the gentler qualities usually associated with her sex and instead tends to act of gratuitous

and excessive evil” (Mann 156). This archetypal scheming female reverses the innocent and kind

stereotype that fit as the ideal women at this time. Their ambition and struggle for power

consumes their character and often times leads to a violent death, such as suicide or murder. This

violent end mirrors the already dominate and violent qualities they possessed in life. Another

tragic stereotype seen in Shakespeare’s characters is the “falsely accused of adultarty” female.

These “women [are] wrongly accused of adultery and suffers greatly in response” (Jamison).

Desdemona from Othello is the most obvious of these characters, but Hero in Much Ado About

Nothing also falls into this category. Unlike Desdemona who dies for her supposed

unfaithfulness, however, Hero falls ill but eventually recovers. In many of Shakespeare’s

comedies, we see the “married off maids”; these women are normally younger and are passed off

from father to husband, therefore being kept “safe” (Jamieson). Characters fitting this description

include Hermia from A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Hero from Much Ado About Nothing.

Also seen throughout these plays are the “witty but unmarriable” women; these are the funny,

strong, independent women that are normally tamed in the end such as Beatrice from Much Ado

About Nothing and Katherine from The Taming of the Shrew (Jamieson). There are also those

characters that fit into the “women who dress as men” category; Viola from Twelfth Night fits

into this role. These women dress as men and consequently “have more freedom, highlighting
 Cutler 16

the lack of social liberty for women in Shakespeare’s time”, this also allows them to have more

of an active role in the play’s story line (Jamison). Lastly, there are the fatherless daughters

archetype of Shakespeare’s characters who add another trait into the mix of his women; “for

some fatherless daughter…the absence (whether permanent or temporary) can open a space for a

variety of female freedoms” (Kemp 66). Many of Shakespeare’s characters fit into this category,

among which are Lady Olivia, Viola, and Beatrice. These ladies have no male figure over them

and they are all trying to survive that way in a male run world. Although each of these types of

characters are found in Shakespeare’s works, almost all of his characters show a combination of

these characteristics.

Lady Macbeth stands as one of the strongest female characters that Shakespeare ever

wrote. She stands as an archetypal female for many works (movies, books, plays) since the time

that she was created. Throughout Macbeth, Lady Macbeth shows the great “she wolf” that lives

within her (Mann 136). This characteristic is a “constant subversion of these roles in the

submission of men to dominate women” and goes against what was seen as the proper image of

marriage at the time (Gender 1). When she receives a letter from Macbeth with details of what

the weird sisters told him, she decides to take action and begins to push her husband forward.

She knows he can be king, but sees a weakness in him: “the milk of human kindness” (Macbeth

1.5.15). Through these words she is also calling him out to his female like qualities comparing

him to “the feminine qualities of holding milk” (Gender 1). She wants to be as powerful as a

man, asking “fill me from the crown to the toe top-full/ Of direst cruelty!” (Macbeth 1.5.42-43).

She tries to unsex herself in order to compensate for the lack of masculinity she sees in her

husband (Gender 1). Throughout the play “Lady Macbeth further perverts her wifely duties…

assuming the upper hand in the marriage”, she questions Macbeth’s manhood when he falters
 Cutler 17

before killing Duncan, after manipulating him into committing murder in the first place. Her

ambition is notorious and as the gender roles between herself and her husband become more and

more subverted with him becoming the submissive one, their morality becomes more skewed.

This blindness to true morality is what makes it possible for the Macbeths to continue murdering

without a conscience.

Even with the reputation as cold-blooded murderer, Lady Macbeth still holds the grace of

a lady, even Duncan comes to the house he admires her as “our honored hostess” (Macbeth

1.6.10). Little does Duncan know that the lovely lady he thought was serving him was

“providing a deadly form of hospitality” (Kemp 95). She brews up a poisoned wine to give to the

guards and also talks about “[pouring] spirits in [his] ear” when telling her husband of their plans

(Macbeth 1.5.23-24). Her inability to commit the act of murdering Duncan herself still shows

that despite her extensive efforts to remove herself from her sex, she still holds onto “some

sensitivity in her that she cannot seem to shake” (Gender2). This innate desire to be what she is

not, her “fiery [desire] to ‘unsex’ herself,” is what brings about the down fall of Lady Macbeth’s

character (Gender 3). Her strength and dominance needs an outlet and though she feels

constrained and frustrated by her own sex “without sex there is no humanity” (Gender 3). Her

struggle with her identity is what drives Lady Macbeth to be such a desolate character, who dies

a sudden death of suicide. Even though her downfall is abrupt, violent, and tragic; her strength

and dominance through the rest of the play is unwavering and her ability to take control in order

to further herself and her husband makes her one of the most memorable of all of Shakespeare’s

characters.

Two more character that fit into Shakespeare’s “she wolf” persona are Goneril and

Regan, King Lear’s devious daughters. These women plot to not only dethrone their father by
 Cutler 18

any means possible but also dive him out of the kingdom and into the wilderness without a

second thought. This personality trait of plotting, conspiring, and killing to gain power is very

similar to that of Lady Macbeth’s. Goneril is the oldest of King Lear’s daughters and the first to

challenge his authority after he has divided the kingdom between them: “You see how full of

changes his age is; the / observation we have made of it hath not been little…/ If our father carry

authority with such disposition as / he bears, this last surrender of his will but offend us” (King

Lear 1.1.292-293,307-308). As the play progresses further it is obvious that Goneril is

deliberately trying to undermine what little authority her father has left in order to feed her own

ambition; “she challenges Lear’s authority by no longer treating him like a King” (Blandford).

She begins by taking away Lear’s knights and entourage: “What, fifty of my followers at a clap?

Within a fortnight?” (King Lear 1.4.293-294). Goneril is nervous about how much power her

father still has, so much so that her husband advises her that she “may fear too far,” to which she

responds that it is “safer than to trust too far” (King Lear 1.4.327-328). As the play continues

Goneril works with her sister to continue to wear down her father’s power.

Regan is the middle daughter of Lear’s and is similar to Goneril in almost every way. She

possesses the same ruthlessness as Goneril and is as aggressive in many of the same ways

(Blandford). In fact, when comparing the two sisters it is “difficult to think of any quality that

distinguishes her from her sister” (Blandford). Nevertheless, the qualities that make both of these

sisters classic evil characters and fit them into the “she-wolf” category also gives them

tremendous power. This especially comes into play when pondering aggression: “Shakespeare’s

audience would have been particularly shocked at Goneril’s aggressiveness, a quality that would

not have been expected in a female character” (Bladford). This aggressive force is what drives

Goneril and Regan’s actions as the play progresses. Much like Lady Macbeth, Goneril also calls
 Cutler 19

her husband out on being too kind: “This milky gentleness an course of yours / Though I

condemn not, yet under pardon, / You’re much more attasked for want of wisdom / Than praised

for harmful mildness” (King Lear 1.4.341-344). It is obvious that along with being the dominate

character that overruns the kingdom, she is also the dominate one in her marriage. This

dominance and aggression frees Goneril in some ways. It gives her liberty to act how she pleases

and not have to think of the consequences. Still, as every tragic “she-wolf” does, both Goneril

and her sister end up facing death. After creating an elaborate plan to murder her husband,

Goneril is caught up in a fight of jealousy and betrayal with her sister. They both believe

themselves to possess the affection of Edmund, and compete for his love. This, along with their

deaths is a way for Shakespeare to bring them down off of their powerful pedestals, where their

aggression and ambition push them forward in life, and involve them in a petty fight that is

cliché for women. In her attempt to turn out the victorious sister, Goneril poisons Regan.

However, before her victory and power can be enjoyed, Goneril’s husband declares that he

knows of her plot to kill him. In response, she kills herself. Both sisters, who had existed with

power, cunning, and ambition, are brought to violent ends and in death loose the power they

gained in life.

Othello explores two themes that do not get as much attention as the plays previously

discussed. Desdemona and Emilia are both wives but each approaches the role of wife

differently. Desdemona is independent, self-reliant, and hopelessly in love. Emilia on the other

hand is in a loveless marriage, but is completely submissive to her husband (until the end), but

has no illusions of the double standard set on sexuality in society. Desdemona, when the play

opens, is much like Hermia from A Midsummer Night’s Dream. She has fallen in love and “like

Hermia, she bravely chooses her lover rather than submitting to the arrangements of her father”
 Cutler 20

(Kemp 87). In this play, what Shakespeare explores with this character that he does not with

Hermia, is the negative side of following your heart. When the question comes up as to whom

Desdemona will submit (the answer supposed to be her father), she answers instead that:

“I am hitherto your daughter. But here’s my husband, / And so much duty as my mother

showed / to you , preferring you before her father, / So much I challenge that I may

profess / Due to the Moor my lord.” (Othello 1.3.187-191)

Like Hermia’s father, Barbantio (Desdemona’s father) does not give his approval of the

marriage; the fact that Desdemona entered into the marriage before alerting him or asking his

permission, shows her independence and self-reliance, but is also the first step to her tragic

ending. This self-awareness and independence continues when she decides to follow Othello on

his military trips instead of staying at home. This also alludes to the embracing of her sexuality:

“Desdemona is a sexual being who insists she not be “bereft” of the “rites” of marriage that a

separation from Othello would cause” (Kemp 87, Othello 1.3.254-256). This sexuality and

independence that Desdemona shows is obviously something that is strange to society at the

time, and this is stated when Barbanzio is accusing Othello of putting a spell on his daughter that

a good girl like her should go against her father’s wishes and definitely should not marry outside

of her father’s choosing: “O thou foul thief, where hast thou stowed my daughter? / …whether a

maid so tender, fair, and happy, / so opposite to marriage that she shunned / the wealthy curled

darlings of our nation” (Othello 1.2.64, 66-68). By acting out against her father, Desdemona is

stepping “outside of the prescribed behaviors that define good women” (Kemp 88). As discussed

earlier, a woman was trained from an early age to respect and obey first her father, and then

when he chose, her husband. Because Desdemona skipped the middle step and entered into a

marriage without the blessing of her father, she essentially threw everything out of balance. This
 Cutler 21

free spirited move eventually opens her up to accusations by Iago that eventually cause her

demise. Her “unconventionality and strength of personality, which leads her to choose her mate

without her father’s authority” on top of the generally obvious sexuality she embraces “underlie

Othello’s doubts of her chastity” (Kemp 88).

On the flip side of this story, there is Emilia, who plays the “good wife”. Her husband,

Iago, is responsible for the mayhem of the play, and uses Emilia to get it started. He has her steal

a stained handkerchief from Desdemona; stained with red berries that Iago uses to allude to the

idea that Desdemona’s purity and fidelity has been compromised. It is not until the end that she

stands up and tells everyone what happened. Before she breaks out of the good wife role, we see

another difference between Emilia and Desdemona. During one of their conversations, after

Othello has found the handkerchief and Desdemona is accused of infidelity, Emilia explains that

he is probably jealous. Desdemona is shocked and questions this line of thinking: “Alas the day!

I never game him cause” (Othello 3.4.159). This very naive view, that a person would not be

jealous for no reason or for a false reason seems to be lost on Desdemona’s love struck mind.

Emilia however, understands the double standard in which men live, where things like fidelity

and purity are only applied to women. Though she seems completely submissive to her men, an

attribute that Desdemona does not share, Emilia’s obvious maturity about the ways of the world

give her the voice she eventually uses in attempt to right wrongs. She tells Desdemona that

“jealous soul will not be answered so; / they are not ever jealous for the cause, / But jealous for

they’re jealous” (Othello 3.4.160-162). In another discussion about the double standard of

infidelity the women’s personality differences can be seen again: “Emilia’s keen-witted

practicality stands in stark contrast to Desdemona’s romantically unrealistic- and ultimately

deadly – ideals” (Kemp 90).

 Cutler 22

Desdemona stands an independent and self-reliant character who chooses her own fate.

Sadly this fate, unlike other young Shakespearean characters in love, leads her to death. She

struggles with being a good wife, not for lack of love but for the unconventional way in which

her marriage comes about. Where she is able to show power and independence through both

choosing her own love and through embracing her sexuality, Desdemona exhibits the same

strong characteristics seen in other Shakespeare characters. Emilia plays a different sort of

independent role. She is not in a happy marriage and does not really rebel against her husband,

until the end. When she finally goes against Iago and stands up for both herself and Desdemona

(although it is too late for Desdemona at this point), she gains the independence that is seen in

Desdemona’s character through the rest of the play. Both women are dominated through death,

but in life they both rose above the ideals of the men in their lives in order to gain the

independence they wanted.

Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream brings forward two women who break out in

rebellion against the roles society has given them. Hermia is a carefree, marry-me-off maid and

Titania, a powerful fairy queen whose will is striving to match the strength of her husband’s.

Hermia goes through her story fighting against different forces in an effort to reach the one goal

of love and happiness. Titania is fighting to keep the “little changeling boy” who the king of the

fairies, Oberon, wishes to “be [his] henchman” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 2.1.120-121).

Hermia’s journey starts with an argument with her father. This argument is the beginning

of how Hermia shows her independence, by refusing to marry the man her father has chosen for

her. She wants to exert her independence by marrying the man of her choosing. Her father

doesn’t realize that “the strength of the daughter is created by showing her resistance to her

father’s pressures” he only sees an incorrigible and ungrateful daughter (Dash 78). There was a
 Cutler 23

reform happening during the time of Shakespeare’s plays and it involved a change in the view of

women. Slowly people were beginning to recognize that women deserved a voice that they

should be seen as human and not be seen or treated like property. The beginning of this is seen in

Elizabethan drama: “Elizabethan drama children assert the freedom claimed for them by the

reformers against the authoritarianism of their parents” (Dusinberre 41). This is exactly what

Hermia is doing when she defies her father’s wish for her to marry Lysander. With her father’s

ultimatum, marry Demetrius, join a convent, or death, Hermia has to fight for her freedom to

choose whom she marries and to not be seen as a piece of property that can be passed from father

to husband.

Unlike many of Shakespeare’s other strong female characters, Hermia is just learning her

own strength. Described as an “Athenian youth”, she is walking the line between adult hood and

child hood, dependence on others and dependence on herself (A Midsummer Night’s Dream

1.1.13). Through Hermia’s language we also see how she struggles for independence: she says “I

know not by what power I am made bold, / Nor how it may concern my modesty/ In such a

presence here to plead my thoughts” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 1.1.58-60). Because Hermia

is struggling to find her own voice after years of doing exactly as her father wishes and because

her “wish runs contrary to that of her father,” her discussion with his is packed with hesitant

phrases like “entreat,” “pardon,” and “beseech” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 1.1.59-64, Kemp

67). After fighting a losing battle against her father and the Duke, Hermia and her love,

Lysander, decided to run away together and elope. This decision that Hermia makes, though

some may see it as stupid young love, shows her enthusiasm for independence and the lengths

she will go to get it.

 Cutler 24

Unlike other heroines in Shakespeare’s plays, Hermia is seeking independence from her

parent to start a new life; however she wants to begin this life with another. The new life she is

trying to get is one where she is married, and though this seems to enforce the idea of a

patriarchal society, what Hermia is looking for is not someone to overpower her and rule her life,

but someone to love her and share a life with. She is looking to be next to a man and not beneath

or behind him. Eventually, that is exactly what she gets. Hermia gets married to the man of her

choice. Shakespeare writes her to stand up to her father and the Duke and the general idea of

women obeying men and chooses the man she wants to be with. He gives Hermia this quality of

(at the time) extreme independence and she uses it to make herself happy.

As a back story to these Athenian lovers and their problem, Shakespeare created a whole

other world; the world of the fairies. King Oberon and Queen Titania rule over the world of

nature, but when we first meet them they are in the middle of a fight. Queen Titania is exerting

her right to refuse and rebel against her husband because he wants her “little changeling boy / to

be my henchman” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 2.1.120-121). There is more than just this

argument bubbling beneath the surface of Oberon and Titania’s relationship. They both accuse

each other of unfaithfulness and jealousy, to which Titania’s solution is to have “forsworn his

bed and company” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream 2.1.62). Their fight begins to affect everyone

and a true “battle between the sexes- between husbands and wives” escalates until Oberon is set

to take drastic measures in attempt to control his wife (Kemp 67). Though on the surface it

appears that the King and Queen of the fairies are fighting about a child “at the heart of the

battle…is a conflict over the hierarchy of duties” (Kemp 69). There are earthquakes, frosts,

floods, famine and more so that even the mortals begin to notice that something is wrong. When

Oberon realizes that, like Hermia’s father, he is not going to be able to maintain control over the
 Cutler 25

woman in his life, he devises a plan. Using a magic flower: “Yet mark'd I where the bolt of

Cupid fell: / It fell upon a little western flower, / Before milk-white, now purple with love's

wound”, this flower is known for its “juice of it on sleeping eye-lids laid / Will make or man or

woman madly dote / Upon the next live creature that it sees” (A Midsummer Night’s Dream

2.1.170-172). Oberon plans on using this flower on Titania and thoroughly embarrassing her so

that when she finally wakes up she gives into his wishes. This is his plan of domination. Like

Hermia’s father plans on marrying her off to the man of he deems appropriate to exert his

dominance over her life, Oberon will humiliate Titania to show her her place in their marriage.

Titania and Hermia both display strength of character through their rebellions that was

unusual for women at the time. Women were supposed to be submissive first to their fathers and

then, after marriage, to their husbands. To balance out this overt reversal of the submissive roles

of women, Shakespeare inserts Helena into the play. Helena spends the first part of the play

chasing after Demetrius, at one point begging to be used “as [his] spaniel”, that he could “spurn

me, strike me, / neglect me, lose me; only give me leave, / unworthy as I am, to follow you” (A

Midsummer Night’s Dream 2.1.205-208). Then after the love potion mix up, she yells at

everyone thinking they are making fun of her. She stands as the epitome of the silly, immature,

irrational, emotional female that cannot stand alone. If Shakespeare had left only two strong

women it might have been seen as a suggestion that standing against fathers or husbands is

acceptable, but adding Helena, as a submissive and emotionally needy character he restores

balance to the play. This balance is also attained through both Hermia and Titania submitting

Titania to Oberon’s wishes and Hermia through marriage to Lysander. Both women are put back

into what was seen as the proper place in a very male driven and run society. This reinstating of

the status quo is also seen in The Taming of the Shrew.

 Cutler 26

In The Taming of the Shrew we see an inner strength exerted into the outside world

though Katharine’s words and actions. She is a woman portrayed as truly “untamable”. In one

body, she encompasses all of the qualities that were seen as negative in a woman at the time;

Katharine is dominating, outspoken, and stubborn. Some of her first words in the play declare

her intention to never marry: “I’faith, sir, you shall never need to fear; / Iwis it is not halfway to

her heart” (The Taming of the Shrew 1.1.61-62). At the same time, however, Shakespeare has

also inserted again the idea that it is up to the father to decided when his daughters should be

married; which “according to the ruses of patriarchy, father have complete control, not only over

their daughters’ choices, but over their daughters’ very selves” (Kemp 67). Baptista, Katharine’s

father, has decided that she is to be married before her sister can wed. So a challenge is extended

to men; who can tame the shrew first. Enter Petruchio, a man out to find a wife with a large

dowry who will be exactly what every man at the time wanted; submissive, silent, obedient, and

everything that Katharine isn’t. When warned of Katharine’s attitude

“Her only fault, and that is faults enough,

Is that she is intolerable curst
And shrewd, and forward so beyond al measure
that, were my state far worser than it is,
I would no wed her for a mine of gold”

Petruchio says that he will not only marry her, but tame her too (The Taming of the Shrew

1.2.87-91). So begins a battle of wit and wills that ends just like every man of the 16th century

would expect it to; with the woman returning to her place of submission beneath her husband.
 Cutler 27

Before Katharine is tamed however, her incredible stubbornness permeates every fiber of

her character. If one looks closer to the motives for her actions however, we see that Katharine is

not the mean spirited shrew everyone sees her as, and we become aware that the shrewish nature

of her character is her acting out against her father and his favoritism. At the beginning of act

two Katharine enters with her sister, Bianca, in tow. Bianca’s hands are tied and Katharine is

demanding that Bianca choose a suitor for her favorite. When Baptista enters and rescues the

“poor girl” from Katharine, the audience begins to see that Baptista favors Bianca and this is one

of the reasons that Katharine is so bitter (The Taming of the Shrew 2.1.24). Bianca is the

“treasure” of the family and for this favoritism Katharine vows to “find occasion of revenge”

(The Taming of the Shrew 2.1.32, 36). This feeling of being second to the perfect baby sister

gave Katharine the instinct to fight for attention and kick started her outgoing, stubborn, and

seemingly shrewish personality.

From Katharine and Petruchio’s first meeting we see her rebellion of what he stands for

as her suitor. He declares that after hearing everything about her, he is “moved to woo thee for

my wife” (The Taming of the Shrew 2.1.194). This marriage proposal of sorts is responded to by

Katharine playing around with the word “moved” telling him to “let him that moved you hither /

Remove you hence”, flat out telling him to go away and leave her alone (The Taming of the

Shrew 2.1.195-196). The conversation that follows is a humorous discussion playing with puns,

a battle of words and wits. Katharine shows that she has no intention of marrying or submitting

to any man easily. She tells Petruchio to order around his servants and not her: “go, fool, and

whom thou keep’st command”, and when Petruchio tells her that they are engaged to be married,

he begins to ask her but proceeds to tell her through a command that they will be married: “And

will you, nill you, I will marry you” (The Taming of the Shrew 2.1.268). Katharine immediately
 Cutler 28

approaches her father to discuss the engagement, and she blatantly tells him “You have showed a

tender fatherly regard, / to wish me wed to one half-lunatic, / a madcap ruffian, and a swearing

Jack” (The Taming of the Shrew 2.1.283-286). This insulting of both men and refusal to conform

adds to what was considered shrewish nature of Katharine’s personality, but really this is another

example of her independent personality.

Many argue that this play ends up being a how-to on running a proper Elizabethan home,

and perhaps this is true; at the end of the play Petruchio even says “marry, peaceit bodes, and

love, and quiet life, / An aweful rule, and right supremacy/…her new built virtue and obedience”

(The Taming of the Shrew 5.2.112-113, 122). This idea that a perfect marriage is one of complete

female obedience and male supremacy fits perfect with the common thoutght of the time. Even if

one interprets the play as a how-to guide built by Shakespeare, it is undeniably true that

Katharine’s defiant personality makes her one of Shakespeare’s strongest female characters,

despite the fact that she appears in a lighthearted comedy instead of a powerful tragedy.

Another defiant female character appears in Much Ado About Nothing. Though Beatrice’s

defiance is different from that of Katharine’s, consisting more of wit and humor than belligerent

rebellion, her refusal to marry and confrontations with Benedick show many of the same strong

qualities seen in other characters. Beatrice fits into Shakespeare’s model of the “witty but

unmarriable” woman (Jamison). She declares herself that she would “rather hear my dog bark at

a crow than a / man swear he loves me” (Much Ado About Nothing 1.1.1260127). Then during

the masquerade dance her uncle, Leonato, and Don Pedro discuss how “she cannot endure to

hear tell of a husband” enforcing the idea that Beatrice will rebel against marriage until the end,

but unlike Katharine, “she is never sad but when she sleeps, and / not ever sad then” (Much Ado

About Nothing 2.1.332, 328-329). So even though Beatrice fits outside the norm of society’s
 Cutler 29

view on women and marriage, her witty attitude keeps her from being what society called a

“shrew”, like Katharine.

Of all her qualities, Beatrice’s wit is her strongest. She has a response for everything and

never seems to be unhappy, and this is what makes her and Benedick’s exchanges so

entertaining. When they meet for the first time in the play they immediately begin their playful

but hostel banter back and forth. Beatrice begins the exchange by telling Benedick “I wonder that

you still be talking, Signor Benedick. Nobody marks you” to which Benedick replies “What, my

Lady Disdain! Are you yet living?” (Much Ado About Nothing 1.1.111-114). This witty banter

continues through this scene and the rest of the act.

All of their friends know that they are perfect for each other, and that their witty

arguments are just their way of expressing themselves: “She were an excellent wife for

Benedick” (Much Ado About Nothing 2.1.335). These moments of interaction that Beatrice and

Benedick have, where they seem to hate each other, “is one of [Shakespeare’s] favorite themes,

that of attraction between lovers manifested in a professed hostility” (Palmer 111). This theme of

hostility is carried almost to the very end, however “they are brought artfully together by a

conspiracy of matchmakers who convince Benedick and Beatrice in turn that each is dotingly in

love with the other” (Palmer 117). There is a brief moment, after the two are tricked into

thinking the other is in love with them that they are happily in love, but as soon as they find out

that they were tricked they take all of the loving words back: “Benedick: Do you not love me? /

Beatrice: Why, no, no more than reason / ….Do you not love me? / Benedick: Troth, no, no more

than reason.” (Much Ado About Nothing 5.4.74-75, 78-79). This exchange between the two of

them also shows Beatrice’s final rebellion of the position of wife or lover. She could have said

yes, but she acted as her uncle said she would and metaphorically ran from the idea of being tied
 Cutler 30

down by love. Through her refusal to submit, Benedick also took back his profession of love

despite the fact that everyone knows they love each other. They are finally brought together in

the end when Hero and Claudio use “[their] own hands against [their] hearts” when they show

sonnets written for each by the other (Much Ado About Nothing 5.4.91-92). Their true intentions

and feelings for each other are reviled and the play ends as every comedy does, with marriage

and joy. However, before the play ends we see one final exchange between Beatrice and

Benedick that enforces Beatrice’s resilient personality and gives the impression that even though

she is going to be married she will always have the witty personality that shows her inner

strength. As they both admit their love Benedick jokingly says “Come, I will have thee; but, by

this light, I take / thee for pity” to which Beatrice replies “…I yield / upon great persuasion; and

partly to save your life, / for I was told you were in a consumption” (Much Ado About Nothing

5.4.93-94, 95-97). What these lines tell the audience is that though Beatrice is entering a

marriage and essentially letting herself be dominated by Benedick, her spunky and vivacious

personality will not be tied down or diminished.

The fatherless daughters of Shakespeare’s character force another trait into the realm of

Shakespeare’s women; “for some fatherless daughter…the absence (whether permanent or

temporary) can open a space for a variety of female freedoms” (Kemp 66). Many of

Shakespeare’s characters fit into this category. Lady Olivia and Viola, from Twelfth Night, are

two of them. Both ladies have no male figure over them and they both try to survive in a male

run world independently.

Viola’s two main qualities of loyalty and determination push her forward and make her

into the spirited heroine she is. The very first time that the audience meets Viola, she has been

shipwrecked and is now separated from her brother, or her guardian. She has to find a way to
 Cutler 31

blend into the society that she has landed in. She comes up with a plan and “disguises herself as a

male throughout much of the play…initially her reasons are ones of safety” but then turn into

something else (Kemp 75). Viola believes her brother to be dead, “she needs to not only protect

herself as a lone woman but also to seek employment” which she finds in Orison’s court (Kemp

75). Her ability to blend in shows a few key aspects of her character: her ability to act like a man

shows the strength and independence of character she possesses, we see her ability to take care

of herself and not rely on a man, and also her strength of personality that she can emotionally

blend into the court. Viola fits into another female archetype of Shakespeare’s, the “women who

dress as men”. By dressing as men, Viola and the other women “consequently [are] able to play a

more active role in the play’s narrative. As ‘men’, these characters have more freedom,

highlighting the lack of social liberty for women in Shakespeare’s time” (Jamison). Though there

was a revolution of ideas going on, women in this time were still perceived to be weaker than

men. This extended to character and emotion as well as physically. They were thought to be

fragile, but the strength that Viola shows in the face of a trial like living alone until she finds her

brother, demonstrates Shakespeare’s idea of women’s inner strength and abilities.

Viola shows her extreme loyalty when Orsino, who has come to trust her as the boy he

thinks she is, asks Viola to go to Lady Olivia and woo her. Viola vows to do so but has an inner

hesitation: “I’ll do my best/ To woo your lady, [aside] Yet a barful strife!/ Whoeer I woo, myself

would be his wife” (Twelfth Night 1.4.144-146). Viola is so dedicated and loyal the duke she is

serving that, even though she has fallen in love with him, she is going to try to win Lady Olivia’s

heart for him. Even after Lady Olivia begins to pursue Cesario, Viola remains adamant that she

is wooing for Orsino. This calls into play one of the major tools for humor in the play: the love

triangle. Lady Olivia is in love with Cesario, who is really Viola who is in love with Orsino, who
 Cutler 32

is in love with Lady Olivia. Unlike some other of Shakespeare’s characters, Viola really does try

to serve her duke to the best of her ability. When Lady Olivia won’t admit Viola into her house,

Viola (as Cesario) vows to “stand at/ your door like a shariff’s post and be supported to/ a bench,

but he’ll see you” (Twelfth Night 1.5.280-283).

Later in the play Viola and Orsino have a discussion (Orsino thinking that Viola is a

man), about love and the difference between men and women. Orsino expresses the generic idea

that men are more capable of love because “no woman’s / heart so big to hold so much”, but

Viola is able to come back at him with the idea that women love just as much (Twelfth Night

2.4.94-95). The example of women’s love that she uses is that of her own. She tells Orsino of her

father’s daughter that loved a man but was capable of suffering through it because ladies are not

permitted to show their love like men, she points out that just because they can’t act like men do

does not mean women love any less (Twelfth Night 2.4.104-118). Viola stays true to Orsino

through the whole play, constantly trying to help him win Lady Olivia when Viola actually loves

him. She is also able to keep her disguise until the end when she reveals herself, and her love for

Orsino. As in every comedy, it ends with a marriage, but Viola’s strength of character, her fierce

dedication and loyalty, show her to be strong female character. Her speech of love and her ability

to take care of herself in the face of danger are an indication that Shakespeare wrote her as this

strong character to make a statement.

Lady Olivia is Shakespeare’s other independent female character in Twelfth Night. When

Viola first asks about the land she has landed in the captain describe Lady Olivia as “A virtuous

maid, the daughter of a count/ that died some twelvemonth since, then leaving her/ in protection

of his son, her brother,/ who shortly also died; for whose dear love, / they say she hath abjucted

the sight/ and company of men” (Twelfth Night 1.2.36-41). From this description alone, the
 Cutler 33

audience learns that Lady Olivia is a noble and is also defying the idea that a woman should be

looked over by a man. Though it is the death of her family that has brought her to the position of

solitude that she is in, her refusal to be courted is what sets her apart as independent. Despite her

want to be independent, there is quite a list of men who want to woo and marry Lady Olivia:

“Olivia is pursued by Orsino, who is lovesick; later she is pursued by Malvolio, who is the butt

of a household prank, and Sir Andrew, who pursues her for profit” (Kemp 75). Lady Olivia’s

land is made aware of her position on courtship when Orsino sends someone to woo for him, and

the servant returns with the message that Lady Olivia is going to mourn her brother (or use that

as an excuse) for seven years and will not take suitors during this time.

Lady Olivia’s ability to keep the power and nobility that she has despite the fact that there

is no man to run her household shows her strength of character; the way that she holds off those

men that she does not care for but pursues the one she does shows her independence and free will

of who she wants to love. When Cesario (Viola) comes to visit Lady Olivia for the first time,

Olivia dismisses her servants to have a private audience with Cesario. This action of “holding

company with a strange man without an escort” could have put Olivia’s reputation in danger

(Kemp 76). Lady Olivia ignores this possibility and takes charge of her own life and reputation

by telling her servants to “give us the place here alone. We / will hear this divinity” shows that

though she does care to keep her place as Lady she does not necessarily care about what those

around her think. On some level Lady Olivia seems to only want Cesario (Viola) because he

does not want her. This want for independence and self-reliance comes through again when she,

during her conversation with Cesario (Viola), proclaims that she will be sure to inventory her

beauty in her will if she is to die:

 Cutler 34

“I will give / out divers schedules of my beauty. It shall be invento- / ried, and every

particle and utensil labeled to my will: as, item, two lips, indifferent red item, two grey / eyes,

with lids to them; item, one neck, one chin, and / so forth…” (Twelfth Night 1.5.239-244).

She seems to want to be the one to pursue, to make a chase or almost a game out of the

courting. Why marry someone that easily comes to her when she can work for the affections of

another? This also allows her to take a relatively “dominate role in the courtship process” when it

comes to attempting to court Cesario, and this mild dominance “partly enables Olivia’s more

aggressive wooing later of Sebastian, whom she believes to be Cesario” (Kemp 76). The way

that Shakespeare has Lady Olivia defy the authority of the duke and Sir Andrew, the authority

they have as men, is yet another way that he shows his attitude towards believing in women’s

inner power. Instead of giving Lady Olivia to another man immediately he lets her float as her

own person and use the power of her position to refuse some men and peruse others.

Nevertheless, just like every other main female character in his plays, Shakespeare eventually

makes Lady Olivia submit to the hierarchy of male society at the time through her marriage.

Lady Olivia does retain a little bit of power though (like Hermia in A Midsummer Night’s

Dream), because she chooses who she will marry and does not let the social pressure of money

or position sway her from the man she chose.

Each of these characters, whether from a comedy or a tragedy, displays certain

characteristics that would not have normally been associated with women at the time. Lady

Macbeth’s ambition or Goneril’s aggressiveness would have been totally foreign qualities

compared to the common staged women at the time. The independence seen in characters like

Beatrice, Katharine, or Lady Olivia would have also been seen as uncommon. Also Hermia and

Viola’s determination and rebellion would have been seen as abnormal. Women were considered
 Cutler 35

to be substandard citizens. They were under men and qualities such as those shown in

Shakespeare’s women would have tilted this idea off balance.

The captivating thing about Shakespeare’s characters is his upheaval and reversal of

those expectations set forth by men for women (Attitude 4). The question that remains is whether

Shakespeare thought creating such women, was making a statement about women and their

roles. Did he believe that each woman possessed the ability to be a Lady Macbeth or Lady

Olivia? Or was he simply using the idea that women might possess these qualities as a way to

insert comedy into every play (even the tragedies)? To try to make something this complicated

black or white, yes or no, right or wrong, is not possible. The possibility that through his female

characters Shakespeare showed what qualities he believed lay inside a woman is very likely

because of all the strong characteristics he gives them. However, because of the society that he

lived in and the beliefs that went along with that, each of his women is dominated in one way or

another by the end of the play. Whether through death or through marriage, each strong female

that would cause disorder among the patriarchal society of the time is returned to her place and

balance is restored once again. Even though most of the plays that are considered Shakespeare’s

greatest works center around the actions and feelings of a male protagonist, it is important to

remember that his heroines each play an important role as well.

 Cutler 36

Works Cited

Ben-Amos, Ilana Erausmen. Adolenscence and Youth in Early Modern England. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1994. Print.

Blandford, Olle. “Women in King Lear”. Prezi, 1 March 2013. Web. 15 March 2013.

http://prezi.com/asbetucwzaya/women-in-king-lear/

Bevington, David. The Necessary Shakespeare. New York: Pearson Education, 2009. Print.

Cupitt, Cathy. “Daughters of Chaos: An Examination of the Women in King Lear and Ran”.

Cathy Cupitt. Wordpress. October 4, 2010. Web. 15 February, 2013.

http://www.cathycupitt.com/daughters-of-chaos-an-examination-of-the-women-in-king-

lear-and-ran/

Dash, Irene G. Women’s Worlds in Shakespeare’s Plays. Newark: University of Delaware Press,

1997. Print.

Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. London: Macmillan Press LTD,

1996. Print.

“Elizabethan Women”. Elizabethan-era.org. n.p. n.d. Web. 10 March, 2013. www.elizabethan-

era.org.uk/elizabethan-woman.htm

Findlay, Alison. Women in Shakespeare: A Dictionary. New York: Continuum, 2010. Print.

Jamieson, Lee. “Types of Female Characters in Shakespeare.” About.com. New York Times

Company, n.d. Web. 13 Nov 2011.

http://shakespeare.about.com/od/criticalapproaches/a/types_women.htm
 Cutler 37

Kelso, Ruth. Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaisance. Illinoiss,: University of Illinois Press,

1956. Print.

Kemp, Theresa D. Women in the Age of Shakespeare. California: Greenwood Press, 2010. Print.

Mann, David. Shakespeare’s Women: Performance and Conception. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2008. Print.

Mendelson, Sarah, and Patricia Crawford. Women in Elary Modern England 1550-1720. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1998. Print.

Palmer, John. Comic Character of Shakespeare. London: Macmillan and Company Limited,

1956. Print.

Sweetwater, Mike. “Gender Crisis in Shakespeare’s Macbeth and What It Means to be a Man.”

Hubpages. Hubpages Inc, July 15 2011 Web. 26 Jan. 2013.

Sweetwater, Mike. “Shakespeare’s Attitude Toward Women in “Othello” and What We Can

Learn.” Hubpages. Hubpages Inc, July 13 2011. Web. 26 Jan. 2013.

http://mikesweetwater.hubpages.com/hub/Shakespeares-Attitude-Toward-Women-in-

Othello-and-What-We-Can-Learn

Tutor, Jan. “Shakespeare’s Portia the Feminist.” Hubpages. Hubpages Inc, nd. Web. 26 Jan.

2013. http://jantutor.hubpages.com/hub/Shakespeares-Portia-The-Feminist

Woodbridge, Linda. Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Women

Kind 1540-1620. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984. Print

 Cutler 38

Wynn, Earl S. “Shakespeare’s Women: Frailty Thy Name is Woman.” Hubpages. Hubpages Inc,

2011. Web. 13 Nov 2011. http://earlswynn.hubpages.com/hub/Shakespeares-Women