Two Queens and a Writer: A Historical Perspective of Women in Shakespeare

Lens Analysis

Throughout recent years in the United Kingdom, it seems like women have been soaring to the top regarding gender equality. The women’s participation rate in the labor market in the UK has steadily grown from 57 % in 1971 to 76% in 2001. More than 90% of this increase from the 70s and 80s was in part-time work. Women have successfully gained rights to maternity leave and pay, have campaigned against sexual harassment, and have worked to eliminate deceptions in the equal pay legislation of 1970. The progress that has occurred in the last 10 years is even more exponential. However, many years before the 70s were a group of women who would not even have dreamed of fighting to change such matters, nor would they even necessarily have wanted to do so. The typical woman, under the leadership of Queen Elizabeth, took great pride in being able to stand alongside her husband. The only freedom she desired, was the freedom to make her own home, and to raise her own children.  Even more radically, some women needed to stand alongside a man in order to be considered a respectable contribution to society. The two main women of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” written around the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign exemplifies the importance of historical context when analyzing characters. While some people might argue that Queen Gertrude and Ophelia in “Hamlet” represent the unchangeable deceitful, shallow, and disloyal nature of women, a closer look into English history and values would show that they were actually victims of their time. Hamlet’s character would be considered one of the first men with Renaissance thinking, however, it was much more difficult for women to take on a similar mindset coming from the Elizabethan rule.

Queen Gertrude, is arguably the least favored woman of the two, in “Hamlet.” There seems to be no defense, or justification for a woman who remarries quickly after the sudden death of her husband–not to mention, to his brother. One would surely question her love for the first husband, to begin with. Coming from a Catholic society, which is mainly dominated by traditions and objectively religious perspectives, the idea of love was very different. It was a matter of duty and decision, not a matter of feelings and liberation, as the Modern movement would define it. For royalty and higher class citizens, this idea of, “responsible and right” marriage was even more prevalent. It was not uncommon for a king and queen to marry for no other fact than that they should not be unequally yoked, and to create allies between countries. Feelings may or may not have come afterward. Although romantic options were few, the king or men generally would have a higher ability to choose whom they wanted. Since high-class women, had no real choice in whom they married, it was also not uncommon for the king to have more emotional feelings for the queen than she would have for him.

Queen Elizabeth, though educated, and perfectly capable of running a country, had her fair share of protective decisions. She knew that marrying would result in her losing her power over her country, but still needed to show somehow that she was seeking marriage to secure a hope for an heir for her people. She would constantly use her single status, and youth to keep many allies for England, as every prince in the world wanted a chance to rule England. She shamelessly flirted with her courtiers and toyed with their emotions. She was known for giving her affection and snatching it back without warning, thus keeping many men confused, and heartbroken, but ultimately kept her in power until she died. Love was not a feeling, not even from the men’s perspective, but a political strategy. Understanding Elizabeth’s example, leaves some defense for Gertrude. The sudden death of the King of Denmark makes the country vulnerable to attacks from others, but also makes her vulnerable, as she is nothing without a king. It was not Gertrude’s place to feel or to stand for anything other than what was right for the country and for herself. Remarriage was not only the respectable thing to do, but also the wise thing to do.

In Act 1, Scene 2 Claudius speaks to the kings men about his feelings regarding marrying Gertrude so quickly after the death of his brother. He says to them:

 

Have we—as ’twere with a defeated joy,

With an auspicious and a dropping eye,

With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,

In equal scale weighing delight and dole—

Taken to wife. Nor have we herein barred

Your better wisdoms, which have freely gone

With this affair along. For all, our thanks.

Now follows that you know. Young Fortinbras,

Holding a weak supposal of our worth

Or thinking by our late dear brother’s death

Our state to be disjoint and out of frame,

 

According to this passage, the haste of the marriage to Queen Gertrude seemed to be a necessity for the political stability of the country. He also thanks the advisors for their advice and wisdom in Claudius marrying Gertrude, thereby showing that this decision was not just his, but also the opinion of other officials. Claudius then proceeds to talk about the fact that Fortinbras wants to attack Denmark because of his brother’s death, showing the importance of establishing stability quickly, through marriage. The reader gets no impression of Gertrude’s thoughts or feelings, but only what Claudius and the advisors think is the best move for the country.

Queen Elizabeth was praised for her “masculine qualities” of education, leadership, and outspoken mindset. However, for her female subjects, education was only a lovely compliment to domestic skills and womanly grace, which were considered indispensable qualities. No submissiveness and no silence instantly meant “bad woman,” a reputation, no woman would want. There was nothing else a woman needed to know other than how to keep a husband satisfied. All other knowledge was just complimentary. It is no surprise that when Hamlet asks his mother what she thinks about the player queen expressing her inseparable love for her husband, she “thinks the lady doth protests too much–” or, quite simply, is overdoing it. It was improper for a woman to express herself so desperately and openly. It was a sign of a lack of self-control, which was quite unattractive in the Elizabethan woman’s character, though quite embraced in a modern woman’s character.

Hamlet’s intellect was constantly conflicted with his civil duty as royalty, as Shakespeare illustrates in Laertes conversation with Ophelia. The transfer from Elizabethan rule made it difficult for women to embrace their “God-given nature,” and free-thinking mindset, which was taking popularity in Hamlet’s school. As Hamlet says, “God hath given [them] one face, and [they] make themselves another.” Shakespeare proves that understanding history, and the role of women at their time, gives readers necessary insight before analyzing human character in literary characters.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William, and George Richard Hibbard. Hamlet. Oxford: Oxford U Press, 2008. Print.

“Like a Virgin: Queen Elizabeth and the Status of Women,” in Shakespeare Alive!, Bantam, 1988, pp. 68-84.