Throughout the entire semester, I had been interested in evaluating the dynamics of female gender roles in Shakespeare. We’ve seen a lot of women throughout each play, all of them unique, and yet all of them sort of similar. They’re all strong female characters and paradoxically controlled by the patriarchal society they live in. Miranda plays an interesting role in The Tempest when considering gender dynamics and characterization. She is seem as the apex of femininity and virtue. Because she has lived with only her father and Caliban for so long, she has never seen another man. We learn that she has also never seen another woman. And yet, she is trained to be a representation of the “perfect woman”. Miranda has warm qualities and is considered “perfectly and peerless, created of every creature’s best”. This description used by Ferdinand paints an almost strange surrealist view of Miranda. Not only does she possess all the (perceived) best qualities in a woman, she is also easy to mold and manipulate. She is less of a person and more of a puppet for her father and Ferdinand’s command.

In my opinion Miranda paints an accurate depiction of the women’s gender roles in Shakespearean times (which are still prevalent today)–women are meant to be pure, innocent, untouched, and subordinate to men. The subject of Miranda’s virginity is brought up multiple times in the play. Miranda is not in control of her own sexuality, because her father demands that her “virgin knot” only be broken after the wedding. This takes away from any sense of sexual agency she may have, as men are the ones that dictate what will happen to her body.  Her over sexualization objectifies her more, especially when she is used as a tool for revenge by Prospero.

This isn’t uncommon in Shakespeare’s plays. Even if main female characters have some sliver of agency in the story, they are ultimately puppets of men. Often they provide the resolution of the play, or stand in as the Christ like figure– (Portia saves the day! Isabella does the ol’ switcheroo! Desdemona’s fierce loyalty!  etc…)—and yet they are still ploys in the story that settle mens’ revenge or conflict.

I became a little curious about the history of The Tempest and its reception during the time it was performed and after it was published, so I decided to research and write about a brief history of The Tempest. While researching The Tempest, I was surprised to find out that there were several adaptations of this play. Sir William Davenant (a close companion of Shakespeare) owned the rights to Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest, and he wrote and adaptation along with John Dryden called The Tempest, or the Enchanted Island. They added two female characters (Miranda’s sister Dorinda and Caliban’s sister Sycorax) and Prospero was also given a son named Hippolito. Like Miranda, Hippolito has never seen a woman. Another adaptation of The Tempest was then created by Thomas Duffet called The Mock Tempest, or The Enchanted Castle. This adaptation was more of a parody of John Dryden and Sir William Davenant’s The Enchanted Island. It takes place in a brothel and its main characters consist of prostitutes, wealthy Johns and Pimps. Unlike in The Enchanted Island and the original version of Shakespeare’s play, Miranda and Dorinda have had multiple sex partners but they can’t quite understand marriage marriage.
Credit:
Keiser, Melissa. Pre-twentieth Century Productions of The Tempest. http://www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/eng/lfletcher/tempest/papers/MKeiser.htm. online

 

 

 

Once again, I’m kicking myself for glancing at the Introduction section before reading the play. Really, Signet? You just had to go and throw out the Prospero/Shakespeare connection right away? How am I supposed to get through this without having all that in my mind now? (Anyone else feel like these “Introductions” would make a lot more sense after you’ve finished the play on your own? No? Just me? Ok.) Ah, well, maybe it isn’t all that bad – that little hint of meta offers up a few different avenues of interpretation, and the stormy dealings of The Tempest suggest a reading where Shakespeare’s throwing all his tropes and themes to the wind (wink wink) and starting from scratch. That is, to traverse one avenue, identity loses some of its importance. (I know this looks like a boring post but I’ll throw in some pretty pictures to make it more fun, I promise.)

The play starts with a King, a Duke, a Prince, and their lovely band of chums moments away from Sharknado 3. Identity and title matters here, and the fact that these characters lose the setting of a boat in favor of an island suggests a removal of class structure. Think about what happens to each of these characters when they’re no longer on the boat: Ferdinand is imprisoned, and Alonso is almost murdered by his brother. While that second one sounds almost normal in Shakespeare’s realm, consider this: usually when the brother of a King chooses to commit murder for the sake of power, they often complete the task. Even Prospero, the “right” Duke of Milan, finds little meaning and purpose in his title – in this island setting it means nothing to him or anyone else.

While it might have very little to do with this interpretation, in his retelling of the events leading up to his and Miranda’s being on the island, Prospero notes that the books he traveled with he “prize[s] above [his] dukedom,” (1.2.168). Stacks of written words have more presence than the powerful title of Duke? It all seems a bit off when you compare this play to the dynamics of some other Shakespearian plays like Richard III or Titus.

Then you have characters like Stephano and Caliban, two distinct individuals, yet alike in their relative lack of position. Stephano is nothing more than a (drunk) butler, and yet he becomes Caliban’s master in a matter of one scene. Why? Because Stephano got him drunk. Again, the roles of master and servant are thrown about here with very little to ground them in reality. Does this have something to do with the way magic is presented as a more realistic concept and not a staunch divide between fantasy and reality? I don’t want to give off the notion that I see this play as a commentary on class struggles, but Shakespeare’s obviously doing something different by basically taking a bunch of powerful people and making them duke it out on a deserted island. The real question, then, becomes, “Was Shakespeare the first Jeff Probst, and did CBS rip off this play for Survivor?”

One more point. Before Miranda learns the full story of her father, she says: “You have often / Begun to tell me what I am; but stopped / And left me to a bootless inquisition, /Concluding, ‘Stay; not yet,'” (1.2.33-6). She doesn’t say “who I am,” but “what I am.” Is this “what” in relation to her position in society, and if so, is title considered more important than simple personhood?

In Antony and Cleopatra, Shakespeare creates such a complex character. But while she is complex, she infuriates me! She is equal parts of power, sexuality, and love. It is really odd though because when it comes to Antony, she is super-bipolar, she does not really know how to carry herself. She claims to be conquered by him rather than be courted (3.16.60). She’s the queen of an rich, powerful and lavish empire, but when it comes to Antony, she becomes this little girl who is so enamored by a warrior and politician. I feel that it is so weird that someone so powerful like Cleopatra, who by the way is no where near young anymore, would be so immature when it comes to an amorous relationship. She swears this relationship is real in 1.5.63, but yet I’m not convinced she really thinks it is. She knows he has the capacity to be unfaithful (in fact he completely is) but yet she wants to be with him regardless. Like, I’m really upset.
I think it comes from being romantically involved at a young age.Or maybe it’s like a psychological thing that she has to act like this and Antony just follows suit to please her because the pursuit is so fun. Although, maybe the real reason I’m upset is because her lubby-dubby relationship with Antony sounds like the ones I’ve had with ex girlfriends that didn’t end well which, spoiler alert, also happened here.

Within these two acts, we see Antony’s mood fluctuate from self-loathing to confident to an angry madman and then back to loathing himself. He goes back to war with Cesar and after winning on land, he celebrates prematurely only to lose at sea. When this happens, he is filled with anger and believes that Cleopatra has betrayed him. Threatening to kill her, Cleopatra leaves and locks herself away. The moment she tells Mardian to send word to Antony that she has died, I had a feeling that this scheme of hers to reclaim his love was not going to go according to plan. This scene also reminded of Romeo and Juliet, where one pretends to die but in the end both lovers end up dead due to their plans going awry.

What I don’t understand is that if Antony loved Cleopatra so much, wouldn’t he run to see her upon hearing the news of her death? It’s this once simple act that could have changed the entire play. The ending I feel was also a little prolonged .. and I’m not sure where the countryman came from. It’ seems all too coincidental that he had a poisonous snake with him. In the end it seems that everyone who was loyal to Antony and Cleopatra ends up dead; but we also see Cesars “love/admiration” (?) for Antony in his soliloquy after hearing about his death BUT he stops in the middle of it to question the Egyptian which I find odd.

The main thing in Act 3 is the war between Caesar and Antony because of Antony’s decision to leave Rome and live in Egypt with Cleopatra. As we all know that in Act 2, Caesar and Antony become friends because Antony marries Octavia, Caesar’s sister, and this is how their enmity cools down for a moment. However, in Act 3, the situation is completely changed and both pillars end up fighting. I think this image represents the war scene in the play when Antony actually loses his everything and sends an ambassador to place a request on his behalf to live in Egypt, which is denied by Caesar. This act is mainly about the loss of Roman Empire and loss of honor and dignity for Antony, because he is defeated in the battle and lost his honor and respect since his proposal is denied.

For me, this play is the most difficult play to understand so far, because I am unable to think of Antony and Cleopatra as lovers. I am saying this because it is insane if they love each other then why Antony marries Octavia and Fulvia, his first wife. Also, Cleopatra is not really sincere to Antony as well. In a scene when the ambassador presents Antony’s proposal, he also conveys Cleopatra’s message that she is willing to submit him her everything including herself to Caesar (3.12.16-19). For me it is very disturbing. I did not like this play at all because there are several things in this play that I have trouble with. I don’t think so it is really a love story because they both have betrayed each other. Moreover, the war is the cause of Antony being unfaithful to Octavia, his wife and Rome, his native land. Then, I feel he deserves the loss of honor and empire because he is the one, who gives chance to Caesar to fight with him.

 

An interesting point I would like to make about the play is that one can make the argument that Iago’s manipulation of Othello is actually a seduction. Each well-calculated decision by Iago reflects many of the steps in the controversial book The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene. For example, Greene’s book stresses the following: Choosing the right victim, creating triangles, mastering the art of insinuation, using the demonic power of words to sow confusion, etc.

Most of these steps were used by Iago in the previous acts of the play that eventually lead to the several tragedies at the end of Act V. While seduction is traditionally used to obtain a lover, one can use it to have absolute power over an individual, much like the power Iago has. Iago effectively played his cards right and used Othello’s insecurities (age, moorish qualities, non-christian origin) to turn him into a jealous beast. His words were able to create little triangles in the play and allowed him to insinuate horrible ideas about Desdemona and Cassio into Othello’s mind so much so that he falls into a trance.

“My lord is fall’n into an epilepsy. This is his second fit; he had one yesterday.” (4.1.52-53)

Iago’s seduction of Othello (while terrible) can be seen as a work of art, a masterpiece of manipulation where each move was perfectly timed, a truly flawless victory. Simply by using the right words he gets Othello to not even believe Desdemona in Act IV without proof that she’s lying: “Are not you a strumpet” (4.2.81)

His power has Othello hanging on every word and acting on impulse, while altering his reality with simply his tongue.

Furthermore, Iago is successful as a mass seducer throughout the play, having fooled Roderigo into giving him all his money, Venetians like Lodovico, Casio, and Montano into believing he is “HONEST” Iago, perfectly analyzing each individual character and using them as pawn in his masterpiece.

Ironically, it is his own wife that reveals all of his wrongdoing at the end of the play, who sees through his shroud.

 

Iago the antagonist within the textcan beviewed in many ways as a “chess master”. His very calculated moves express how strategic he is in his ploy to bring down Othello. Iago devises this plan that is so complex to keep in motion it requires all those involved to play their part without being aware what their actions are leading to. Essentially in order to bring down Othello many of the other characters in the text serve as a pawn to Iago, the most unknowing pawn being Cassio. The most tactical move by far was Iago convincing Cassio to speak about his intimacy with Bianca. This was extremely tactical in that Othello, who is placed by Iago skillful to listen to the conversation, is convinced that Cassio is referring to Desdemona. Cassio says” I marry? What, a customer? Pg87 l121. These words put the figurative nail in Cassio’s coffin because Othello is convinced that Cassio is using his wife as a prostitute. As Othello is confronting Desdemona he says to her “he hath used thee.” Pg 166 l68-69. This is ironic in that Cassio and Othello were both used unknowingly. The remaining characters Roderigo, Desdemona, and Bianca were all also pawns put in motion to get Iago one step closer to power. His Judas like betrayal of others are expressive of how he was willing to do anything to meet his objective. The consequences of Iago behavior led to the murder of many of his pawns by the end of his game.

While we already know that Iago has an evil plan to destroy the Venetian Moorish general, Othello, it is interesting to see how he describes as his plan unfolds. “I have’t. It is engender’d. Hell and night Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.” (1.3.12) In a Puckish style rhyme, the lines are delivered in a musical and magical type of way, presenting the idea that Iago’s monstrous plan of deception may very well be something mystical, and superhuman.

Though he were wise enough to devise a plan to deceive Roderigo to come with him to provide him money, and to deceive Cassio to get drunk and cause him to get into a brawl and lose his position, it is interesting to note that this plan may not be something that he can control either once it is given birth. Like a child that he raised himself, it is interesting to see that it is this jealousy that he springs onto Othello that once was his own.

Iago : “I stand accountant for as great a sin,- / But partly led to diet my revenge, / For that I do suspect the lusty Moor [Othello] / Hath [has] leap’d into my seat; the thought whereof [of] / Doth [does] like a poisonous mineral gnaw my inwards [eat me up]; (Act2.1.305-309)

It seems he may have been jealous of Othello because he was suspecting that his own wife was cheating on him, and he would not stop until he had gotten “wife for wife” (2.1.286). Later on it seems that the monster of jealousy has already taken ahold of Othello, however it may be something that he knows all too well.

Iago: “Oh, beware, my lord, of jealousy!
It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.” (3.3.170-172)

The most playful deceptions arise from jealousy as seen from the story of Oberon and Titania in A Midsummer Night’s Dream or from Helena and Hermia when she feels deceived, and this is when the human frailties seem at its weakest. Iago’s understanding of how to use these dysfunctional relationships to his advantage is how he is able to get Roderigo to come along with him to Venice and to continue to give him money and help him with his plans.

What about Emilia, who speaks on jealousy as if she knows it well herself?

Emilia: “But jealous for they’re jealous. It is a monster
Begot upon itself, born on itself.(3.4.159-160)