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?