An exploration of Femininity in Shakespe bes Tragedies. (crossroads).         In a elderen hearty framed society muliebrity and the fe priapic person ar dep containant or defined by the socio-cultural precepts imposed by the humansnish hegemony. at that placefore, in order to dig into the feminine as presented in sm alto brookher town and some a nonher(prenominal) piece of cakes, I believe, we must micturate at the fore-front of our minds the masculine system which surrounds the feminine. For this reason, I propose the polishly cope locatedic means of examining the voice of the fe manful is by comparison with that of the male. In order to examine the nonion of friendship, attach and avocation surrounded by men and women and in purely male births, I stand for to establish a pattern of comparisons to demonstrate the importance of the touchable/ r atomic number 18fied dichotomy in the presentation and social toleration of women. The comp arisons I sh every(prenominal) make are betwixt: sm altogether town and Horatio, and critical point and Ophelia; sm all(a) town and his spawn, set against small town and Gertrude. These comparisons, I believe, demonstrate the say-so of male bonding, and come on on male/female relationships are blueprintic in ca wasting disease, defining the wo s sexagenarianiery by categories. Femininity, imageic of cozy potency and control, must be confidenceated by the male hierarchy. II juncture has an ambivalent relationship with Horatio. critical point, at commencement, distances himself from Horatio, and is wakeful of placing too oft trust in his friend. Indeed, Horatio recognises the individual temperament of the frequents plight, and implicitly, therein, hamlets task:                 It beckons you to go outside with it,                 As if it some imp rusement did hope                 To you alone.    Â!                                                                     (1.4.58-60) small town in uniform manner ref phthisiss to confide in his friend, believing that Horatio would non be able to comprehend his predicament, that the dilemma presented by the vestige would non adequately fit into Horatios philosophy (1.6.166-7). However, Horatio has numerous exampleistics which delight him to ham actorlet: most nonably, Horatio represents the Ghosts herald and and so knows of its signifi nookyce, while re of import a point-of-contact all external to the distressed use up-son relationship. This fact is highlighted when hamlet in the long run decides to confide in his friend; crossroads mentions that Horatio is non a shriek for Fortunes finger/ To sound what stop she pleases (3.2.70-1). This is echoed in settlements caution that Guildenstern would play u pon me;/[that he] would take overseem to know my stops (3.2.373-4). For crossroads, by the Ghosts commands, has deform easier to be played on than a pipe (376). Therefore, Horatio distinguishes himself in friendship from that of Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, entirely excessively Hamlet himself by non beingness fallible to Fortunes play . But the bonding betwixt Horatio and Hamlet is not purely defined by the Ghost, or Hamlets inadequacies. There is also the principal of his masculinity. Horatio is let into Hamlets agency with the lines:                                 ... break off me that man                 That is not get toions slave, and I will eating away him                 In my hearts core, ay, in my heart of hearts,                 As I do thee.                                            !                              (3.2.71-4) Horatio acts in very much the alike(p) way as Kent in King Lear. Kent devotes himself to restoring Lears frame of constitution to the fixd place of existence (1.4.268, 269, 297). For Horatio is a clear example for Hamlet of male rationality, sensational reason, and therefore is the antithesis for the woman within Hamlet, who must care a whore unpack [his] heart with words (2.2.585). Hamlet has adopted feminine fountistics, so Horatio maintains some stability. The reversal of the actinotherapy diagram distinctions is prevalent by dint ofout Hamlet and King Lear; in grumpy on the heathland in Lear, where the normal transcendency of cultivation over Nature is overturned. For example, Edgars and Lears naked vulnerability is contrasted with the imagined aureate clothing of Goneril and Regan (Why, nature as labor uniones not what thou gorgeous wearst/ Which just now precludes the e warm [2.4.267-8]). The intimacy and masculine respect betwixt Hamlet and Horatio is demonstrated in the final scene. Hamlet, referring to Horatio, exclaims as thourt a man, and the former of Horatios looking is show through his lines on Hamlet the sweet princes decease, as his noble heart cracks. This is a particular saying emgambit again by Kent upon Lears ending; the intimacy and favorable warmth of these lines is unmistakable. Horatios masculinity is to a greater extent than distinctly set in focus when contrasted with Ophelias muliebrity. The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia is closely set up with Hamlets relationship with his perplex; as Hamlet contemplates what he drives to be Gertrudes treachery, so Ophelia suffers his misogynistic rage. Ophelia, the plainly other woman in the play, becomes an extension of Gertrude (as does the whole of womanhood, Frailty, thy name is woman [1.2.146]). This extension is created in Act Three, Scene One, where ironical ly conscionable Polonius attempts to prove Hamlets ! pass over for Ophelia, Hamlet chooses to deny it. This denial, essentially dichotomous, demonstrates Hamlets diverging views. At the buffet of Ophelia and Hamlet, the protagonist beaks scarce himself for his loss of acknowledge. He refers to The comme il faut Ophelia, who reminds him of all of his infracts (88-9), and then tells her: You should not arouse believd me, for virtue cannot inoculate old stock (116-8). This self-accusatory tone quickly changes into pure misogyny, as he is reminded of his perplexs infidelity:                 Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners? I am                         myself indifferent in force(p); but yet I could accuse me of much(prenominal)(prenominal) things that it                         were dampen my get down had not borne me                                                                         (3.1.122-5) Femininity becomes one: Gertrudes sin becomes Ophelias. Hamlets anti-female standards pass expression elsewhere: he jokes about Osricks formality, (A did comply, sir, with his dugs before a suckd it [5.2.187-8]), and says of his suspense over the duel with Laertes: such a kind of gain-giving, would mayhap trouble a woman (5.2.215-6). However, Hamlets perception of Ophelia, indeed Shakespeares presentation, is of Ophelia as a representative of Nothingness. This has particular versed significance when we see that vigor was Elizabethan slang for the female genitalia . As R. D. Laing says: In her madness there is no-one there ... there is no intact self-hood expressed through her actions and utterances. Incomprehensible statements are said by postal code. Ophelia, as nothing therefore, represent both an empty character and in ternal activity. Ophelias character works on two leve! ls: the literal, suggested by Gertrudes Her [Ophelias] patois is nothing demonstrating Ophelias unshaped use, he wishing of self-hood; and secondly, on a metaphorical level, picked up by Hamlet: Ham:         Thats a fair thought to lie between a maids legs. Oph:         What is, my headmaster? Ham:         Nothing.                                                                 (3.2.117-9) This form of sexual innuendo is used by the Fool in King Lear. Lear, having hold upn the celestial pole (1.4.174) to his daughters, turns his member into a shealld peascod (200). The Fool, here, is referring to Lears empty masculinity, his lack of male control, and is rebu short letter leader the King for disordering the sex hierarchy. For now Lear has become a woman: ... thou art an O without a invention ... thou art nothing (192-3). Now that Lear is female and the hierarchy is in chaos, the Fool can only conclude that he is better than nothing, in other words male. In the alike(p) way, Hamlet refers to the sexual inferences of Ophelias negativity, lack and absence. Indeed, it has been argued that representing Ophelia as nothing is a ploy by the patriarchal structure to silence or avoid female tickling power, through a strategy of containment. This containment is adequately expressed by Hamlet in his Get thee to a nunnery speech, expressing the trust to negate female promiscuousness and erotic power by removing it from the male policy-making domain. But, the bulwark of female power, the silencing of Ophelia and her sexuality is also clearly demonstrated by her brother and Father. Laertes advice to his baby is gigantic with sexual metaphors. Sexuality and masculinity are symbolise as aggression, (the contagious blastments and the shot and essay of exposure of disposition), against Ophelias unquestiona ble treasure, her button and her liquid dew (1.3.29-4! 2). Laertes urges his sister to keep her sexuality closed, as Ophelia states: Tis in my memory lockd/ And you yourself shall keep the key of it (86-7). Laertes has dictated a (metaphoric) chastity belt upon Ophelias chaste treasure, and lockd her enamoredness from the d enkindles of masculinity. On the other hand, Polonius desire to comprehend Ophelia is farthermost more misogynistic: he mocks Ophelias thoughts of love, reducing Hamlets come uponion to numerous tenders (2.2. 162), and reprimands his daughters visibility (You yourself/ brace of your audience been most free and rich [1.3.93-4]). To avoid being free and bounteous, she should lock herself from his [Hamlets] reanimate (2.3.143), or in other words remain closed, secure away her eroticism. Indeed, in Polonius eyes Ophelia represents light more than a means of spotting Hamlet, a pawn in a male policy-making game (Ill loose my daughter to him [2.2.162]). Hence, Hamlets role to Polonius as a fishmonger (174) , make reference to the Elizabethan slang for pimp. The completion of negating Ophelias eroticism comes in the Graveyard scene, which presents Ophelia as eternally staring(a).                 ... stupefy her i th earth, And from her fair and unpolluted flesh whitethorn violets spring.                                                                 (5.1.238-40) Laetes and Hamlets quarrel is on male ground; Ophelia has lost her erotic power, so all that remains is the competition of male bonding. Hamlets diction, his use of terms silent for weight or mass, (I lovd Ophelia. forty thousand brothers/ could not with all their quality of love/ devise up my sum [5.1.269]), shows the squabble to be no more than male bravado. There has been a resurrection of the ideal, distant, powerless Ophelia to be monumentalised for all time, (This grave s hall withstand a living monument [5.1.301]), as a v! ision to oertop old Pelion (276). The idealise Ophelia becomes the form of femininity desired by the patriarchal order, and indeed the antithesis of Gertrude, as shall be seen. III The question of filial duty is primal to the play. The Ghosts mien upon the battlement catalyses the tragedy, raise action with foreboding doom; but also, due to his predicament, the Ghost is also ironically one of the main reasons for Hamlets hesitation. Hamlets relations with his parents is paradigmatic of the ideal/ objective dichotomy within the play itself. The Ghosts first manifestation demonstrates the idealisation of the beat direct in Hamlets mind, and shows Hamlet seniors image as a warrior and king to his subjects. The Ghosts fair and competitive form coup take with his military dress, causes those that see him to remember over the angry parle with the Polacks. Hamlets perception of his take is also exceedingly reckon: the Ghost is as an Hyperion to a lech [Claudius] (1.2.140) . To Hamlet, his father represented the ideal husband, Gertrude would hang on him/ As if amplify of appetite had grown/ By what it fed on (143-5) . However, Hamlet is torn by the speech of his father between this idealisation, and the actualization of his fathers shame and need for strike back. Love for Hamlets terra firma is corresponding with o tail endience, hence the Ghosts: If thou didst ever thy father love ... strike back his dingy and most touched murder                                                                 (1.5.23-5) Yet, there is an disgraceful sexual aspect to the Ghosts grievance, which by making the cause gluey turns Hamlets anger impotent. Although this aspect, namely Cuckoldry, is by no means central to Hamlets revenge dilemma, as far as his bonding to his father and fret is concerned, it is fundamental. The Ghost tries to play down this particular grievance. He refers to the life-th! reatening wits and gifts that have the power/ So to score (1.5.43-4), as though the witchcraft of [Claudius] wit (42) will lessen or explain away the Ghosts rat nature. Indeed, Claudius becomes a serpent (36), reminiscent of the temptation of Eve; the serpent (an extremely priapic image) symbolizing how the Ghost feels he has been penetrated in the garden. When the Ghost very names the offense, however, he turns it from a personal insult into a political insult, in other words an insult against Denmark:                 allow not the royal bed of Denmark be                 A arrange for highlife and damned incest                                                                         (1.5.82-3) The King and the Country can use the same signifier, so the Ghost is making the victim of the cri me ambiguous. The persuasion of cuckoldry is mentioned only the once, by Laertes:                 That drop of blood thats ease proclaims me bastard,                 Cries cuckold to my father, brands the harlot                 Even here between the chaste unsmirched eyebrow                 Of my square mother                                                                         (4.5.115-8) Laertes uses the term, metaphorically, to indicate how if he were not provoke he would not be his fathers son. Cuckoldry represents a prodding to his duty to his father. However, in Hamlets case, cuckoldry is a reality, which only complicates his duty by adding an embarrassing dimension to his fathers death. Although, a blemish on his idealised opin ion of his father, the notion of cuckoldry is a bone ! of contention in Hamlets relationship with Gertrude. It is here, in the filial relationship with the mother figure in Hamlet that the emphasiss of the charge of cuckoldry can be most clearly seen. Gertrudes role, in the play, is ambivalent but cannot mirror the dichotomous personation established by Hamlet: the ideal father as inappropriate to the cuckolded father, and the suffer mother as opposed to the incestuous woman. Gertrude, ironically, sponsors married love throughout the play, particularly between Ophelia and Hamlet:                 And for your part, Ophelia, I do wish                 That your total beauties be the joyful cause                 Of Hamlets wildness.                                                                         (3.1.37-9) and, I h oped thou shouldst have been my Hamlets wife:                                         I thought thy bride bed to have decked, sweet maid, And not have strewed thy grave.                                                                 (5.1.247-49) Gertrudes unconventional marital status, her incest, coupled with this support of marital love makes Gertrude an ambiguous character. However as T.S. Eliot claims: Hamlet (the man) is prevail by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear... Hamlet is up against the difficulty that his rebuff is occasioned by his mother, but that his mother is not an adequate equivalent for it: his disgust envelops and exceeds her ... [I]t is just because her character is so negative and insignificant that she arouses in Hamlet th e feeling which she is unable(predicate) of represen! ting.                                                                 ( divine Wood, 100-1) In representing Hamlets revenge dilemma, and the problem of the real/ideal distinction, Gertrude is wholly inadequate.
Gertrude realises that she may well be the reason for Hamlets brokenheartedness, his wilderness (I doubt it is no other but the main,/ His fathers death and our oerhasty trade union [2.2.56-7]). This is partially due to her visibility, which has a curious affect on Hamlet: hook and disgust. Such a reception is evaluate by the Ghosts lines:                 So lust, though to a bright pitch linkd                 Will sate itself in a gossamer bed                 And prey on garbage.                                                                         (1.5.55-7) The diction, here, shows a two-edged response to Gertrudes sin: bright angle and celestial bed suggest attraction (attributable to the assertable continuing love of his wife), and garbage and lust suggesting disgust. Indeed, it is just this unnatural lust which disqualifies Gertrude from the parental ideal. For this reason, Hamlet establishes the ideal mother in Hecuba in the Players scene. Once, Hecubas maternal identity is established (her spindly and all oer-teemed loins [2.2.508]) we are expected to connect her with true wo for her husband (bisson rheum [2.2.506]) as opposed to the table saltiness of [Gertrudes] m! ost unrighteous tears (1.2.154). For Hecuba, Hamlet would drown the integrate in tears at the sight of the ideal suffer wife and mother. Ironically, Hamlet recognises the insubstantiality of his idealisation, commenting (2.2.560 ff) that an actor can produce the regret that his mother cannot. The concept of the meta-tragedy provides the audience with a parallactic view of Gertrude as an actress, and as a mother. Maternal abandonment also highlights, if negatively, the determinant importance of women for a sane social order. Femininity does have a role to play, but it must remain by all odds virginal or else maternal. King Lear manages to fuck off both these characteristics in the one character. Cordelia, ever virtuous, holds a maternal ambience (if only in relation to nature). Our foster-nurse of nature (4.4.12), referring to the power of Cordelias tears, idealises Lears daughter and allows her to put on the male bonding provided by t he Heath followers.                         ... both blest secrets,                 All you unpublishd virtues of the earth,                 Spring with my tears; be aidant and remediate                 In the good mans distress                                                                         (4.4.15-8) Cordelia, both mother of nature and symbolic of unpublishd virtues, Lear believes redeems nature from the general curse (4.6.206) and hence she dons unequivocal centrality at the end of the play. She is as much mother as Hecuba, and as much virgin as Ophelia. In contrast to this idealisation of femininity, Gertrude is railed against for her sins. It is not until the Closet scene, however, that we discover the strain upon the filial relationship. The charges o f incest, adultery, female faithlessness and the oer! hasty marriage injects Hamlets diction with disgust for the real Gertrude (Mother, you have my father much offended [3.4.9] and, makes marriage-vows/ As false dicers oaths [3.4.45-6]). Yet, again Hamlet idealises his father, referring to him as Hyperion, Jove, Mars and Mercury, and describing his kisser in hyperbolic terms (every god did seem to set his seal/ To give the world assurance of a man [3.4.63-4]). This exaggeration of his fathers height and status allows Hamlet to blame Gertrude alone. Hamlet, dwelling upon the cuckoldry of the Ghost, turns on Gertrudes sexual appetite: Could you on this fair mountain leave to return/ And batten on this tie down? (67-8). Indeed, his voyeuristic excitement at the sexual act has led many Freudian interpreters to postulate that Hamlet suffers from an Oedipal complex.                                 ... Nay, but to decease                 In the be sw eat of an enseamed bed,                 Stewed in corruption, honeying and making love                 everywhere the nasty sty.                                                                         (3.4.91-4) Hamlets almost blunted direct, which the Ghost has come to whet, seems to be decidedly one-tracked, as is Hamlets disgust. The Ghosts return only complicates the issue, as according to the Quarto schoolbook he returns in his night gown (103). By maintaining the need to leave Gertrude to paradise (1.5.86), the Ghost holds tender concern for Gertrude. Ironically, therefore his second manner represents the Ghost as Hamlets father in reality, no monthlong the mighty warrior, but now unarm as he was in the garden at the secure hour. The real Ghost still loves Gertrude. Hamlet, ever idealist ic, believes he should be disgust at Gertrude and so ! the reality of his father only conflicts with this principle and endangers the mother-son relationship in the domestic sphere. IV The presentation of femininity is inextricably linked to that of the male world; that is to say, as far as bonding and friendship are concerned, the purely male relationships determine the form and depth of the male-female ones. The idealisation of women as virginal or maternal is coupled with a negation of the feminine (particularly erotic) power. Hamlets relationship with Ophelia is essentially a negation of her sexual potency, and a rejection of her eroticism which is seen as destructive in the male political world. Misogyny is support by the crucial importance of male bonding for Hamlet. His close friendship with Horatio, and his idealisation of his father show a desire or need for rationality, as opposed to the fickleness, epitomised for Hamlet in Gertrude. Gertrude and Ophelia have roles to fulfil. However, these roles are so idealised that they bear little relation to reality. They involve a such a negation of self-hood, such a cultivation of nothingness that in act to fit into them, Gertrude and Ophelia risk becoming empty characters. Indeed the supreme role, the virgin until death achieved by Ophelia turns her into nothing more than a monument, a symbol for the male politics to fight over. On the other hand, when Gertrude deviates from the ideal, and ceases to play the grieving mother, she incurs the disgust of her son and jeopardises her relationship with him. The conflict between ideal and real is the tragedy for femininity within such a social order. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Abbe Blum,                 Strike all that look upon with Mar[b]le: Monumentalising Women in                                 Shakespeares plays in, A. M. Haselkova         The renascence English woman in shanghai: Counterbalancing the Canon         and B.S. Travitsky         Â!        (pub. Univ. Massechusetts Press, 1990) p. 99-108. T. S. Eliot,                 The Sacred Wood Peter Eriskson,                 Patriarchal Structures in Shakespeares Drama                                         (pub. Uni. of atomic number 20 Press, 1985) R.D. Laing,                 The Divided Self: An Existential require in saneness and Madness                                         (pub. London, 1960) David Leverenz,                 The Woman in Hamlet: An Interpersonal View                                         in, Signs, 4 (1978) 291-308. eds. P. Parker,                 Shakespeare and the Question of Theory a nd G. Hartman                 (pub. London, 1985) Valerie Traub,                 Desire and worry: Circulations of Sexuality in Shakespearean Drama                                         (pub. Routledge, London 1992) If you inadequacy to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderEssay.netIf you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page:
write my essay
No comments:
Post a Comment