Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Juliet Dusinberre
Second Edition
~
Palgrave Macmillan
SHAKESPEARE AND THE NATURE OF WOMEN
Copyright © 1975, 1996 by Juliet Dusinberre
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced
in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the
case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.
For information, address:
Acknowledgemcl1 ts ix
INTRODUCTION 1
1 THE IDEA OF CHASTITY 20
1 The Puritans and the Playwrights 20
2 Chastity as Mystique 30
3 Virginity and Virtue 40
4 The Double Standard 51
5 Chastity and Art 63
SHAKESPEARE 30:-
Illdex 319
Acknowledgements
the way it reads and writes. But the options open to them are
now wider because in the last twenty-five years that dominant
critical mode has been consistently challenged. 2
Shakespeare and the Nature of ~men participated in a battle
about ownership. 3 Who determines the questions we ask and the
answers we give? Who owns the literary text? Who owns the
authoritative critical voice? Who owns the past? When I began in
1965 the work on women in Jacobean drama which subsequently
became Shakespeare and the Nature of ~men, there seemed no
way to articulate these questions. 4 At the end of 'The Leaning
Tower', an essay which Virginia Woolf published in 1940 just
months before her suicide, she wrote: 'Literature is no one's
private ground; literature is common ground. . . . Let us trespass
freely and fearlessly and find our own way for ourselves.'s The
injunction is written from the urgency of its own particular
moment when Woolf felt that war would destroy writing and
reading, but it speaks, as so much of her writing does, to that
sense of exclusion shared by all first-generation feminist scholars.
Keep off the grass (or at least only walk on it in respectable
company). Literature doesn't belong to you. It didn't belong to us
because we seemed to have no way of asking our own questions
about it.
When I wrote Shakespeare and the Nature of U0men I hoped to
prise open the Shakespearean text and make it accessible to
investigations about women's place in culture, history, religion,
society, the family. I wanted to ask those questions from my own
particular perspective, not from the impersonal one which I had
been trained to adopt. My Shakespeare, not someone else's.
Critics now accept that there is no single authoritative and
authentic way of reading Shakespeare. The idea of plural
Shakespeares gives the reader - for serious Shakespeare
scholarship took place twenty years ago in the study not in the
theatre - a new power over the text, the words that he or she
reads. (In the 1970s women were always subsumed into 'he'; the
male pronoun was common ground. Stop laughing in the back
row.) Shakespeare then, as now, had the status of the Bible in
Preface to tlte Second Edition xiii
demonstrating that they play parts which have been learnt, rather
than determined by innate characteristics.
Implicit· in my suggestion that both Benedick and Rosalind
offer a critique of their own discourse is the critical question of
the unified self.31 I do not believe that all we hear in the plays of
Shakespeare and his contemporaries - and the book places
Shakespeare deliberately within a company of dramatists - are
different discourses skilfully arranged. We hear that in some of
the plays of his contemporaries - The Miseries of Enforced Marriage,
perhaps - but in surprisingly few, and never all the time.
Foucault's theory of the individual as the site on which
competing discourses play suggests that we are none of us free to
do anything except unwittingly bear witness to that condition.
But the study of literature, as of history, demonstrates that we can
all create new discourses. Whether the consciousness which
makes that possible, which decrees a capacity for independence
from inherited culture, is rightly described as a 'self' I would
hesitate to proclaim, preferring the model of continually
dissolving and reconstituting selves presented in those texts of
which Shakespeare himself shows cognisance, the Essais ('trials')
of Michel de Montaigne. But discourses can be resisted even
within a predominantly patriarchal world, as Ann More
demonstrated when she defied the marriage arrangements of her
society in secretly marrying John Donne, just four years after they
might both have witnessed in the theatre a comparable defiance
in Shakespeare's Juliet. If those acts of resistance carried in their
wake various disasters they nevertheless had the capacity to
threaten the stability of the worlds in which they were
perpetrated.
Allied to the problems surrounding the concept of the
autonomous 'self' are the difficulties of discussing the author's
intentions. I wouldn't now use the language of authorial
intention; if I had to choose the most important essay written for
modern criticism it would still be Roland Barthes' 'The Death of
the Author' (English translation 1977). But recent challenges to
Barthes's argument - with which I concur - have gone a long
way towards reinstating a concept of authorial intention. 32
Preface to the Second Edition XX111
activity is now more confident, easier with itself, less angry and
more cooperative than it was for any of us in the first decade of
its existence. The early days witnessed on occasion the spectacle
of women fighting each other for rights to a new territory, and
exhibiting the well-known phenomenon (which I describe in the
book in relation to the women in Shakespeare's histories)53 of the
oppressed turning on each other rather than on their oppressors.
The rather daunting and distancing rhetoric of sisterhood has
been replaced by a rich network of support and of collaborative
work. 54 When I look back twenty years one of the most
important changes has been the one prophesied by Virginia
Woolf when she said that if Chloe liked Olivia (with whom she
shared a laboratory) the novelist would 'light a torch in that vast
chamber where nobody has yet been.'55 I believe that most
women are more comfortable and more capable of working well
in the present atmosphere than in the more aggressive one of
earlier days, despite the overwhehning excitement of those times,
lit by a pioneering spirit which is perhaps, inevitably, not quite so
bright now as it used to be. The whole enterprise is now
established so solidly that an era of outstanding work is only just
beginning. There is no danger of feminist work being subsumed
in gender studies, to the exclusion of women's interaction with
the literary world from their own position in culture. 56
Feminism's political agenda operates on a broad base which is
inclusive rather than exclusive, involving many different kinds of
study rather than being focused on a single objective. 57
The question of women's celebration of difference would now
modify the terms in which I tried in Shakespeare and the Nature oj
J.t&men to understand confrontations of the 'masculine' and the
'feminine' within the plays, and to argue for a category of
'humanity' which exposed the dangerous and corrupting
artificiality of those gender divisions. Twenty years on, I am not,
alas, quite so sold on 'humanity'. My arguments were good
Emily Davies and Girton College stuff-women the same as, and
equal to, men. But feminism has moved on from that bargaining
base. For me, as for Davies, that position was a bargaining base. I
wanted my book to be read, and considered, not cast aside as the
Preface to the Second Edition XXXI
of all men. Don't tell me that that word means women too.
Because it never has.
Many battles are still to be fought in all these arenas: for voice,
choice, and the pursuit of happiness. The next battle I want to
see waged is about how to write. 69 I wanted both in Shakespeare
and the Nature of J%men and in Alice to the Lighthouse: Children's
Books and Radical Experiments in Art (1987), to write for a
readership outside the academy as well as within it. I always
wrote Shakespeare and the Nature of J%men with a reader in my
head, almost always a particular reader. One was the
Shakespearean scholar, the late H. V. D. Dyson, Fellow of
Merton College, Oxford. He had a special way of criticising
pretension. He used to call out, when one was in mid-sentence,
'0 my eye!' and if there is rather less 'my eye' in this book than
there might have been, it is because Dyson sat in my head while I
was writing it. The second reader was George Hunter,
Foundation Professor of English at the University of Warwick,
whom I always heard saying, in satirical Scots tones: 'Some might
say so.' The other two readers were my uncle and my late aunt,
whom I could hear quietly protesting: 'Didn't understand a word
of it.' The rather limpid text which emerges was gobbled up by
many readers, as I intended that it should be, but it took some
time for the academy to take it seriously.
Women must stand out for their own way of writing and be
willing to maintain that that way is different from the way men
write, and that men will have to accept it, along with the
writings of men who want to write in alternative modes.
Feminist scholarship is now a recognised and completely
respectable academic discipline. But the whole apparatus of how
work is valued is still vested overwhelmingly in the almost
entirely male establishment of the media, journal and newspaper
editors, even the universities themselves. The way I write, the
way I construct an argument, the tone of voice I adopt which if
often light-hearted when I intend seriousness (yes, I do intend
things when I write), that way of writing is itself a political
statement, and always has been. I don't believe that the mode of
writing at present preferred in the academy, which has its origins
xxxvi Preface to tile Second Edition
Juliet Dusinberre
Cambridge
Preface to the Second Edition xxxvii
Notes
Sean Burke, The Death and Return 1" the Author (Edinburgh, 1992);
Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation; Juliet Dusinberre, 'Much
Ado About Lying: the Dialogue with Harington's Orlando Furioso',
in The Italian World 1" English Renaissance Drama: Cultural Exchange
and Intertextuality (forthcoming 1997).
33. Richard Helgerson, Self-Crowned lAureates (Berkeley, Los Angeles
and London, 1983), p. 10.
34. Lisa Jardine, Still Harping on Daughters: Women and Drama in the Age
of Shakespeare (Sussex, 1983), p. 72, argues that the 'obsessive
insistence' of the brothers on the Duchess's lust represents authorial
intention; 'That male interpretation of female action must colour
the audience's own response: only men surround the Duchess; the
audience can do little more than accept their version of her
behaviour and motives' (p.72).
35. Barbara Freedman, Staging the Gaze (Ithaca, 1991); Kent
Cartwright, Shakespearean Tragedy and Its Double: The Rhythms 1"
Audience Response (Pennsylvania, 1991); Katherine Eisaman Maus,
'Horns of Dilemma: Jealousy, Gender and Spectatorship in English
Renaissance Drama', EUl, 54 (1987): 561-83.
36. Oympna Callaghan, 'Buzz Goodbody: Directing for Change', in
Marsden (ed.), The Appropriation of Shakespeare, pp. 163-81;
Lorraine Helms, 'Acts of Resistance: The Feminist Player', in
Dympna C. Callaghan, Lorraine Helms and Jyotsina Singh, The
WeYlllard Sisters (Oxford, 1994), pp. 102-56.
37. See Ann Thompson (ed.), The Taming of the Shrew (Cambridge,
1984) for a full account of the feminist critical debate on The
Taming 1" the Shrew, H. R. Coursen, Shakespearean Perfonnance as
Interpretation (Delaware, 1992), pp. 49-73; Lynda Boose, 'Scolding
Brides and Bridling Scolds: Taming the Woman's Unruly Member',
Shakespeare Quarterly, 42 (1991): 179-213; Graham Holderness,
The Taming of the Shrew: Shakespeare in Performance (Manchester,
1989).
38. Bruce R. Smith, Homosexual Desire in Renaissance England (Chicago,
1991); Eve KosofSky Sedgwick, Betllleen Men: English literature and
Male H01ll0social Desire (1985); for further analysis of this distinction
see Alan Bray, 'Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in
Elizabethan England', History Workshop, 29 (Spring, 1990): 1-19;
Joseph A. Porter, Shakespeare~ Mercutio (Chapel Hill, 1988); Valerie
Traub, Desire and Anxiety (1992); see also Adrienne Rich,
Preface to tile Second Edition xliii