In many ways it could also be asserted that Juliet dominates, to a certain extent, Romeo, again challenging the ‘traditional view of Juliet as Romeo’s passive beloved by arguing that her languages and actions contain a deeper level of meaning’. In Renaissance society a woman was required to take their husbands name yet Juliet asks Romeo to make this sacrifice required of a women when she asks him to ‘deny thy father and refuse thy name’. She is asking him to separate himself from his father, and base his identity as her husband. Therefore meaning that their marriage was based on equality in an orthodox society which ‘commands wives to ‘obey your own husband’, ‘cease from commanding and perform subjection’’. It seems in many ways Juliet is attracted to Romeo because he is controllable. This can be identified when Juliet uses the metaphor of a bird to describe Romeo, ‘and yet no farther than a wanton’s bird, that lets it hop a little from his hand’ (2.2.177). She appears to view Romeo as a possession and ‘reverses orthodox patriarchal relations by imagining herself in control of a man’s movements’. Therefore, Juliet has moved away from being a submissive female and become the controller.
In many ways, Romeo is also alienated from the gender role assigned to him by appearing to lack many male qualities. In act 1 scene 1 Romeo is missing from the brawl between the Capulet’s and Montague’s which is based on masculine honour; ‘is the law on our side if I say ‘Ay’ before insulting the Montague’s’ (1.1.42). In stark contrast to the physical bravado the scene also introduces us to whimsical Romeo, who is lovesick over a girl called Rosaline. Romeo’s absence from the opening brawl runs parallel with his general detachment from the traditional masculine identity that men recognise in each other. ‘It is not achieved in isolation. A solitary man is either a beast or an angel’. Romeo seems to be ridiculed by his peers suggesting that they find his isolation from masculine tendencies amusing rather than threatening. Robert Appelbaum envisions the family rivalries as a violent and masculine assertion of the patriarchal symbolic order to which Romeo offers an alternative; ‘this argument see’s Romeo as having two obvious choices; he can make war on behalf of the father or make love, in effect, on behalf of himself’. It seems from the onset that Romeo has chosen to do the latter. Romeo’s opposition to the gender stereotype in society is magnified further by his refusal to participate in Mercutio’s misogynist jokes in scene 1 act 4, ‘Prick love for pricking, and you beat love down’ (1.4.27). This reference links sexual intercourse with stabbing, revealing how sex and aggression were linked to many men in Renaissance society. However, in contrast, Romeo appears to connect sex with love and romance, ‘That fair for which love groaned for and would die/ with tender Juliet is now not fair’ (1.5.44). Romeo’s diversion from what was traditionally thought to encompass masculine ideals seems to show that ‘early modern men do testify to a central essence in personhood, to something that they feel makes them unique. They call that something ‘soul’.’ Perhaps reflecting Shakespeare’s desire to steer away from traditional gender stereotypes and reveal a diverse group of characters instead.
Likewise, the character of Cleopatra in ‘Antony and Cleopatra’ embodies many traits proclaimed to be shameful in question with ‘the idea of gender since the representation of gender is bound up with the cultures ambivalence about sex, that powerful and unpredictable force’. It is clear from the beginning that the main protagonists reverse the preconceived gender roles when Antony immediately surrenders the power in the relationship to Cleopatra: ‘Upon her landing Antony sent to her invited her to supper. She replied it would be better her became her guest’ ( 2.2.225). In a Roman society based upon male honour Antony’s reluctance to try and put Cleopatra in her place enraged fellow Roman’s who thought that ‘even the most manly of men was susceptible to becoming a woman’. Therefore Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra, where much of the power was equal meant, in the Romans eyes, he was compromising his own masculinity. Cleopatra’s sexuality is also revealed to be a threat to the Romans. Cleopatra’s unashamed sexuality throughout the play is in opposition to the idea of shame which is a gendered concept; ‘Other women cloy The appetites they feed, but she makes hungry where most she satisfies’ (2.2.240). Cleopatra’s sexuality is linked with her power which is a source of distress for the Romans who constantly refer to her as a whore or enchantress. This reveals, within the gender politics of the play, how power can frame gender identities and the consequences when the balance is tipped in favour of the woman. Cleopatra’s aggressive sexuality and power is in contrary to the traditional passive Renaissance woman, and seems to transcend gender ideals. There is an indication that Cleopatra does embody many female tendencies when she states ‘my resolution’s placed, and I have nothing of woman in: now from head to foot I am marble –constant: how the fleeting moon no planet of mine’ (5.2.238-41). She seems frustrated by her own feminine wiles and desires to surpass her qualities which define her as a female.
However the character of Cleopatra’s may have more to do with ‘deeply embedded racial assumptions and expectations’, than an exploration of the sexuality of women in general. Geraldo de Sousa argues that ‘cross –cultural encounters in the play lead to an intermingling and exchange of identities and gender roles that dissolve the accepted dichotomies’. He explores the notion that Shakespeare did not differentiate just the male and female characters, but envisioned a divide between Rome and Egypt, hence viewing Cleopatra as an ‘other’. Therefore the notorious openness in the text serves as a barometer of society’s attitudes toward sex and gender.
Throughout the text of Antony and Cleopatra strong emphasis is placed on the Roman ethos of being upholders of masculine ideals: ‘identifying Roman values with the masculine ethos, valorizing power, hierarchy, ownership, war and rivalry’. As Antony was once a great soldier who won his position as one of the three leaders of the world he seems to be a symbol of heroism to many of the Romans meaning the concern surrounding his relationship with Cleopatra is only magnified. As Janet Alderman notes “Antony himself is the primary absent object of desire for all the major characters” connecting his absence with “the relocation and reconstruction of heroic masculinity”. Antony seems to encompass the established behaviours of a military leader and appears distressed himself at the prospect of losing his honour when he states ‘If I lose my honour/ I lose everything’ (3.4.22). The idea of honour is directly linked with masculinity; this can be seen in Philo’s past description of Antony as Mars who had dedicated himself entirely to ‘the scuffles of great fights’ and Philo’s present impression of Antony as Cleopatra’s slave. Mars has long been thought to be the god of war therefore now Antony has exchanged war for passion he has lost his sense of honour. With the word honour being ‘in connection with men having to do with social rank’ he has also lost his place in Roman society. Antony and Cleopatra seems to be a text concerning the clash between masculinity and femininity, with Rome incorporating all ‘masculine ethos, power, hierarchy, ownership, war and rivalry’ and Egypt embodying ‘values with the feminine principle’. As Antony was a military hero who abandoned his reason in order to pursue passion, ‘let Rome in Tiber melt and the wide arch of the ranged empire fall’ (1.1.35) it appears that with Antony’s death passion triumphs over strict military order and the power is left with Egypt and its femininity. However the final scene Ceaser takes charge and orders that Antony be buried alongside Cleopatra, causing Antony to become a figure of pity within the Romans, hence perhaps the power is now left with the stoic Romans.
In Antony and Cleopatra the blame of a soldier’s downfall is often laid with the woman. Woman are therefore saddled with both the responsibility for men’s political alliances and the blame for their personal failures, this is clear when Ceaser and Antony expect Octavia to ‘Knit their hearts with an unslipping knot’ (2.2.132). Although Cleopatra refuses to conform to the masculine stereotype of how a woman should behave in both texts there are female characters to encompass these characteristics. The character of Lady Capulet represents the traditional passive female and abides by her husbands authority. Despite having more power as a mother than wife Lady Capulet responds to Juliet’s pleas with an impassive; ‘Do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee’ (3.5.203). Revealing her reluctance to rebel against any male hierarchy. Likewise the character of Octavia embodies the traditional passive female. However in both texts the main protagonists seem to transcend the traditional gender roles revealing that the plays are more based on the individual rather than gender politics.
William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Sasha Roberts
William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Sasha Roberts
http://uk.jstor.org, Gender at the base of world history, Sarah Huges
William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Sasha Roberts
, the taming of Romeo, Carolyn Brown
, the taming of Romeo, Carolyn Brown
, the taming of Romeo, Carolyn Brown
William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Sasha Roberts
William Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, Sasha Roberts
Shakespeare and Masculinity: Bruce R. Smith, Oxford University press, 2000
, the pressures of masculinity in romeo and Juliet, Robert Applebaum
Shakespeare and Masculinity: Bruce R. Smith, Oxford University press, 2000
Shakespeare’s unruly women, Penny Gay, Routledge, 1994
Shakespeare and Masculinity: Bruce R. Smith, Oxford University press, 2000
Shakespeare and race: Catherine Alexander, Stanley Wells, Cambridge press, 2000
Antony and Cleopatra: New critical essays, Sara Munson Deats, Routledge, 20005
Antony and Cleopatra: New critical essays, Sara Munson Deats, Routledge, 20005
, Man of steel done got the blues: Melancholic subversion of presence in Antony and Cleopatra, Cynthia Marshall
Shakespeare and Masculinity: Bruce R. Smith, Oxford University press, 2000
Antony and Cleopatra: New critical essays, Sara Munson Deats, Routledge, 20005