Is Shakespeare's portrayal of a patriarchal Veronaironic and subversive, or is the play an endorsement of male power?

Authors Avatar

Is Shakespeare’s portrayal of a patriarchal Verona ironic and subversive, or is the play an endorsement of male power?

In order for me to answer the essay question the definition of patriarchy must first of all be established. The Oxford English dictionary describes patriarchy as ‘a system of society or government ruled by men’, suggesting that a patriarchal society is a society in which men completely dominate everything, such as political life and domestic life. Feminist critic Sasha Roberts supports this meaning as she defines patriarchy as ‘a society dominated by men’.

During the Elizabethan period, brawls and feuds were part of peoples’ daily routine. Joan Homler views the constant quarrelling as ‘a daily reality for the Elizabethans’. In ‘Romeo and Juliet’ the feud between the families of Montague and Capulet is a feud so ancient nobody recalls its genesis, and yet it is so widespread it threatens civic order. Although feuds were very common, they were mainly between factions of the aristocracy Sasha Roberts depicts this irrelevant-violence as a ‘crucial facet of masculinity’ and also suggests that a certain faction of the aristocracy used duelling as a means of asserting power’. Coppelia Kahn agrees with this patriarchal reason for feuding as she argues that feuding was ‘the medium through which criteria of patriarchy oriented masculinity is voiced’. The feuding appears to symbolise the malevolent masculinity that pervades Elizabethan England. The historian Robert Lacey, in his book, ‘Robert, Earl of Essex’, contributes to this view saying:

In such an age of naked brutality and casual bloodshed it was no coincidence that Shakespeare’s plays should centre on personally inflicted acts of justice and revenge…

Although Shakespeare’s period is ruled by a woman, Elizabeth I, it was a patriarchal society and this is reflected in ‘Romeo and Juliet’ however, whether Shakespeare endorses male power or attempts to subvert it, is the question I will be exploring in this essay.

In the opening scene of ‘Romeo and Juliet’, Shakespeare presents various phallic images, through sexual slang and innuendo, which suggest a patriarchal Verona. For instance, Sampson, a Capulet servant, is conversing with Gregory, another Capulet servant, about his desires to sexually assault the Montague women:

… and thrust his maids to the wall. (Act1 Scene1, lines 16-17)

This reference to rape from Sampson symbolises his status and power over women. It is possible to imply that Shakespeare’s choice of language is an indication of his endorsement of a patriarchal society. Another example which suggests Shakespeare’s support of patriarchy is during Sampson and Gregory’s conversation:

… and therefore women being the weaker vessel are ever thrust to the                                                          wall. (Act1 Scene1, lines 14-15)

Shakespeare’s decision to use the biblical term ‘weaker vessel’, derived from The First Epistle General of Peter, (chapter 3, verse 7), gives the idea that women are the weaker sex. Shakespeare appears to supports patriarchy as he suggests that Christianity fortifies patriarchy and therefore suggest that his beliefs are justified. Shakespeare is also associated with supporting patriarchy in the opening scene through his choice of dictions which introduce strong phallic images; ‘to stand(Act 1 Scene 1, line 8) and ‘long sword(Act 1 Scene 1 line 66) in a phallic perspective suggest to have an erection; ‘tool (Act 1 Scene 1, line 30) and naked weapon (Act 1 Scene 1 line 32)’ both present an image of a phallus. Shakespeare’s attempt to imprint these phallic imageries into the mind of the audience can be interpreted as Shakespeare supporting patriarchy as he is suggesting that the phallus can be used to gain power and dominion over women and even possibly men. Although, as Sasha Roberts suggests, ‘each generation rewrites Shakespeare for its own purposes…’ it seems directors such as Baz Lurhmann have tried to direct their interpretation of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ as Shakespeare would have done if he was alive today. To reflect Shakespeare’s possible support of patriarchy it appears Lurhmann includes elements such as very tall buildings in the opening scene, which create phallic images, and in turn they create a symbol of male power. Another element in Lurhmann’s interpretation of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ which suggests he believes Shakespeare supports patriarchy, is obtained from the male supremacy created in Tybalt’s character. He is presented in spaghetti-western style, which indicates his possessing of great authority and power, subsequently suggesting that generally all men possess this supremacy.

Join now!

The language employed by Shakespeare in the opening scene can be analysed as Shakespeare’s way of intensifying his support of the patriarchal society that existed during the Elizabeth I’s reign. His use of lewd language seems to serve as a way of bringing forth his endorsement of patriarchy and as a ‘dramatic function’, as Molly Mahood suggests.

In ‘Romeo and Juliet’ the plot is enveloped in patriarchy particular in the Capulet household. And it is in the Capulet household were most forms of patriarchy are endorsed or challenged by the mother figures of Lady Capulet and the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay