Shakespeare crafted complex characters that invite endless interpretation for those willing to peel back their layers. This may be especially true for the women in Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare was writing at a time of immense misogyny, when women were not only kept from power and resources in society, but were also unable to act in plays. It is interesting then, that Shakespeare chose to write some of the strongest and most memorable women in theater history. While Shakespeare’s plays are full of plenty of misogyny that reflects the times in which he wrote, they also feature women acting in resistance to the people and structures that seek to oppress them. Four centuries later, we in the United States are on the precipice of an election that could give us our first woman president. Despite this apparent progress, women continue to be marginalized, silenced, and narrowly defined by those who wish to see them disempowered. But as is the case in Shakespeare’s plays, there will always be women who resist. Here are three examples of female characters that fought for power when nobody was willing to hand it to them.
Juliet
The character of Juliet is not only female, but a child (at only thirteen years old), entirely subjected to the will of the adult men around her. Early in the play, we hear Juliet’s father discuss a possible marriage arrangement for his daughter with a man named Paris.
Capulet responds to Paris’ request to marry Juliet with reluctance, inviting Paris to admire the other beautiful girls at his party, saying,
“Hear all, all see
And like her most whose merit most shall be,
Which on more view, of many, mine being one,
May stand in number, though in reckoning none.” (Act 1, Scene 2)
While Capulet suggests that Juliet may be too young for marriage, and implies that Paris must win Juliet’s consent before he will give his own, later events in the play suggest that Capulet is only feigning hesitation. He seems to be treating Juliet as a bargaining chip in a larger negotiation, a comparison that is not far from the literal truth given the exchange of money and property that accompanied marriage at this time. In contrast, Juliet is told to attend the party with only eyes for Paris. Juliet replies with absolute obedience, saying,
“I'll look to like, if looking liking move.
But no more deep will I indart mine eye
Than your consent gives strength to make it fly.” (Act 1, Scene 3)
The differences in how Juliet and Paris are instructed to handle their encounter highlight the double standards surrounding chastity that still exist today. Juliet is expected to keep her eyes down, only looking “to like” Paris as her parents instruct. However, when her eyes land on Romeo instead, this demure and obedient girl suddenly becomes a powerful force of resistance and personal agency.
In a Folger Shakespeare Library professional development featuring Shakespeare scholar and historian Dr. Gail Paster, this moment is highlighted as marking a turn that Shakespeare frequently revisits in his plays. It is the moment a young woman is transformed by the desire to have something other than what has been presented to her–something just for herself. According to Paster, Shakespeare uses desire to infuse his female characters with energy, focus, and the ability to finally act on what and who they want. This radical disobedience transforms Juliet, leading her to press Romeo to do the same: “Deny thy father and refuse thy name” (Act 2, Scene 2).
As the play progresses, Juliet increasingly takes her fate into her own hands. In many ways she leads the interactions between her and Romeo, boldly declaring her affection and asking that he promise his faithfulness to her in return. She chooses to pursue their relationship despite their families’ feud and her parents' plans for her future. After they are married, Juliet waits for Romeo in eager anticipation. Dr. Paster notes: “Elizabethans watching this transformation–watching Juliet order around the universe as she stands alone on stage and commands that Romeo be by her side quickly following their marriage–were likely dazzled by this. In that moment they may have forgotten about the expectations of ‘chaste, silent, and obedient’.” Ultimately, Juliet loses her life in her pursuit of bodily autonomy and agency over the decisions that will determine her future. While her story ends in tragedy, her admirable resistance to patriarchy and her struggle for self-determination continue to resonate with many women today.
Katherina
Taming of the Shrew receives a great deal of feminist critique, with some even claiming the play is proof of Shakespeare’s outright misogyny. Shakespeare was a product of his place and time, which was inarguably misogynistic (check out myShakespeare’s video about patriarchy and how it operates in Taming). However, many scholars argue that Taming of the Shrew has much more to say about gender and power dynamics than first meets the eye. Katherina, labeled the “shrew” of the story, is a smart, strong-willed, and rebellious woman. This rebellion drives the plot of the play as the men around her seek to “tame” her through marriage so that they can pursue her highly desired, much meeker, sister. Petruchio, the man who takes on the challenge of taming and wedding Kate, engages her in many verbal sparring matches as she quickly proves her wit and demonstrates impressive resistance to the expectations placed on her. She warns Petruchio not to provoke her, saying, “If I be waspish, best beware my sting.” (Act 2, Scene 1)
The ending of Taming of the Shrew continues to prompt scholarly debate. After enduring what would now be considered severe psychological abuse, Katherina ends the play with a famous speech where she seems to finally submit to her new husband, Petruchio. She proclaims, “Your husband is your lord, your life, your keeper, Your head, your sovereign…” (Act 5, Scene 2), contradicting everything we have learned about her throughout the play. However, this moment can also be interpreted as a shrewd act of agency as Kate uses what little power she has to manipulate the people around her. By feigning submission, she ensures her survival and puts herself in a position to influence others. This is a tactic that women and other oppressed groups have used throughout history. By accessing power and influence through strategic subversion, marginalized people can reclaim power. Like Katherina, women who have been silenced by patriarchy often continue to orchestrate their realities from behind the scenes. Without their resilience and strategic maneuvering, we might not now be poised to see a woman in the most powerful office in the country.
Lady Macbeth
While we’re talking about orchestrating things from the sidelines—enter Lady Macbeth. Lady Macbeth is often portrayed as the ambitious driving force behind Macbeth’s tragic downfall. This portrayal is not without its problems when viewed through modern.jpg)
critical lenses. Her character reflects societal fears about female ambition and manipulation, illustrating how powerful women were often vilified in literature. Lady Macbeth’s eventual downfall may have served as a warning to women not to attempt to reject their traditional femininity in favor of what were deemed as masculine ambitions. Despite these valid critiques about Shakespeare’s intentions, Lady Macbeth continues to read as strikingly strong and bold at a time when women were expected to be quiet vessels for child-bearing. Notably childless and non-maternal, she defies the conventional expectation of femininity which often equates womanhood with motherhood.
However, might Lady Macbeth have been so ambitious because she was walled off from access to power in every other way? She is trapped in a patriarchal society that greatly restricts her agency, causing her to view her husband as the only way to access power. She seems to resent her identity as a woman and all of the limits that come with it. Towards the end of Act 1, Lady Macbeth appeals to supernatural forces to strip her of her feminine qualities entirely, saying,
“...unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood,
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers…” (Act 1, Scene 5)
While further critique takes issue with the idea that a woman can not be both ambitiously determined and feminine, it also seems worth noting that Lady Macbeth lived in a world where ruthlessness and violence were perpetuated almost exclusively by men in pursuit of increasingly more power. She may wish to cast off her womanly restraints, but only because her body and the roles assigned to it have kept her powerless throughout her entire life. Lady Macbeth embodies the struggle of women in a patriarchal society, refusing to be subjugated and demanding the power she believes she deserves.
What Can We Learn from Shakespeare's Heroines?
As we approach an election that could see a woman of color become president, we are reminded of the long history of women who have resisted the roles imposed on them and reclaimed their agency. Lady Macbeth searches for power and is scrutinized for her ambition. Katherina is always the smartest person in the room, and yet she is left tending to the egos of the men around her to survive. Juliet boldly takes control over her own fate, casting off any claim the men around her have placed on her future and body. Shakespeare may have written these characters four centuries ago, but their struggles resonate with all those who refuse to be silenced by patriarchal systems. This fight is ongoing, but there is hope if we allow their stories to energize and empower us towards a more equitable world.
