THE FLEETI
EMPOWERM T OFF M
MA CBETH KIN G LEAR ,

H RA T R IN OTifELLO,
RY VI, PART I , II, Ill

b

Kamal eddin Az mood eh
gree .,
o iate f rt
ugla
oll cg . 20 l 0
B. ., im n ra r ni er ity . 201 2

THE IS SUBMITT DIN PARTIAL FU LFILM N T OF
THE REQUIREM NTS FOR THE DEGRE OF
MAST R OF ARTS
IN
ENGLISH

UNIV RS ITY OF NORTH RN BRITISH COLU MBIA
Au gu st 2015

© Kamal ddin A zmoodeh, 201 5

b tract

Thi the i analyz
ix p w rful D male har cter and their inOu nee in th llo,
M ach th , K ing L ar, and H my VI, Part I , II, III. In fa t F u a ult' id a f p w r will b
pr nted and all i female character e d m na, ady M acbeth,
n ril , Regan, J an of
Arc, and Margar t- w ill bee a luat d ba eel n it. pplyin g
uc ault' de finiti on to th
aforem enti ned fem al character ugge t that th
ub altern wom en ar
p werful th at they
can d tabilize the patri archal tru ture . 1 o t b tter elucid ate th t nn ub alt rn, I will
bonow id a from aya tri pi ak '
a " an th e ub alte rn p ak?" M aking a cone ptual
connecti n betw een the id ea f ub alt rn fi gu r and the e p werful w m en , thi th e is will
deduc that nee th e patri arch , depi cted by hake pea re, rejec t Fo uca ult' de finiti n of power,
th e ignificant fem ale ch ara t r are e ntu all y re ealed a ub altern wo men wh can n either
protect nor p eak£ r them lve and are all annihil at d .

..
11

Table of

ontent

..

b tract
T able of

11

ont nt

111

Acknow ledgement

lV

Introduction

1

hapter I
The ph meral £ m al

mp werment in Othello and Ma cbeth

15

hapter II
The fl eeting emp werm nt of t nnagant in King Lear

47

Chapter III
The evanescent empow rment of Am azo n in Henry VI

72

onclu sion

100

Bibliography

105

Ill

Acknowledgemen t
I am deeply indebted t my dearly 1 ed parent wh un quiv cally suppOii d m and
k pt m moral up in rder t h lp m a hi
and my moth r'

what I wa

ekin g. With ut my dad 's [! dback

acrific , I w uld n v r be tandin g wh r 1 am, and, a a re ult, thi th

w uld have never been written. I thank m y fath r,

ehzad

and d termination in m all the way throu gh m y life.

zm

is

deh, for instilling c nfidenc

a h mi try in tru ct r, my fath r always

in ulcat d the alue f educa ti n in m and enc uraged m e t becom e an avid student of ngli h
literature. Furthermore, I expr
m y incere gra titude t m y m th r, Farid h Raoofi Arani, a
dili g nt in tru ctor wh decid d to gi e up t aching phy ic fi r m e y ar in order to raise and
educate me and my i ter w ith her full pot nti a l. I w uld n ver be ab le to appr ciate m y m oth e r's
sacrifice if my father had not remind ed m

[her ignificant role in m y ntire life. Affected by

uch a talwmi woman, I found m y elf intere ted in e amining the role of pow erful women in
hakespea re' play . Moreove r. 1 thank my be loved o u in , ohrab z moud eh, for be in g a
lifelong friend in M etr Vancouver. Hi valu e and impOiiance in m y lifi was never les than
tho e of my parent . I wish h wa alive and am ng us to ee m e defendin g m y th esi .
Finally, I ex pre my incere gratitud e to my dear uperv i or whose guidance enabled m e
to become a successful graduate tud ent. Dr. Li a Dick on' prec ise feedba ck improved my
the is and helped m e to achieve my potential when craftin g it.

IV

Introdu ction

Th
There i criti

leeting mp w 1m nt f

mal

hara ter

n u that th p pul ar id a in arl m dem p ri d wa that ideal

w men n ed d t be ha t , ilent, and b di ent t th ir hu band .
n t certainl y tru e ~ r all w m n in thi 1 articul ar peri d, u h a mi
a

1

lth ugh thi

tatem nt wa

gyni ti c attitud e depi ct men

uperi r gend er and wo m n ub crvient t th m. In fac t, hake p ar him

If " I iv d in a

patriarchal culture, b which hi t n an mean a ultur in whi ch authorit y and pri ilege i
parti cul arl y inv t d in the hand

f th e fa th r, r patriarch, fa fa mil y [and] wive are

ub rdinate t th e fath r· · ( H V\ ard 4 1 ).

a re ult, hake, pearean ~ mini t criti ci m ha

typicall y D cu ed on the id ea f female character a inferi r and ppre ed. Whil e it eem
worn n

oppre

1

Rackin (2000) argu

n ontinu ed to be at the hub of fe mini t criti ci m D r
th a t ~ cu in g

n wo men

me deca de , Phylli

ubj ugati on onl y norm ali ze th eir oppre ion,

ugge tin g th at "c riti ci m de ignated a [!mini t ha prov id d argum ent th at an j u t a ea il y
be u ed to naturali ze wo men· oppre ion a to oppo e it" (47).

xpandin g on uch an id ea, I

endeavour to look at female charac ter · innu ence and upremacy and th e way in whi ch the e
women-De demona, Lady Macbeth, Goneril, Regan, Joan of Arc, and Marga ret-can obtain
power to either influence or dominate their male counterpart . Ind eed, there i a imilarity among
all the aforementioned female character , which i th ir command of languag . In fact, thi the i
anal yzes important female character and their influ ence in ome particular tragedie and hi t ry
pl ays such a Oth ello, Macbeth , King Lear. and Jle111y VI. Part I. II. Ill.
The fundamental rea on for including tragedie and hi story play and e eluding comedies
the argument that Jea n . Howard ha pre ented. H ward e plain that femini st critic , arc
" noting the fa ct that marria ge i

insi tentl y th e goa l of ever comcd "as if\\ Omen· · "so ial

d tiny" will be fulfill d ''with th ir marria ge" a illu trated in A Midsummer

(414). Moreover Howard clarifi

that alth ugh " in the middle

ight ' , Dream

rti n of hi com di

hak peare'' be t w fr ed m and empow ennent upon hi fem al character , he, in thos play ,
' offer a ' w rid up ide down ' in
'r al world ' of

Iizab th an

that ran ge aero

hi h w men hav p wer not u uall y granted to th em in the

ngland" (414 ). Furthennore, the id ea behind xa1nining the e plays

hak p are' oe uvr

1

th at the

juxtapo ition with th ir male c unterp art beca u

wo rn n ar very well defined a pow erful in
aft er all it i men ' weakn e

and incapability

that create a power vacuum which need to be fill ed by u ch fe m ale ch aracters. Moreover, these
plays be t capture the relationship between

hakespeare' male and fe ma le characters by

appri ing us of the strategic th at wo men empl oy to repre s men for obtaining power. Finall y, the
reason that these pl ays are not arran ged chronologicall y is th at th e the is examines th e
progression of fem ale empowerment regardl es of their time ord er, ranging fro m a latent
empowerment, possessed b y D esdem ona, to a blatant on e, secured and owned by M argaret.
Literature Review:

In the introduction to The Woman 's Part : Fe minist Criticism o.f Shakespeare Caro lyn
Ruth Swift Lenz, Ga yle Greene, and Carol Thomas Neely explain that femini st cri ticism is
" more a matter of perspective" than of ge nd er or subj ect matter (3). ln fac t, fe mini sts ' pu rpose i
to set wo men free from "oppress ive constraints: [becau se] the struggle fo r wom en is to be human
in a wo rld whi ch dec lares th em o nl y female" (3). Femini st criti c ism has taken num ero us forms
and a brief history of its evolution in the last few decades within Shakesp ear e tudies will
hi ghlight thi s diversity. As Howard expl ains, in the 70s earl y feminists analysed the depiction of
fe male characters in each genre to empha ize th e " patri archal norm and ge nder t reotype " that
shaped wo men's repre entati ons (418). For in stance, Joan La rse n K lei n ( 1977) argue that~ hi le

2

man y ritic are of th
n v r able to

pini on that Lad y Ma cbeth " lap e fr m w man lin

,"

ady Macbeth " i

parate h r If c mpl et I from w mankind'' (240 - I). ln additi n,

e ay (197 ) captur

aro l N ee ly

the r lati n hip betw een m en (a th peopl in p w r) and women (the

one b ing ruled) and argu

that c nflict

merg b tween m n and w m n b ca u e they

" mi und er tand each oth er. Th m n ... per i t ntl y mi cone ive th e wo men; th e wo men fata ll y
over timate th e m n" (22 ). Th

e id ea

peak t th n ti on th at the focus in academia is on the

repre entation of£ m ale character .
om of th e impo1iant work in th 1970 were p ychoa nalytic and focu ed on
" formative mom nt in fa mil y li £ a th e key to a charac ter' ge nd ered behav io ur'' (Howard
41 8) . In thi s period, hake pear ' own p yc ho log ica l development a elu ci dated by his pl ays
regarding fem ale character wa und er the p tli ght ( 41 8- 19) . DUJi ng th e 1980s a new approach ,
which enj oined historicizing the gend er sy tem , em erged (Howard 41 9) . If the earli er works
emphasized family structure , stereotyp es of wom en, and p ychoanalytic work, mo t of the later
work focu sed on th e ways in w hi ch " ma le and femal e behav ior was stru ctured in a culture in
some wa ys unlike our own" (419) . Some of the works at thi s time placed emphas is on
understanding of the Renaissance position regarding men 's and wo men 's bodi es. Instead of two
different bodies, m any m edical writers during the Renaissance saw one sex and one body, but
individu als were considered to be more p erfect or less perfect " ve rs io ns of the sa me prototype"
( 4 19).
T he idea th at looks at wo men and men in term s of be in g " less" perfec t and "m ore"
perfect has had some fa r-reaching consequ ences in feminism to such an extent that the m ain
focus during th e 80s wa on gend er di fference and , orne years later, the notion of
impersonati on (4 19). Since wo men be longed to th e " les "perfect cate gory, a typical attitude of

3

the Renai

ance wa that w men could c rrupt th e '' mor " p e r~ ct ver ion of hum an , men, if

th y act d within th e theatr

. Alth ugh w ritten durin g th 90 , teph n

rg I' b

k

Imp r onation i ge1man t th e a:D rem enti ned dev lopm nt, whi ch explain that th
app earance of w m en on tage wa pr hibited beca u e the p ercepti on during the Renai ance
wa that as actre e
would lo

wom en w uld " c mpr mi e their m od ty" (l ). The id ea wa that wom en

their cha tity and " th y w uld bee m e whore " had they pl ayed on stage ( rgel 49).

Furthermore,

rg 1 clarifi e th at w m en ne d ed t be rem oved from actin g in thea tre becau se

acting would taint m en '

ul , and th en wo m en co uld c n-upt men ' mo rality and masculinity.

Thi fear of dangerous contam ination i the rea on w hy boy w uld wea r wo men ' c loth e and
2

pl ay wo men's ro le in tead . A lthough there was a hift from psychoanalytic development
during the 70s to the hi tori cal approach during 80 and 90s, the m ain foc us in feminist discour e
was on women 's in fe ri ority and oppre ion.
During th e 80s and 90s another development whi ch encompasses criti cal examinati on of
" men and masculinity as we ll as wo men and fe mininity" (420) co m es in to play. K athleen
M cLuski e ( 1994) argues th at fe mini t cri tic ism can be better e rved " by makin g a text reveal the
conditions in w hich a particul ar ideology of fe mininity functi ons and b y both revealing and
sub ve rtin g th e ho ld w hi ch such an ideo logy ha fo r th e reader both fe ma le and ma le" (5 7).
M cLuskie also argu es that feminism cannot side with ev il fem ale charac ters becau e doing so
wo uld a soc iate " fe mini st ideo logy w ith atav isti c se lfi shn ess" (53) , suggestin g that a fair
judgem ent should be m ade without being biased toward either femininity or rna culinity. In
add ition,

oppelia Kahn ( 1986) explores th e idea of the Elizabethan family ge1mane to the

context of King Lear and points at the stru ggle b tween fe m ininity and masculinity repre ented
by

oneril-Regan and Lear r specti ve ly and c lari fie that " Lea r want two mutual I exc lu s iv e

4

thing at one : to have ab olute contr 1over th e cl

e t t him and to be ab olutely dependent

n them' (95). Kahn di cu e b th g nd er on qual ground with ut tr ating either of the two
a unworthy of r gard .
By th late 90

Jea n . H wa rd ' and Ph ylli Ra kin' b ok En end ring a Na tion

focu e on hi tory play and ugge t that feminist critic n ed to pay more attention to the e
pla y . By focu in g on hi tor pia

, Howa rd and Rackin attempt t divulg "the impact th e play

have had n the way we imagine gender and ex ual difference" (20). Howard and Rac kin
examine how the idea of g nd r hap

a different per pective on "r pre ntati on of

nati onhood" (20). A ide fr m hake peare' canoni ca l play in th

econd tetralogy, hi le s

canonical plays how that women have impo1iant roles and some are very powerful. In J-Jenry VI
women are general s who lead annie and are " political actors wh o exe rci se signifi ca nt power in
the co nduct of state business" (24) .

!though fem ini t criti cism of hakespeare has extensive ly

focused on women's subju gation and inferiority, Howard and Rack in , by turning the potlight on
powerful women, have engaged in a new discourse that looks at wo men's empowerm ent rather
than women's oppress ion or di sempowerment. That being sa id , there is also acknow ledgment in
their book that these powerful female characters-in the case of this the is, Joan of Arc and
Margaret of Anjou- become demonized and witch-like and finally end up being fully
disempowered . This notion speaks to the fact that although there are powerful female characters
in so me of Shakespeare's plays, it seems that female empowerment is always fle etin g.

In the twenty-first century, feminist critics have tended to work on women and femininity
as well as men and masculinity. Furthermore, feminists are likely "to con id er their work on
women within the co ntext of other ystems of stratifi cation in the plays," and, given that
Shakes pea re' pla ys are open to new reinterpretation, it i e , pected that neV\ way to approach

5

th idea
qu

r gend r will be di

rd 4 2 1). In " M i

red (H

ti n the a umpti n that in th R nai an

and al

the id a that w m n w r alm

num r u ace unt

fw m n'

m n wer anxi u ab ut the p w r f w men

t al ay di

nt mp rar

.) 3
1 '

riting that "th e pr

holarl y di

ur

red (46- ).

g n1 t di

he argu

in tead that

ur e re nl y t

ubiquit u

mu h th e a e 111 hake pea re ·
n ptua l at g n

lem i th at th e

ar "oft n ma n-mad

uch, th
ppr

mp

i timi za ti n and mi

in lat tw nti eth-c ntury critici m and thi
( all aghan

g n

ln trum ent

th at hape

nd hap d by men' an ieti e and

r wo m n. ex lu i n. and ften r w m n

i n" (47). In ther w rd , Rackin i argu ing th a t~ cu mg n wo men

the pa t i indi cati ve f men· current pre

~ ngland

victimizati n m

upati n with w men· di emp we rm ent in

academi a, which n ed to be changed.
The current critici m con ider gender, "race. cia . and/ r sex uali ty a they t gether
influence the co n tru cti on of :fl mal charac ter and fi
(Howa rd 420). Joyce

ured and co mplex n ti on

f fe minini ty"

reen Mac D nald ' e ay be t peak t th aforementioned deve lopm nt.

MacDonald (2000) argue that Othello " poin ts to way in whi ch fa th ers, fa mili es. and tatu are
radi ca li zed el ewhere in the ca non'' uch a Titu A ndro nicus (189). MacDonald believe that the
issues pre ented at the out et of Othello whi h are "the preservat ion of cia

and cu ltural

dis tinction,'' " pare ntal auth ority and ob li gati on," and e uali zin g De dem na'

elf-

determinati on "all hin ge on id eas about race'' ( 189). For exampl e, Brabanti o i more di tre ed
that Desdemona " has cho en a bl ac k man wh wi II degrade hi Iin age than h - i that he ha
dared to hoose ~ r her elr' ( 192). In additi on. when a sio de

ribe white Bianca a a

" monkey, he link her with th o e bl ac k wo rn n in th e per iod who were believed to copulate \\ith

6

ape " ( all aghan i ). Thi i to ay that the n ti n f femininity i not c nstructed by a
woman ' gender only- it i

n tru cted by her cla , race, and exuality alt gether.

Th mo t curr nt femini t critici m d
oppre ion and encap ulate a wide rang
hake peare ha probably written
a pla y, and di cu s

believe i " both rei nforced and

em to be con trained to ~ ma le character '

f id a . Whil J an

m e p art

'' th e po itiv repre

n t

. Howard (2014) argues that

f Edward III, he lo ks at th e "good girl s" in uch

ntati on of wo m n ' g nerative power" whi ch he

mpli a ted by oth er parts f the play" (7), Dympna

al laghan

(20 14) e pl ore the ida of'' u ceptibility to ficti n" ( 15) and argues that " in Oth ello both men
and women are usceptibl e to the power f fiction, to th e piau ibi I ity of m isrepre entati on'' (20).
In addition, there are works which focu on female ind epend ence and elf-determination . Along
these line , Catherine Bel ey (2014) argue that Romeo and Juliet "ascribes a remarkable degree
of autonomy to its heroin e and esta bl i hes an exc pti ona1 parity b tween th e protago nists:' and
Bel ey suggests that the play never retreats "from thi s establi shm ent of equ ality between the
lovers" (11 2). Interestingly, mode111 feminist ctiticism encompa e a variety of approaches su ch
as Juli et's autonomy. Thus inspired by Rackin and Howard, I am going to focus on wo men 's
empowerment in Oth ello, Macbeth, King Lear, and I-fenry VI, Part I, II, III. In these tragedies
and history plays, Shakespeare characterize female characters acco rding to popular
understanding of gender relations in early mode111 England and that is the reason why these
4

characters are either righteous or witchlike. Unlike com edi es where fema le characters enjoy
autonomy and power, in tragedies a large number of female characters seem disempowered and
oppressed . However, there are a few female characters whose supremacy exceed their mal e
counterpart ' and, as a resu lt, are worth being examined crupulou ly .
Method :

7

To d m n trat that

hake p ar ' w m n ar do minant require definin g th id a f power.

Thu Foucault ' idea ofp w r will be pre ented and all fth

:D mal e character will be

evaluated ba ed on it. B aring in mind that ou cault argue that po w r is " neither given, nor
ex changed, nor recovered , but rath r e erci ed , and that it only xi t in a tion''

(Pow r!Knowled e 9), 5 n can a ce11ain th at all of th e a:D rem enti on ed :D m ale characters ar e
pow erful. ln fa t, thi

p ecific d finiti n very w 11 capture th e suprem acy and influe nce that the

afore aid wom en xerci e w ithin th e p atri arch y.
to the e fem ale ch ar act r

ppl ying uch a p articul ar d finiti on of power

ugge t how ea ily ub altem wom en can de tabilize th e p atri archal

tru cture . Furtherm ore, Fo uca ult' c nce pt f p w r i in v ked and examined in the e pl ays, but
it is ultimately refuted a the patria rch y , depicted by

hake p eare, rejects Fo uca ult' s definiti o n

and re in states ma le cha racter in w om en 's pl aces instead . While the degree of power that th ese
wom en are benefitin g fr om differs, at the end all fem ale vmpowerm ent is ubj ect to obliterati o n ,
evoking the notion that although there ar e several powerful wom en , their d ominati on is always
sh ort-lived in these selected hakesp earean tragedi es and hi story play . This id ea paves th e way
fo r Ga yatri Chakravo rty Spi va k 's th eo ry that the subaltern, as a wom an , " w ill be a mute as
ever" (90).
In hi s paper "S ub a ltern Studi e as Postco loni a l C riti c ism ,"

ya n Prak ash throws light

upon th e idea of the subaltern. H e n otes that the tetm sub altern is derived fro m Anton io
G ra msc i' s w riting and refers ''to sub ordin ati on in term s of c las , caste, ge nder, race, lan gua ge ,
and culture and was u sed to igni fy the centrality of dominant/dominated relationship in
hi story" ( 1477). A lso , to better e luc idate th e te rm suba lte rn , he borrow idea from Spivak and
w rites th at it is diffi cult to " retri eve th e wo ma n ' vo ice w hen she was not g iven a subj ec tp ositio n fro m which to sp ea k" ( 14 88). S pi vak be li eves that the dominant di scourse o ve rshado w _

8

the other 01c

and mak

them il nt o that when one want t r tri ve ignored voice , what

one finds may not be the real r pre entation f n gl
hak

p are' hi tory and tragedy p lay , w

t d v i e (148 ).

panding thi id ea to

an b tter appr ciate th r a on why all the

d minant women, who repr ent the idea of ubalte1n pow r can nl y app ar in the langua ge of
mon tro ity mainly b cau e there i no pa1iicul ar

f p atiiarchy except u ing p jorative terms that describ e

empow ennent in the dominant di c ur
women a whore
legitimately exerci

pre ion t convey female characl rs'

witches, and ti ger-like figure . ince ther i no mechanism for women t
authority and power, their empowerm ent app ears in terms of disruption and

monstrosity in the play thi the i examin
Inhere ay, "Ca n the

uba ltern

.

peak?" Gayatri

hakra vo rty pi va k exp lain s that

women, peasant , and impoverished landlord can be categorized as the subaltern cla es.

piva k

questions whether the "s ubaltern subj ect ... can kn ow and peak itself ' (80 ). Then she asks
whether or not by usin g the idea of"vo ice con ciou ness" th e ubaltern may finally peak (80).
In this regard , the immense problem that Spivak di scovers i th e notion that depicts " the
consc iousness of the wo man as subaltern" (92). Moreover, Spivak co nn ects th e id ea of wome n'
consciousness as subalte1n to the Hindu widow who immolates h erself upon the pyre of the dead
husband. She impli es that the tory of self-immolati on is naiTated by the white m en and the
practi ce of sati is also abolished by the British colonizers. This idea suggests that it is white men
who are "saving brown women from brown men" (93). Interestin gly, Spivak ex plains that white
wo men "from th e nin eteenth -century Briti sh Mi ss ionary Reg isters" have never created "a n
altern ati ve understandin g" (93).
What i of great ignifi ca nce is Spivak ' impli ca ti on within her argument that white
wo men have not narrated the story of self-immolating brown women . It is white men who

9

f th

ther

in India and ab li h u h a pra ti e. Hindu wid w ' pain and

uffl ring are n t narrat d by w m n f th er n ati naliti

er br wn ) d e n t guarante a v ic in th

pi ak i arguing that racial pri il g (whit
c nt

t f g nd red ppre 1 n.

hi i t

w m n r white Briti h w m en- ar

r by th m el e . ln ther word

ay th at th e ''w me n" in ge n ra l

ub a lt rn and ann t p eak becau e w e nl y hear that the

t ry f Hindu w m n b Briti h m en and n t Briti h w m en (9 ).

n[i rtun ately, w d n t

elf-imm lating w id w by Hindu w m e n eith r, g iven th at

h arth

ith r Hindu

th at " th e r lati o n hip be twee n w m an and il n

" ~ r th e

ake fth e fi g ure

pi vak beli eve
f w m a n need t

be " pl otted b w m n th em e lv e "( 82) . Thi id a larifi e w hat pi va k had 1 revi u ly pro p
that " th e uba lte rn w m an will be a mute a eve r" (90 ) i ind eed co rrec t rega rdl e

ed

fth e

wo m an ' race o r nat io na li ty. M akin g a conceptu a l co nn ecti on between th e id ea o f uba ltern
fi gure and

hak

peare · m o t powe rful fem a le c ha rac ter , thi th

i w ill d du e th at th e e

ignificant fem ale character are ev ntu all y revea led as ub a ltern wom en- like

pi va k ' lite ra l

ubaltem fi gure, the elf-immo lating Hindu w idow- w ho ca n nei th er pro t ct nor p eak for
th em selve and are all annihil ated .

Chapter l:
In thi chapter, I stud y and ana lyze two influ enti al wom en, D e dem on a and Lady
M acbeth , in Oth ello and Ma cbeth respecti vely . A lthough th ese two wom en di ffer from each
other in terms of rectitud e and vi1tue, they bo th end up having th e arn e fa te. De demona i a
good wom an w ho fall in love with Othe ll and m arri e him , and , in order not to be eparatcd
fro m him , he m a kes u e of her per ua ivene

in the senat before th e Duke of V eni ce and

argue in uch a way th at th e Duke ha no o th er opti o n but t all ow De dcmona to j oin
in

y pru . Ju ta p

th ~ JJ o

in g fo uca ult ' de finiti o n o f power w ith De. dcm o na ' s bc hav io ur. ( ne ca n

10

rightly d duce that her logical rea

ning with the Duke f Venic a w 11 a

thello indicate

that he, a a powerful rath r than a ubmi iv w man d e n t uccumb to ignificant men
wh po e

political p wer. Howev r, inc

he i fully disemp wered the m m nt that
an uncha te wife- a wh re- who cheat

e dem na '

upremacy i gro und ed on language,

thell i beguiled int thinking that

n him . Thi wr ng u picion cause

e demona i
thello to murd er

hi virt:uou wife and r veal her tatu a a ubalt rn wom an who cannot even peak for herself
in reprimanding
like pivak '

thello for accu ing her of adult ry. Therefore Desdemona i mad e to become

elf-immolating Hindu wid ow-the ubaltern figure- who did not have a voice to

reject the practice of ati .
The econd part of thi chapter[! cu e on another important woman, Lady Macbeth,
who e language proves to be quite impactful on Macbeth . B y making good use of eloquence,
Lady Macbeth forces Macbeth to commit what he was initially on guard against, namely
murdering the 1i ghtful king, Duncan. Borrowin g Foucault's defi niti on of power and comparin g
Lady Macbeth with it, the chapter will deduce that she is a powerful lad y. Meanwhil e, to becom e
more powerful , Lady Macbeth " un sexes" herse lf and tri es to adopt masculine ro le, but do ing so
is only an empty attempt for her because she soon learn that she is not invited to pmiicipate in
the world of masculinity and is neglected by M acbeth. Once Macbeth become the king, he
ignores Lady Macbeth, and by doing so, Macbeth marginalizes her and prepares her for her
comp lete disempowerment. Lad y Macbeth 's di empowerm ent is represented by her
sleepwalking and regret for her past wrongdoings and her word tum out to be meaningless,
reminding us of the idea of a subaltern woman who cmmot speak for hers lf. Finally Lady
Macbeth' sui cide ca n be likened to the death of Hindu widow- Spivak' literal ubaltern
woma n- who has immolated herself upon the pyre of the dead husband, proving that Lady

ll

Ma b th i a ub alt m fi gure and al
alw ay
D

an

cent in the

lik

n . T hi

le t d tragedi e rega rdl e

r w it h-lik , like

dem na

di

t

ay that ~ m ale mp w rm ent i

f w heth er th e w man 1

irtu u , like

ad M a beth.

hapter II :
Thi c hapt r 1 k at Lea r' da ug ht r ' la ng uag a nd th way in w hi h th ey m ake u
Oatte ry L u urp

ar' titl e a nd a uth rit . Whil
n ri l'

Rega n ' and

b

qu1 u ne

help th em t ful fi ll th eir de ire a tw ind omitabl e rul ers .

lnt r tin g l , th m ment th at Rega n and
fl att ry and ado pt the auth ritati
Go neril and Regan are tw
and authority.

f

ne ri I ta ke

r car' a uth rity, th ey ca t away

language that an e ecute w hat th y need .

powerful i ter w h have m anaged t a ppro priate

t thi p int,
ea r' pr r ga ti v

neril and R egan abu e th e ir p wer and mi trea t Lea r and throw him o ut of th e ir

ca tl e . At thi j uncture, R egan and

oneril beco m e two m n tr u and ti ger- like i ter deepl y

intere ted in rna culin e identity to depi ct them elve a two invi nc ible rna culin e rul er , bu t
doing so determine their end and leads to their di sempowermen t. T hi progre ion revea l their
statu as two sub altern wo men w ho cann ot defend th em elvc an ymore . W hile the pl ay eem to
be cond emning the e two evil s isters and th eir authori ty,

ord eli a, th e C hri st-li ke figure who i

th e queen of ranee, i al o revealed a a ub altem figure w ho i murd ered for tryin g to prot ct
her fa ther, su ggesting that£ male empowe1ment, either po e ed by corru pt i ter or a
righteo u lady, is always de tined to be ephem eral in the e p arti c ul ar hake pearian tragedi

hapter Ill :
A t th e out et of 1lemy VI Part 1, Joa n o f

rc emerge a an

mazonian lad equipped

with ph y ica l pr wes to tnumph over th e mo t ig nifi cant male cha ra ' Lcr in Fr ~nch ca mp,
harl es.

ing F uca ult'

on e pt f pov er, th e cha pter\\ ill c p lain the rca, )n '"h) Joan is a

12

powerful woman at thi point. Lat r on, he ai o defeat the n gli h champion, Talbot, in a
battle, and finally , by making good u e of her " uga r d w rd " ( 11-16 . . . 18), J an ntice
Burgundy "To lea e the Talbot and to fo ll ow'' th e Fren h ( I H6 .3.20) . Thi i to ay that Joan
u ce fully bring hi gh -profil e mal figur

t th eir knee and turn

ut t b a victorious

dam el, proving her upremacy ver all th e hi ghl y- ranked male official . That be in g aid, Joan '
am1or be mirche h r c nqu e t and re1 utation becau e th e dominant id ea in early modem
ng land wa that "wo men in ma
(Breitenberg 153 ). Like
narrative, it i

uline attire we re ' mon trou ' perv er i n fnatural ord er''

pivak ' white Briti h men who have reco unted Hindu widow '

hake peare ' men,

harle , Talbot, and York, who will narrate Joan ' story in

thi chapter. In other words, it i the male-dominated world that speak about Joan's ex peri ence
in her place from the beginning of the tory until it can ultimate ly ove rrid e Joa n's narrative. It is
at this pm1icular point where Joan is demonised and pre ented as a m onstrou s witch , paving the
way for her full di empowe1ment a a subaltem woman whose language is unable to protect her.

In the same way, Margaret prove herself to be an astute language-u er whose langu age
has a great impact on King Henry and helps her become the qu een of E ngland. BoiTowing
Foucault's definition of power, chapter Ill will articulate how Margaret' s behavi o ur toward s
Gloucester presents her as a powerful woman whose supremacy will eventuall y exceed that of
H enry. In addition, Margaret wears masculine attire, usurp s Henry's mascu lin e authority, and
wages war against York who describes her as "S he-wo lf of France., (3 H6 I .4. 111 ) and "an
Amazonian tru ll " (3H6 1.4 .114). Like Joan . Margaret's revo lt against feminine vi11ue such as
silence, obedience, and chastity, and her adoption of ma sc ulinity are tantamount to being both
demonized and di sempowered. Ultimately, Margaret swoon and is thrown into the world of
femininity once Prince dward is murd ered. Al o, Margaret's statu is eventuall y revealed as a

13

ubalt m woman who e language nly m ak e
attenti on, r minding u that pi va k' th

orne empty w rd with ut attrac tin g anyb dy'

ry th at th

ubaltern fi gure a a wo man "will be a

mute a ever" i ind eed co rrect (90).
While the ignificant c mm nality among the afore aid w m en i th ir p er ua ivene ,
they hare anoth r common tlu·ead which i adopting the id ea of m asculine role and avo iding
their own fi mininity to pre nt them

lve a ind mitabl e ruler wh can full y dominate high-

profile m ale fi gur . When thi tran iti n fro m fe mininity to rn a culinity h appens,

hake peare

portra y th e e wo men a monstr u and " unn atural" and demoni zes th em, sugg stin g th at female
characters und er no circum tance

hall dar to intervene in the masculin e world . Although

Desdemona i the onl y apparent excepti on, in that she neither adopt rn a culine role nor avo id
her own feminini ty, she, like all other women, is till doom ed to full y lose power in th e end . Thi s
is to say that the adoption of m asculine role doe not help th e e fem ale characters to change their
destinies at all. Adopting masculinity is just a strategy, used by them, to gain more power w hich
ultimately brings about no different end result fo r any of th em whatsoever. If by an y chance
female characters, virtuous or witchlike, exceed their male counterp art in influence, power, or
importance, their supremacy is to be obliterated due to the overall system of patriarchy in
Shakes peare's wo rks which sift dominant wom en out from its system and repl ace them w ith
other male fi gures. Shakespeare's fe male characters are all eloqu ent speakers and ca n earn
influence and power by making good use of their tongues and adopting mascul inity; however,
their supremacy is not to lerated within the power politi cs of the play , conveying the notion that
althou gh female empowerm ent is inevitable, it is always ephemeral becau e eventually all
dominant wom en are finally going to be revea led as sub altem fig ure who can neither protect nor
speak [! r themselves in the e selected Shakespearia n traged ie and history play .

14

Chapter 1:
The ephemeral female empowerm ent in Othello and M acbeth

"L t thew m an 1 arn in ilene wi th all ubj ection .
But 1 uffer not a wom an t tea h, n r to u urp auth rity ver the man, but to be in sil enc . For
Ad am wa fir t fo rm ed, then
e."
(Timothy 2:11 - 14)
When tud ying William hake p are' play and rum inat in g over th noti on of wo men's
empowerment, one can argu e that, xcept fo r a few illu tri ou wom en, mo t fem ale characters
did not benefit fro m th

arne authori ty and power that m en had in hi pl ays . Desdem ona in

Oth ello prove to be an eloqu ent peaker wh

e per ua iven ess depi ct her a a powerful lady

who is neither silent or nor sub ervient, and in th e sam e way Lady M acbeth proves to be a
persua ive speaker who e language fo rce Macbeth to execute what she wi ll s. In thi ca e, both
Desdemona and Lady M acbeth rebel against the overall cultural expectati ons of earl y modern
England which requires women to exercise silence and obedience. Furth e rm ore, Lady Macbeth's
eagerness to adopt a m asculine ro le propels her into unsexin g herself to such an extent that he
surpasses Mac beth 's audacity. However, doing so marks the beginning of her end . Althou gh
Lady Mac beth ' s powe r is not ce lebrated in th e pl ay since she deviates from fe mini nity, both
Desdemona- who has never been describ ed as an evil character like Lady Macbeth- and Lady
M acbeth are full y di sempowered by the end of the plays, su ggesting the notion that female
empowerm ent is eventually ubj ect to obliteration regardl e

whether the woman is ri ghteous

like D esdemona or is a witchlike fi gu re like Lady M acbeth .
To better appreciate the Renai sance per pectiv regardi ng how women hould
conventionall y behave in earl y modern

ngland , on needs to look at The Instruction o( a

hristian Woman written by Ju an Luis V ives . Thi particular work was " widely kn ovvn
15

throughout Europ , in Latin and in tran lation into

ngli h,

Italian" and it i kn wn a " th e m

t influ ential R enai

(Klein 97 - ). In fact,

ragon c ffilTil

atherine f

work for Mary Tudor. It wa fini h d in
Hyrde (97) . The In tnt tion o.f a

a tilian, rench,

ennan, and

anc trea ti eon th education of wom n"

i n d Vive to write the aforementioned

pril 152 and wa translated into

hri tian Woman in ist

ngli h by Ri chard

n w m n ' s " re pons ibi I ity to e ere I e

cha tity pi ty, bedi ence, and il en e" (Kl ein 9 ). Vive ' w rk reD ct th e cu ltural
exp ectati n about women in arly m dern

urope: "

a woman needeth it not, but h needeth goodn e
to ho ld her peac " (Viv

for e loq uence, 1 ha ve no great care, nor

and w i d m . Nor it is n

ham e for a woman

101 ). The id ea of'' loqu ence" doe n t uit wo men ' needs beca use,

for tho e who need to be ubmi ive and hold their peace, flu ency in ex pres ing id eas is futile
according to the most influenti al trea ti e in earl y m odem E urope.
In addition, the id ea of wo men· s pass iv ity and i le nce was prevalent in Ho ly criptures.
Ind eed, women were required to ''cultivate th e virtues of pa siv ity and modesty, and not the
skills to gove111, [or] teach" (Brow n and McBrid e 4). The favorite m etaph or during the
Renaissance for the virtuous wife was either the tortoise or the snail becau se both of these
animals would never leave their houses and are always silent (4). Moreover, Hol y Scripture
played central roles in peopl e's li ves, and , as a res ult, the Old and

ew Testaments greatly

influenced the ways in which women were looked at (Brown and McBride 18). In fact, the most
often-quoted passage about women would com e from the letters of Paul in the New Testament in
which women are represented as both inferior and subj ected to men:
The head of every woman is the man .... A m an indeed ou gh t not to cover hi head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God but the woman is the g lory of the man .
For the man is not of the woman; but th e woman of m an. Neither was th man created for
the woman; but th e woman for the man (II: 3-13) . (qtd . in Brown and McBride 19)

16

If, a H ward clarifie , ' in

hake peare '

hri tian cultur , the auth ority for ... famil y tructure

wa predominantly Bibli al ' (41 ), then th e odd are that reading the a£ r m entioned quotati n
iti nand placed th m I wer than

by th e rna e in hake peare'

o iet w eak ned w men 's p

their male co unterpart . M re

er, R na i anc r ader w o uld find mi ogy ny " in th e Bible, in

writin g

fth church fath er , [ ... ] , and in co untl e

proverb ''(Val eri

Wayne 155 ).

Unlike what a w m an i requir d t b according to th a fore aid instruction and
Scripture , D e dem ona i a c ura g

u y ung wo m an who argue her point conv incingly. For

in stance after th e Duke ugge t th at De dem na hould tay in her fath r's ho use, he rej cts th e
Duke's propo al by aying that he doe not want to put her " fath er in impati ent th o ught I By
be ing in hi s eye'' ( 1.3. 24 3-4) on th e ba i that Brabanti o (De demona' s fath r) i hea rtbroken for
her m ani age which happ ened w ithout hi s consent. Moreover, D e dem ona rai es th e bar mu ch
high er and says:
That I did love the Moor to live with him,
M y downri ght viol ence and storm of fortune
May trumpet to th e wo rld : m y heart 's subdu ed
Even to the ver y qu ality of m y lord :
I saw Oth ell o' vi sage in hi mind ,
And to his honor and his va liant part
Did I m y soul and fortun es consecrate.
(1 .3.249-55)
D esdem ona does not play a passive ro le and she wholehea rtedly expresses her obli gations as a
wife to O thello and asks to stay w ith her own husband whom she earnestl y loves. M ore
impo rtantl y, De demona a lso " refers to co nju gal ri ghts -th e j oys of maniage that include exual
fulfilment[ .. .]. Desdemona spea ks for yo uth , sex ual hone ty, and pa s ion'' (Da h 108). Given
that D esdemona i giving a speech in the senate befo re th e Duke of Venice as well as many other
hi gh-profil e men and i implic itl y expre sing her ca111all ove for Othell o, one can argue that
Desdemona i a " [b ]ri ght, intelli ge nt, and co urageo us" (Da h I 0 ) woman who i ahead of her

17

tim and culture becau e he do

n t want t be in truct d a to what to do and what not do by

high-profile men nor to allow th m t

hape her liD and fat [! r h r.

De demona i cognizant of the fact that he i an acc01npli hed poke per on. Othello
trip

a 10 f hi s rank and D d m na promi e to help

a io t be reinstated. When he

addre es thi

ue to

th ell o, he r p nd :"The oo ner, w et, for yo u" (3 .. 57) . Howeve r,

De demona d

not top and ontinue :" halrt bet ni ght at upper?" and

"No, not toni ght" (3 .. 56). De dem na , d t rmin ed to help

thello re pond :

a io, goe on: "Tomorrow dinn er,

then ?" and Othello, nervou at De d mona' persi tence, re pond : 'I hall not dine at hom e, I I
meet the captain at the citadel" (3.3.57-59). Then, D sdemona say :
Why, then, to-morrow ni ght; or Tue da y mom .
On Tuesda y noon, or ni ght; on Wedne day morn :
I p1ithee, name the time, but let it not
Exceed three day .
(3 .3.60-4)

Fully aware of her eloquence, Oth ell o has prev iously called Desdemona ''0 my fair warri or!"
(2.1.183). Considering that Desdem ona never fi ghts in a war, Othello's phrase is indicative of
Desdemona's lan guage skills in persuading the Duke of Venice to allow her to join Othello in
Cyprus. For thi s reason, Othello refers to Desdem ona as a ''fa ir wa rri or" becau e afte r all she i a
great language waiTior in the senate before numerous Venetian hi gh-profile people. Along these
lines, Joa n Ozark Holm er explains that Desdemona is "figuratively a warri or in the secular en e
since her tongue is her sword or her only weapon, used defen ively again t Othello and
offensively on behalf of Oth ell o" (I 33 ).
Also, the audience learns that Desdemona and Othello u ed to di agree on severa l topics
before th ey go t marri ed. Thi idea suggests that Desdemona would not accept Othello' every

18

word and had an active role a an indep nd nt per on when
D

demona remind her hu band that

th 11 wa courting her.

a i w uld alway d fend

thello :

That cam a-w oing with you, and o many a tim ,
When I have pok of y u di prai ingly,
Hath ta 'en y ur part; to have
much to do
To bring him in!
(3 .3 .70-4)
A Da h argu , De dem na '
to di parage

tatem ent impl y that ' di agre ment between them co uld lea d her

thell o" ( 1 10) . urth erm re

warrior'' (2. 1. 18 3) canal

a h ugg

t that

th e ll o' phra e" h my fair

be int rpreted a thi di sagreem e nt hav in g always ex i ted b tween

Othello and D e demona ( 11 0) ; the di agreement would never em erge had it been th e case th at
D e demona was a sil ent woman . If thi be so one can argu e that D e dem ona wa not a
submis ive young woman from the o utset of the story beca use she ben efited from "e loquence"
that obedient women should not have possessed.
Desdem ona' s conversation with Othe ll o serv es to indi cate her empowerment a a
s ignificant woman in the play. Exhau sted by Desdemona 's incessa nt reasoning, Othello says:
" Prithee, no more: let him come when he will ; I I will deny thee nothin g" (3.3.74-5).
D esdemona, however, criticizes Othello for saying so:
Why, this is not a boon;
' Ti s as I should entrea t yo u wea r your g loves,
Or feed on nourishing dishes, or keep yo u wann,
Or su e to you to do a p eculiar profit
To your own person .
(3.3.76-80)
D esdemona ays that Othello is not doing D esdem ona a favour by rein tating
say in g directl y that it is Othe ll o benefitin g from

assio . In lieu of

ass io' rein tatement, De demona i

sugge ting the arne concept by using two di ffere nt m etap hor . T he metaphor of wearing gloves
and al o feeding on nutritiou fo od are u ed to inform him that it is Othello him elf who will take
19

ad antage

r a

De demona prov

re111 tat ment and not De d m na wh
again, b fore

nly ugg

t thi idea .

th llo thi tim , that he i not a diffid nt woman and can

argue h r point c nvincingly a a g od p ak r who e con1111and of language i admirable .
De de mona '

entence I

k lik a diatribe again t

the armie of V eni ce. Thi idea ugge t

th e II ' pol iti al deci ion a th e g neral of

esdem na ' language kill enable her to critique a

ignificant general who i at the ap x f hi career.
De dem ona ' lan gua ge kill d pi t h r a an important figure. De demona ' powe r m
the senate and before

th llo i well expre ed given that she i a woman and is required to be

obedient and il nt according to h r upb1inging and culture. De demona ' po es ion of pow er in
a patriarchal regime is indicative of some forms of re istance di pla yed by her. However, one
needs to know whether or not uch an empow erm ent ucces full y continues on in a society that
con siders a woman "a frai I thin g and of weak di screti on ... [who] ma y Iightl y be dece ived"
(Vives 102). Michel Foucault defines the noti on of power: " We have in the first place the
asset1ion that power is neither given, nor exchanged, nor recovered, but rather exercised, and that
it onl y exists in action" (Power/Knowledge 89). Contextualizing De demo na' s perfonnan ce
suggests that Foucault's definition of power reso nates with the ways in which D esdemona
depicts herself as a pow erful woman. Desdemona is never given a pow er to exercise; she only
"exercises" the only weapon left for her, which is her language or voice. And by doing so, she
possesses power. Her logical reasoning with the Duke of Venice and Othello indicates that she,
as a powerful woman, does not succumb to significant men who possess political power.
However, Desdemona gets disempowered when her chasti ty is qu stioned . The idea of
cha stity is of signifi cance because an unchaste woman is using her body which belongs not to
herse lf but to her hu sband . This is to say that the wo man' body i the prop rty of her hu ' band,

20

implying that th noti n f b dy i
t phen

rgel

yn n m u

plain that w m n wer

ith the id a f

ften r [! rred t a

mm dity. In thi rega rd

mm ditie wh

arrang d [! r the ad antage r c n eni ence f m n, either their fath er
fi gur " (I ).

, an unmarri ed girl'

way a hu band "

n d hi wife'

irginit

" marria ge are

r th e mal auth rity

a th pr perty f h r fath er and , in th e a me

ha tit "( Br wn and M

ride 16).

wnm g ne' wife'

ha tit i indi ati e fth hu band' p

er and

ntr I

comm dity. F ucault ca t

n Mar

t c ncepti on f p wer, xpl aining that it " i

cone ived primarily in t rm
relation

er hi wi[i ' b dy a

fhi

wn

f th e role it play in the maintenance imultane u ly of the

f producti n and f Ia

d m inati n" (Power!KnoH ·Iedge 8 ). Thi

t say that th ere

ts a tron g corr lati n b twe n "politi ca l power" and eco n my. lfthi be o, it i tenable t argue
that power can be formed ba ed n commodity. In fact, thi i the very que tion that Foucault
po es on purpo e: " l power modelled upon th e c mm od ity?" (89). It eem that in Othello,
Othell ' political po we r i modell ed upon De demona' b dy. that i , th commod ity. Vivc
conspicuou ly explain how a woman' body i deemed to be a man's commodi ty:
And know thou this, woman, that the cha ti ty and hone ty which thou ha t i not thine,
but committed and betaken unto thy keeping by thine hu band. Wherefore thou dost th
more wrong to give away that thing which is another body' . wi thout th owner' licen e.
And therefore the married woman of Lacedemon, when a young man de ired of her that
unhonest thing, answered him, I wolde grant thee thine a king, young man, if it were
mine own to give thou askest, but that thing which thou wo ld e t have whi l I wa
unmarri ed wa my father's and now i my hu band ' . he made him a merr and wi e
answer. (113)
Vive ' exp lana ti on here provides u a window to Renai sane culture and tea he u how a
woman' body w uld "conventi onall y'' be looked at. Now If De demona cuckold.
hi distress and ago ny ca n better be appr ciated given that De demona i

thello, th n

thcllo·s "propct1 "

and , a are ult, i n t a!Jowed to have exua l int r our e "V\ ithout the O\\ ncr· . Ji cnsc.''

-'

i en that
c ntam in at d, th
relati n

th 11 a um
dd ar

that hi c mm dity,

th e II ' p

f pr ducti n and f la

dem na' b d , ha been

er a a g neral wiII be ignifi antly tainted. In fac t, th

d minati n can n 1 nger be maintained b ca u

argue that p w r i m d ll ed n pr du ti

c mm dity and when the comm dity i c n-upt,

r 'Wer a a ignificant auth rity fi gure in

p wer can n longer e i t. Thi i t

ay th at

Veni e crumbl e th mom nt th t

d m na cu kold him . In

th repre entati n f

thell '

mm ditylpr du ti n whi ch,

th cll

th 1/o,

dcm na' b dy i

u pect , ha been c n-upted.

r the

u pici u that hi wife may be cheating n him th e

fir t time in th pl ay,
m m nt !ago remind

one can

th ell o th at

e demona "d id de eive her fa ther, marrying yo u, I And

when he e m d to hak and fea r

urI

pollutin g Othell · mind by reminding

k , I he loved th em mo t" C' .3.206-8) . lag begin

th ell o about De dem na' initi al di hone ty. Iago'

statement allude to Brabanti o' om in u wa rnin g to

th II : "Look to her, Moor, if thou ha t

eye to ee: I h ha dece ived her fa ther, and may th ee" ( I .3. 93-4 ). What i

igni fica nt i that

th ere i a co nn ecti on b tw en th e comm od ifi cati on of De demona · body and her u e of
language. The id ea i that commodity by it very nature is unstabl e; it value i detem1ined by
peopl e's demand and is defin ed by the fact that it circul ates ., imil arly, one's languag i
un table too in a sense that it can be interpreted di fferentl y or be used to deceive peop le.
Therefore one can argue that Iago attempt to make that co nnecti on for Othell o between
De demona' body and the in tability. Iago' emph a is that

th cll o houl d not tru t

De demona ' wo rds b au e he li ed to Brabanti o pea k to thi in tab il ity. Iago , tron gl) feed .
th ell ' su pi cion and tri ck him into ca tin g doubt on De demona' hone t•. lago u es
e dem na ' initi al di hone ty to her fath er t
may eventuall y prefer other men over

uggcst th at h cannot be trusted because she

th llo:

22

i tinctly peak f h r; th ugh I may [! ar
H r will, rec iling t h r better judgment,
May fal l t mat h y u with h r c untry ii nn
nd happil y repent.
( .. 2 5- )

Hith rt

th ell ha ne

r utt r d that

thell ha pre iou I t ld ab ut

e dem na may be unfaithful t him . In fac t, what

e dem na t lag \ a :" I d n t think but

c dem ona'

hone C' ( .3.225) .
H we
De demona i

r, aft r ha in g h ard lag ' rea
till faithful to him or n t.

nmg,

th ell begin t d ubt wheth er

t thi p int, l ag ha

ucce fully beguil ed

thello

into beco ming u pi ci u of hi inn cent wife.

i ve n that lag

litera ll y a ubaltern fi gure

th ell in term

f military p

nand i Othello' li eutenant,

beeau e he i placed lower than
th e idea that

thell o b li eve !ago· w rd and n t De demona' later in th e tory n ed to be

taken into con ideration. If Desdemona and lago are both ubaltern figure , I ago' succe ful
per ua ion of Othello to bu y hi argument and De demona ' failure to do o are of great
ignificance. One ca n certainl y argue that what mak

lago a ucce ful peaker i hi awarene

of the notion of patriarchy and its rul e and regulations and it very contradi cti on that it has
about th e comm dificati on of women' body. If D demona's body is a c mm odity a Othell o
see it, it need to be di tributed among it users- men. However, alth ugh

thello . eem to

accept the co mm odifi cati on of women' bod y, he cannot come to term wi th the notion that
De demona ' v lu e is determin ed by th e fact that other men are intere ted in having such a
co mm dity, ugge tin g De demona ' va lu e i gr und cd on the concept that

thcllo pos c. c,

what thers want.
If other men did not want

the ll o · co mmodity (De 'demona) , it would ha\ c no\ aluc. In

addition, the id ea of circulati n determin e the co mm od ity' va lue and sim ultaneous ly creates

anxiety. Thi

the int 111al c ntradi cti n

th 11 , th e repr

t 1 rat . lag

full y aw are th at

un abl t c n in e him elf [ u h a di gracing

m atter a th leadin g g n eral in

thell

entative f p atri arch y cann t

th ell , in th e fir t

e m e and that i

pl ace th at n day D e dem na will lea e him [! r h r wn hand
th e ee nd pl ace, tri e t d cei
w ith

thell that

m e c untrym n . A l

e d m na i hav in g an unl aw ful re lati o n hip

a i , ano th er Ita lian m an . u11herm r , it i n t a c id ntal th at lag co mp are

w ith Itali an m en w ho a re rac ia ll y w hi te and , in
( thello) b

au e l ag rec gni ze th at

co mm diti e and in ade
end o r ed once

the ll o i

th II ' w ak

, l ago, in

th e ll ' mind , m ore hand
b

t pot to

th e ll

me th a n him

ed w ith the id a f hum an a
nv111 ce

th c ll

o f w hat he ay .

hi idea

the ll o him e lf re iterate th e a rn e co n ept pl anted in hi m ind by lago .

Oth e ll o' mind i po llut d by Jag , a nd

th e ll

i

111

h w c nvi nced th a t De de m o na

ha cuckolded him and , a a re ult, he r gret marrying D e d em ona.

th e ll o beg in to inve tiga te

orne of the poss ibl e rea on fo r D e d em ona chea tin g o n him :
H apl y, for I am bl ack
And have not tho e oft p art of co nver ati o n
Th at chamb erers have, or for I am d ecl ined
Into the vale of years-yet th at' no t mu chhe's go ne, I am abu sed, a nd m y re li ef
Must be to loa the her. h , cur e of m ani age
Th at we can call the e deli ca te crea ture our
And not th eir appetites!
(3 .3.227-30)
M ore importantl y, the id ea of eeing hum an a commodi tic i bes t captured in the
aforem enti oned qu o tati on . Othell think th at beca u e he i a black genera l, and he doc , not
peak as pro perl y a co urti er do, o r he i g tting o ld , De demo na is c heating on him . H ere
th ll o clearl y hows th at he v iew himself a a n und e irab lc commodity which is di scarded by
Desdem ona. It ee m s th at

th e II ' race- being a Moo r- up , ets him bccau e be ing black for

24

thell i

yn nym u with being f 1 w quality

the er

in V ni e. D d m na ' fath r al
a ting p 11 n

e dem na b cau

mm dity c mpared t whit hand

Brabanti

am

ann t b Ii

curled darlin g of [their] nati n" and in tead fall in I
than "to d Iight" (I .2. 71-4 ). Thu
mm dit a
r pre nted by

e dem na ' father
thell and

with

m m n
th II D r

ncept wh n h blam

that h r Je t " the wealthy
me ne who i m r "t fear"

th 11 i n t alone in eeing him If a a I w va lu
n ey th e ame c n ept. It eem that patriarchy

rab anti a e e indi idual ba ed on their va lu e and, a a re ult,

ee them a c mmoditi e . In thi ca , the c mm dity hould be of hi gh quality and if it i u ed
r d valued, it hould b

a t awa . If thi be o, then

th e II '

n ern ab ut hi

ld ag , hi

kin co lor, and hi lack of eloqu enc make m re en e.
Likewi e, it eem that the in tituti n of marri age offer
commodity. Dash clarifie that the time of court hip between

e demona a

th ell o 's

th ell o and De demona wa

relatively long, o th ere wa a "period of love before marriage:' but it eem that marriage
change this concept when Othello is cur ing maniage in the final entence of the
abovementioned quotation ( 120). In thi regard , Da h writes that the cotTUpting impact f
marriage's "co nventi ons and in tituti on ma y be ob erved in

th ell o' new attitud e toward

De demona a property" ( 120). In thi parti ular ecti on of the play,

th ell o r vea l to the

audience how he sees both himself and De demona a propet1ie whi ch can go bad either by
getting old or becoming unfaithful re pecti vely. For Othello, De de mona i more Iike "an object
to be enjo yed, appreciated, and used for mal e profit, not a ubj ect in her own right, who. e
fee lin g and a ti on he re pect and bewo nd er [sic] a th o e of a distinct individual"' (Lan gi
54) .

25

What [! rcc
handk r hi f.

th 11 t a ept that

hi i t

e dem na 1 an un ha te w man i th e lo
fh r handk r hi ef nl rai e d ubt on

a th at th

e d m na'

th II ' ag n . It i n t tru cturall y accid ental that

cha tit and , a a r ult, in

na t appear ri ght after lag leav

hake peare a 1gn

of h r

th ll and exactl y when

th II i c mplainin g: " 1 ha e a patn up n m y ~ r head, here" ( . ·- 5). Th e dramati ir ny 1
that

d m na

h ha

au d

"bind it hard " to h lp r li

th II ' pain i the per n pulling out her handkerchi eft

th ell ' pain ( . .287 . Thew rd "h re" i indi ative o f " pot

both ide of hi [! r head, wh er a cuck ld · h rn w u ld b " ( wen I 0 ). In fact,
doe not realize what

thell o i alluding to; however, the audi ence ·' kn ow th at

cau d by th horn he imagin e ar

pr utin g fr m hi

~

n

e dem na

th ell ' pain i

rehead" ( I 08). lr ni ca ll y wh at wa

uppo ed to reli eve hi pain , the handkerchi ef, exacerbate it when it get lo t beca u e the lo
handkerchi ef later beco me a igni fi r for

e demona · b dy whi ch,

f

th ell o a sum e , i

circul ating among men.
Othell o need ev id enc to beli eve that De demona i unfaith ful to him . I ago's

ife tea ls

Desdemona ' handkerchi ef and give it to Iago. Othell o tell !ago to " ive [him ] the ocul ar
proof' (3 .3.360), and ho11ly aft er

thello addre ses !ago, saying:" ive me a li vi ng rea on he'

di I ya l" (3.3.409 ). After Oth ell o empha ize that he needs rea l proof or ev idence fo r hi vvife'
infidelity, !ago strikes

thello with the most convincing pi ece of ev idence by a ki ng:

Teli me but thi ,
Have yo u n t sometime een a handkerchi ef
p tted with traw berri e in y ur wife' hand ?
th elia:
I gave her such a one; ' twas my fir t gift .
l a o:
I know not that; but such a handker hi cf-1 am ure it wa yo ur w ife' - did I to-day
ee a io wipe hi s beard with.

26

Angry at what lag re

al t him,

thell g

t

e d m na and a k h r t give him the

handker hi f. T thatDe dem nar p nd :" 1 a , iti n t l t"( . . 5) .
n ed t

e th handk r hi f, but

(3.4 . 7).

e dem na a

I can, ir, but I will not now"
t her h nour and ha tit y a a

ing the handkerchi f m an th at

it1u u and faithful wi[i . In thi r ga rd , There a
d

:" Wh y.

rat d with red tra\ b rn

her virgin hym en.

n

cr at th illu ion of ·

" be

. K mp e pl ain th at th e handk r hi ef

me a feti h [i r b th D dem na · purity and th e bl od f

[it i ] 1 t, th e handkerchi ef pr
ul ar pr

th II in it thathe

r th at

ide Iago with the materi al he need to

thell o d mand " ( 9) . In fac t, th e handkerchi ef

fun cti on a a te t ~ r a wo man, meanin g th at m r I w men are a oc iated with "th ew rk and
co pyin g of it" becau e durin g th e Renai ance m broid er wa u uall y wo men' j b (Val ri e
Wayne 172). Furth ermore, wo men wo uld do embroid ry becau e it ke pt th em occupi ed " with out
all owin g th ir mind to become too acti ve" and item

uch a th e di taff and th e needl e we re

associated with women (1 72) .
Needlework and embroidery are indi ca ti ve of wo men' cha tity. In her book Th e
Subversive Stitch Rozs ika Parker ex plains that " needl ework wa de ignated a fro ntlin e p

in the defen e of wo men' cha tity .... No oth er acti vity

iti on

su ce full y promoted the qualit ie

that th e Renaissa nce man , anxious to defin e se ual difference, wanted in a wife" (q td. in Wayne
172) . Furthermore, thi s ymbol f De demona · body made by wo men is wo en by them eh c.

for their own welfare and safety in life con idering that

th ello app ri e De demona of what the

charm er had told hi m ther: " wo uld make her ami abl e and ubdue m fa ther I Entire!; to her
love" (qtd . in Wayne 172). In order fo r

th ell o' moth er to be lo ed by h r hu sband, she needed

to keep the handkerchi ef with her all the tim e. D ing so a surcs

thcllo. rather "that hi s \\ ire is

27

d ing her w rk by engaging in the d me ti activitie pr pert h r- by day and by ni ght- for
la g wa n tal ne in !aiming that w m n 'g t b d t
argue that the handker hi f fun ti n "a pr

rk "' (Wa ne 172). Thu

ne ca n

f f marri ed ha tit " ( 172), and when it i I

t, th

wife ' cha tit , a are ult, wi ll be qu e ti ned. Wa ne e plain that when th e handk rchi ef get
dem na " I e th e mean

lo t,

f pr

ntin g her elf a amiabl . th e pr

f that he i d ing

her pri ate, d m tic, b d w rk . h 1 e her wn tex t, a th e Renai anc c n tructed it[! r
h r"( l7 2).
The 1

f th handker hi ef ~ re had w

th ell o · tyrann y ve rDe dem na. For

thello the idea of handkerchi ef bee me the repre entati on of De d mona · b dy which i
circulating among people.

nd if thi be o, De dem na i an uncha te woma n from whom men

are deriving pl ea ure. It i mainl y [i r thi r a on that
(3.4.62).

th ell o ay he need to ''hold her loa th ed"

thello hould hate De dem na becau e he could not fully own her as of his own

property. A Wayne argue . "The handkerchief beco me a feti hi ed ign of De dem na' s
commodification throu gh marital exchange, yet for her jealou hu band the curse of marriage i
that she, like it [the handkerchi ef] cannot be fully p

e ed·· ( 173). The end re ult or th e

"producti on" of Othell o· marriage is havin g a cha te wife 'v\ho ma y give birth to legiti mate
children and not a wife who fun ction like th e handkerchi ef th at "circu lat
the co ur e of th e play" (Ronk 60). According to

from hand to hand in

thell o · percepti on. his property. De demona.

is conupt. If this be s , Othello himself i in danger of lo ing hi power and honour.
If, in Marxist definition , power can a! o be modell ed n commod ity, one can argu that
th ell o' power is "modell ed on" De demona. I f De demona i cc ITUJ1t, Othello' pov er can
deepl y be qu e ti oned. It is De demona ' cha tit th at

th ell o, a an important political fi gure . is

depend ent upon beca u e having an uncha te wife i a di sgrace f r a general whose pn\atc life

2

and activitie ar und r clo e
" u k ldr in alidat

rutin y. In the ame way,

th II ' mi litar gl ri

wn ui id r t re hi prid in hi

ely write that

ar 1 Th rna

. and onl th e murd er of

c upati n" (222).

dem na and hi

th II i a militar general and benefit

fr m p liti cal p wer. De dem na pr

e t be bra e-hea rted and ut p ken wh can be

interpr ted a a po erful lad . ut.

th e!I

e dem na' hu band t wh m he ha t be

bedient gi en that wh n Brabanti a k , " Wh ere m t
De dem na r p nd : " I may pr fe

I

ue t th e M

De dem na a a wife i required t

b y

u w

b di ence" ( 1.3. 180),

r my I rd " ( 1.. 18 -9).

th ell in th in tituti n f mani age.

ee De dem na · di emp werment when he d e n t oppo e him after
ve rball y abu e her. Lodo ico,

e dem na' co u in , co me to

Othell o need to r turn to Venice and giv

hi re p n ibility to

De demon a ay , "Tru t me, I am glad on ·c (4. 1.2 8), and

the!I phy ica ll y and

yp ru t inform
as io.

ne can

thell o th at

pon hearing it,

th ell o, m i led and co nvin ced by

!ago that De demona has cuckold ed him , gets enraged by De demona 's reacti on and trike her
and ca ll her a "dev il " (4. 1.24"). Hi stori ca ll y, co rporal puni shm ent aga in st -wo men wo ul d be
criti cized during the Renai sa nce beca u e " beating did not mesh qu ite we ll with" th e idea th at
"v iewed wive as spiritual equal and dome ti c helpm ates" (Kemp 4 1). Thu even by
Renais ance tand ard ,
il ent or obey

th ell o is violating De demona' ri ght . De demona doe not ha\e t be

thell o, but he ays, " I will not tay to offend yo u" and leave him (4 . 1.249) a if

she has lost the eloqu ence from whi ch he u ed to benefit. De de mona' power \\a defined by
the u e of her language, so the moment he cease argu ing for what h think i right, he
become like an bedi ent woman and , as a re ult, get disempowered .

nlike De. demona,

th ell ' p we r is not gr unded on language; it i ba ed on brute Ioree v hich surpas · c~
e demona' supremacy becau e h r power emanat

from a source-languag

\\ hich is

29

un tabl it elf. Fr m thi p int n De dem na begin playing the r le fa ubmi
a

d m na ' " id ntit dimini h

iz Lewi argu ,

JV

wi~ , and,

f th

until he fit into th

ilent woman '' (qtd in Da 41 ).
Ju tap

ing pi ak' th e r

ith th pi a

th 1/o, n und er tand that the rea n why

uch a p w rful w man ann t p ak ~ r her elf i that he bee me a ub altern fi gure trapped in
the in titution f patriar hy/maJTiage nee

na and her wo rd . F r

thell

amp! , D d m na' li ab ut th handker hi ef: " I a , it i n t I t" ( .4. 85) pea k to thi s
idea and tami he
"Theo ry f

dem na· truthfuln

ual P liti

and cha tity in th e eye of her hu band . ln her e ay

: · Kat Mill et clarifi

th id ea f cia ica l patri archy: "th e fath r

[had] nearly total wner hip ver wife r wi e and children ... [ ] hea d f th e famil y the fath er
i b th begetter and wn r in a y tem in whi ch kin hip i pr perty" (300). It i patri archy th at
allow

thello to make De demona a pr pe11y whi ch bel ng t him onl y. In thi ca e,

De demona lo es her ow n identity a a human being and beco me like pi va k' literal ubaltern
woman, the Hindu widow , who wa unabl e to peak for herself. The moment that De demona i
full y revea led a a ubaltem , neith er her v ice nor her language can pro tect her becau e he turn
out to be an obedient wife.
After De demona leaves Lodovico and

thello,

thell goe to De demona to repr ach

her for cuckolding him and calls her a whore: ''wa as thi s fa ir paper, thi mo t g odly book, I
made t write 'wh re' upon?" (4.2 .7 1-2). To that Desdemona re pond : "B) heaven. you do me
wrong" (4.2. 82).

th ell continu e addre in g D d mona V\ ith opprobri u language : "'vVhat

not a wh re?'' (4.2 . I). And De demona onl y keeps denyi ng it and doe not chall nge
for in ulting her: "No. a I hall be aved I 0, heaven forg ive u ·!" (4 .-. 87 had pr vi u ly poken up aga in t the Du ke of Ve nice a, well as

).

thcllo

esd 'mona, v. ho

thcllo him ciC is depicted as a

30

ub

rvi nt woman who e 1 qu n

ha in:D rm d th audi n

ha been taken away fr m h r. In thi

that h i n ta g

d peaker- "Rud am I in m
na and , ir ni call y,

2)- make J ng pe

cann t talk anym re, mainl y be au e ri ght "a fter th tal

fhandk rchi ef he I e th e initiative"

a that the di c ur e hift fr m languag t "thin g ,, uch a th

th II who ·~ rce

bod i " likened to a paper-b
:D r practic

p e h" (I .. 81 -

h rt ent nee a if he

handker hief, and mce he ha n p w r ver '' thin g ," he bee me
It i

thell , who

e d m na, wh i initially

d fined a a p werful w man du t her c mmand [ languag , u e

ely 2 0) . Thi i t

cen ,

ilent.

e dem na t ad pt the r le of a ubaltern fi gure.
k, ne of the b ok

in writin g" (Wayne 169).

e demona'

f bl ank paper that Renai ance tud ent u ed

thell i of the opini on that De dcmona ha written the

word "whore" on "thi fair paper," which i th e rep re entati on of De demona ' body, '' thr ugh
committing adulterou de d " ( 169). But

th ell o ~ rget th at th e ac t o f wr itin g i ge rm ane to

men because u ually during Renai sa nce "th e pen and th e wo rd we re a
( 172). Thu th e activiti

ciat d with men"

of writing and fighting are mainl y of men and n t w men: " it i

wom n 's speech that Iago wo rri es about" ( 169). 6 Here

thell o di regard the fact that women

are associated with needl ework or speech and n t writing.7 In thi ca e,

th ll o " i co nfu in g th

agency of the discour e: he doe not notice who doe the wri tin g, who comm it it" ( 169).
Accepting the notion that usua lly men do the act of writing, it i Othello himself who write the
word "whore" on De dem na ' "fair paper'' and th erefore di empower her. De demona i
offended by

o

thell o' afTr nt that he ay : ·· I ca nn ot ay 'whore.' I It doc abhor me now I speak

the word" (4.2. 162-3 ).
thell ' opprobriou languag taint
sp ak [! r her elf.

he mom nt

c dcmona' cha tit) and make.· her unablt:: to

thcllo c crci e hi s power in a patriarchal regime that allo\\ s

31

him t treat hi wi.fi a hi

wn pr p rty and when he a u e

he ha lo t the handkerchi f,
b dy) , 1

dem na f adultery be au e

dem na , wh had t ca r fully wat h the handker hi f (her

her p wer which had r pr

nt d it If thr ugh her el qu nee. Thi id a explain

e dem na cann t defend h r elf and ad pt the r le fa ubaltern fi gure and

the rea

n wh

make

h Ii entenc

Wa n argue that

thell blame h r in thi pa1ii cul ar cene.

t pr te t h r ha tity wh n

e d m na" ann t epa rate the language fr m her wn b dy- 'a bh r' again

affirn1 the conn cti n [...] F r

e d m na th rei n differen eat all , b ca u e he i unabl e to

r i t thi rhet ri c when it co me from her wn hu band" ( 170) . In li u frepr aching
for in ulting her, De d m na become a il ent wo man and " th ell o' w rd
De dem na ' b dy and beco me a part of her" ( 170) .

th ell o

ti ck n

e demon a' a cepta nc of th ell o 's

demean ur turn her into a Hindu widow, the ubaltern fi gure, who did not have a vo ice to reject
the practi ce f ati .
In another ro m in theca ti e where De demona and

thell o meet in the nex t cene,

Othello in tructs De demona to go to bed and end h r maid, milia, away .
imperati ve verb and De demona only obey him.
the in tant; I will be returned forthwith di mi

thell o u es

thell o tell De demona : " et you t bed on

your attend ant there : look it be done" (4 .3.7-9).

To that De demona responds: " I will my lord" (4.3. I 0). Desdemona, who would not ac ept
Oth ell o' every word when he was courting her, become a pa siv obedient wife. In thi bri ef
conve r ati on,

th ell o u e three ve rbs "get", "di mi '',and " I ok" con ecutively, all of\\hi h

are imperative. How ever, De demona onl y obey Oth ell o' demand on the ba i that she "must
not now di pl ea e him" (4.3 . I 7) . lntere tin gly, when

th cll o revea l · hi intenti on to her that she

hould be kill ed, D demona neither in ults nor cur e

thello r r murdering her as an innocent

.32

nvmce

wiD . In the b d hamber in the a tle, De d m na nly trie t
and giv her m r tim , but

thell d e n t accept what h a k

thell n t t kill her

[! r:

wn, trumpet!
d mona . Kill m t -m IT w: 1 t me li e t -ni ght!
th 1/o. ay if y u tri , d mona . But half an h ur!
!h ello. B ing d ne, ther i n pau e .
. d tn ona . ut whil I ay n prayer!
th 1/o. It i t o late.
(5 .2.79- 4)
Howe er, hartl y aft r thi in id nt,
donethi ded ."

miliaak ,a nd

De dem na ' dead bod

e dem na deni e being murdered by
e demonare pnd

"

th ell : " Wh hath

body; lm ye lf '(5.2. 122-3).

nth marri age bed ca n be likened to th e b dy of a Hindu widow who

ha immolated her elf upon the pyre f th dead hu band , reminding u of pi va k' a erti on that
although "the ubaltern ha no hi tory and cannot peak, the ubaltem a female i even more
deepl y in shad ow" (83). a it i in

e demona' ca e. Finally. her corp e c nvey the noti on th at

De demona · empowerm ent did not prove durab l and wa

on re cinded by a superior

authority, the hu band . Like De demona who was initially an eloq uent peake r. Lady Macbeth·
command of language i quite admirable.
Similarly, Lady Macbeth· language is a so urce from whi ch he obtain p we r. Fo r Lady
Macbeth , femininity i

ynonymou with weaknes and fra ilty, and the idea of trength re ona te

with ma culinity. arolyn Asp clarifie

uch a noti on: " In a oc iety in which ~ mininit i

div reed from strength and womanline

i equated with weaknes [ .. .], th , trong woman find

herself hemmed in psychologica ll y, forced to reject her ow n woman line , to ome c. t nt, if _he
i to be true t her strength" (202). Lady Macbeth re eive a letter from Macbeth which infonns
her that three witche ha ve pr phes ized that Macbeth wi ll be the future king. Meanwhile. a

33

rvant enter and report t
the

ad Ma b th :" he kin g

rvant lea e her, in her m

t fam u

me her t ni ght" ( 1.5. 18) . Right after

Iii qu y Lady Ma b th ay :

m , y u pirit
hat tend n m rtal th ught , un e m h r ,
nd fill m fr m the r wn t the t e t p-full
f dire t cru elty. Mak thi k my bl d.
t p up the a c
and pa age t rem r e,
That n c mpuncti u i iting of nature
hake my .G II purp e, n r ke p pea e b twe n
me to my w man brea t ,
h ffe t and it!
nd take my milk .G r ga li [.]
( 1. 5. 30-)
Given that Lady Macbeth kn w that th re 1 hi gh likelih
king of c tl and , her

d th at her hu band may become the

liloqu y ugge t that he i int re ted in obtaining power even at the co t

of I ing her own ·~ mininity. Thi id a impli e th at ady Macbe th ha full y gra ped "th e
tereotype of her

ciety" that 'vVO m n are inferi or to men and , a a re ult, he think th at he ha

to deprive her elf of her w man lin
hu band" (A p 203). AI

" if he i to have any effe t n th e pub Ii Iife of her

, one ca n argue th at by "un ex in g" her elf, Lady Mac beth will adopt

ma culine traits in order to po e

more power than she could ever have as a woman. Along the

same line , Janet Alderman explain that Lady Mac beth ee m to '' und o reproducti ve fun tio ning
and perhap to stop th e menstru al bl ood th at is th e ign of it pot nti al" (57) . Furth erm ore, Lad
Macbeth' rh etori c is of great ignifi ca nce beca u e it proves that she can come up wi th
metaphors and imagery spontan eo u ly to e pre

her ev iI intenti on. Lady Macbeth · eloquence

mi xed with her lu t for p wer empower her and will eve ntual!

hape 1a be th ' future.

Moreover, Lady Macbeth liken her elf to an evil moth er who i going to raise her son,
Macbeth, differentl y. A Robert N. Wat on e ' plains, Lady Macbeth 's "req uest that the spint ·
' take my milk for ga ll ' ugge t that th e reborn Ma b th (like th e reborn ' oriolanus) can b '
nurtured int life onl y by Ouid

ppo ite to ' the milk ( r hum an ki ndness ' b) \\hich he \\U S

34

ori ginal I

[i rmed and fed " ( 154). Ruminatin g ab

pre 1 u

uttered : " I fear th nature, I ll i t

Ju tap

ing thi id a with

brea t " e in e

full

' th ' milk f human kindn

ad y Ma b th ' de 1r l r pia

h can murd er Duncan l be

ith "gall" in rd r l depri
me kin g f

tl and .

" ( 1. 5. 15).

"milk" with "gall " in her 'w man '

uch a Iaim that he Iiken her If t a m th er and

wn hild wh need l be fed

human kindn

ut Ma beth b her elf, Lad Macbeth ha

n id r Macbeth a her

him o f " human kindn

that

n id erin g th e im age f th "milk of

," ne an argue th at La dy Ma b th " b ome th e inh erit r of th e realm f

primiti e r lati nal and bodil y di turban e: f infantil e vuln erability to matern al powe r" (5 8).
npa kin g thi m taph r ugg t th at Mac beth , a Lady Mac beth ' infant, i vuln erabl e to her
pow er.
There are two different convincing interpretati n r garding th e aforementi oned
quotation . Interestingly, both of th e ex pl anati on are indicati ve of a common concept- power.
Accepting the fir t interpretation mean that Lady Macbeth un exe her elf to reject weakne
equated with womanline

in rd er t be a uperi or g nd er and pos ibl y hare power with

Macbeth . Likewi e, the econd exege i i al o germane to the id ea of power beca u e if Lady
Mac beth i Macbeth ' mother, it i Mac b th V\h o will need to be depend ent on her for nutrition
and educati on. If thi be so, Macbeth ' ''boy i h depend ence" (Hob on 174) on Lady Macbeth can
be explained considering that he i nurtured by Lady Mac beth ' ev il thoughts and i heavi ly
influenced by her rhetoric. Thi id ea is indi ca ti ve of Lad Mac beth' co ntrol and authority O \ er
Mac beth and will elu cidate Lady Mac beth ' domin ati on over him o long a

he era e pow er

and u es her language to j u ti fy Mac beth ' murder of Duncan to usurp th e crown of cotl and .
hi parti cul ar exege i will p e a threa t for Lady Mac beth ' fu ture becau se h ~r uprcmacy ts

35

1 ng a Ma b th remain a hild but when Macbe th b orn e mature, he i g m g

guaranteed

t r pla e hi m ther' influ n
ur1herm r , it
Mac beth if h b

\ ith hi

em that

wn

lf-d t rminati n .

ady M acb th i

me th e kin g. M a b th ' o n

f th e pini n th at h
rd

an h ar p w r w ith

ub ta nti ate uc h a c la im wh e n re ferrin g

to

ad

Macb th a " m ' d are t pa rtn e r f g r a tn e " ( 1.5. 1 1). M a be th depic t him elf a a

p r

n

h i "fr

fr m th e hau ini ti attitud

M r o e r, M a beth ' r
pow r w ith hi

po u

pe t ~ r

c ie t " (

ady Ma be th ugge t th at he m ay al

and it ee m th a t

pow r in he r ow n ri ght" (202).

th at d min at hi

be w illing to hare

ady M a b th " i attrac ted by the pr

o n id rin g th at to bee m e th q u

p 202).

p ect [ w ielding

n o f co tl a nd r quire

p er uadin g M acbeth to murd r Duncan , Lady Ma b th ' lu t ~ r p we r ca n be a ppre ia ted
better. M acbeth info rms Lad y M acbeth th at he doe no t want to murd er Dunca n:
W e w ill proceed n furth er in thi bus ine s.
H e hath honored m e of late, a nd I ha e boug ht
o lden opini ons fro m all sort of peopl ,
Which would be wo rn now in th ei r newe t glo s,
No t ca t aside so soon .
(1 .5.32-5)
R eading Mac beth '

tate me nt c lo ely ev ince th c la im th at he i looki ng fo r Lady Macbe th '

penni io n to terminate the murd er pl an a if the ul tim ate deci io n-m aking proce
done by her. M acbeth is th e thane of

houl d be

lam is and po e e politi ca l power an d influence, o he

doe not have to in form hi w ife about hi dec i ion , given th at a w man wa o nl y required to
obey him . But do ing o ugge t th at Lad y Macbeth i a very influ enti a l person in Macbeth'
life.
Lady Macbe th ' c riti c i m of M acbe th i of grea t signi ficanc and i , indicative or her
auth ority.

po n hea rin g M acbeth ' c hange of m ind , Lady Macbeth severely criti ' izcs him :
Was th e ho p drunk

J6

Wh rem y u dre d y ur elf? Hath it lept ince?
nd wake it n w, t 1 k o gr en and pal
t what it did
fr ely? r m thi tim
uch I a
unt thy 1 e. rt th u afeard
T be th am in thin wn act and al r
th u art in de ire . W uld t th u have that
Whi h th u t em' t th e ornam nt flife,
nd li e a c ward in thin
n e teem,
ettin g " I dar n t" wait up n " I w uld ,"
Like the po r cat i' th ' adage.
(1.7 . 6-45)

ppreciating the id ea that uch a ca thing c nd emnati n i not exp cted t be aid by a wife
ugg t that Lady Macbeth p
di para g

ufii cient auth rity t

Macb th to a great e tent a if, a

ay uch w rd t him . he

delman argue , Lady Macbe th " makes th murd r

of Duncan the te t f Macbeth ' virility: if he cann ot p e r~ rm th e murd er, he i in effec t r du ced
to the help !

ne

of an infant ubj ect t h r rage" (5 ). AI o. Lady Macbeth co nd e cendingly

ridicules Macbeth that hi hop i "green and pale" and id entifi e him a "e ma culated" and
attaches the symptoms of hangover and "of the green -sickne

[to him], the typical di ea e of

timid yo un g virgin women" (5 8) .
In fact, Lady Macbeth belittles Macbeth ' manlin ess in such a way that Macbe th say :
"Prithee peace: I 1 dare do all that ma y become a man , I Wh o dare do more i none" ( 1.7 . 46 - ).
Reali zing that his masculinity ha been everely attacked by his wife, Macbeth rea on that h
not going to murder the rightful king because it i against hi moral scrupl e and not because he
lacks coura ge to do so. Upon hearin g Macbeth ' reacti on, Lady Macbe th argue that her love for
Macbeth i dependent "o n the murder that he id entifi e a eq ui alent to hi male potenc) : ·rrom
thi tim e I uch I ace unt th y love' ( 1.5. 38-9) ; ' Wh en yo u dur t do it, then you vvcrc a man '
( 1.5.49)" (A lderman 58) . The c nve r ation between Macbeth and La ly Macb 'th convc , the

i ea that ady Macbeth is dominant and Macbeth i dominated by h 'r rh 'toric . In thi s rega rd ,

37

Alan 1-J b on argu

that " Lad Ma b th ' d mman e ugge t a p

i h depend nee p rhap '' ( 174). It al

b

emanat
[! r c

fr m th fa ct " he i bludg

f hara ter" (B

m that Ma b th ' d p nd n

ned int th e de d b

ad Ma b th '

in him , a

n Lad Macbeth
uperi r rh et ri and

th 94 .

Lady Ma b th remind Ma b th ab ut hi
Dunca n n hi humbl n
my int nt, but nly I

ible weakn

and irtu e , h c n lud

n am bition. After Ma beth c mpliment
that ··1 ha

aulting ambiti n, whi ch 'erl cap it elf I

n

pur I

nd fall

pri ck th e id e

f

nth ' oth r" ( 1.7.25- ).

In fact, Macbeth admit that it i hi ambiti n that ha lured him int murd ering the rightful king.
A

oon a Lad Ma b th r ali ze th at Ma beth ha

han ged hi mind , he tell Macbeth : "What

bea twa 't, then , I That mad e yo u break thi s enterp1i e t me?" ( 1.7.47 -9) . In thi regard, Wilbur
ander argu

that Macbeth i ''paral y ed by th e near-accuracy of her acc u ation . F r he cannot,

except on th e mo t lit raJ leve l, deny th at he ha br ached th e matt r in th at letter to" her ( 15 1).
Furthermore, ander explain that Lad y Macbeth a ks Macbe th "to ee him elf a the kind of
man who murders for ambiti n, as if the crucial deci ion were taken" ( 151). Lad y Macbeth
enti ce Macbeth into killin g by focu in g on hi moti vati ng force. "va ultin g ambiti on," becau
he is fully cognizant of what inspire Macbeth to do uch a dreadful crime. By making u

of

rhetoric and accusation, Lady Macbeth paraly e Macbeth and repre e Macbeth· moral
scrupl es in order t push him to do what Macbeth had deci ded to stay away from . onvinced by
her per ua ivenes , Macbeth ays: " I am ettled, and b nd up I ac h corporal ag nt to thi
terrible feat" (I .7.80- 1).

n idering that "power i neither giv n, nor

changed, nor re O\ ered,

but rather exerci ed, and that it only e i t in action" (Pm,·er!Knml'led~e 9), one can certain!
argue that Lady Ma beth is a p werful individual b ca u. e nobod y ha gra nted her an power:
she c erci e el qucnc to ' nit " in a tion ," th action being her dial ogue \\ith Macbeth .

3

ne an b tt r appr
that the mi

i n 1 a

ry .mg: '''
awdor I
him t

iat Lad Ma cbeth '

mpli h d .

tr ng- mind edne

ft r Ma cbeth murd er

and brav ry th e m m ent

un an, Mac b th ay that h e hea r a

p n m re !' t all the h u e . I ' lami hath murd ered Jeep , and the r II r

hall leep n m r ., (2. ~. 40--). It e m th at Ma be th ' m ra l crupl

uc h an x t nt th at h b gin t hallu inat .

M acb th begin t

na

uffer fr m uch a dreadful a ti n , he a

unbend your n bl e trength t think I

bra in i kl

ad y M acb th find

hav e v

ed

ut th at

: " Wh y, w rthy th an e, I Y u d

fthin g ·· (2 .2. 4 -6). Lad y M acbeth tri e to

keep Ma beth ' m o ra le a nd c urage up , d pi tin g h r e lf a a powe rful wo ma n n w h m
M acbeth i depend ent if he i to rem a in ca lm . F inding o ut th at M acb th ha carri ed th e dagger
out of Duncan ' r

m , Lad M a beth te ll M a b th th at dagge r " mu t li e th ere.

and m ear I T h

epy groom w ith bl ood (2 .2.4 7- ). T th at Macbeth r

m ore: I I am afraid to think w hat I have don e; I L

o ca rry th em

p nd : 'T II go no

k on ·t again I dare n t .. (2.2.49-5 1).

Intere tingly, Lad y M acbeth ay :
lnfirrn of purpo e!
ive m e the dagger . The leeping and th e dead
Are but a pictures. 'Ti the eye f childh ood
That fear a p ainted devil. If he [Dunca n] do bleed,
I'll g ild th e face of th e g roo m w ith a L
For it mu t seem their guilt.
(2 .2.52-57)
nlike M acbeth, La dy M acbeth i not afraid of eeing th murd er cene, p011raying her elf a a
brave- hea rted wo m an w ho surpasse her hu band ' a uda c ity and identifi e him a a chi ld .
mpa ring M acbeth and Lady M acbeth, her co urage in acti on e ceed th e idea of gender
ex pectati n and depi c t h r a a li o nh eatied wo m a n wh doe w hat her h u ~ band i afraid of
M reove r, Lady Macbeth ' statem ent ar c lea rl y indi ca ti e of her upcriorit over Macbeth :

-9

"My hand are f y ur

ham I T w ar a h art

white'' (2 .2.6 -4 . lt i

Ma b th ' langu g a we ll a bra

r that fin all put th

n n Ma beth ' head .

Lady Macbeth 1 e h r p

i ti n and p wer nc

un an 1 murd red by Ma cb th.

J an Lar n Klein argu

, after Ma beth kill

(244) and Ma beth · pl an ann t b r ali

(3 .2 .4 ).

s

uncan, Lady Macb th cann t r ach her hu band

d b h r. · r e ample, Lad y Ma b th cann t

c nj ctur ifMa b th i g in g t murd r hi fri nd
d ne?" ( .2 .4 7).

ady

that Ma b th re p nd : "

anqu wh n a kin g Macbeth : " What' t be

mn c nt f th e kn wledge , dea re t chuck"

indicated, Lady Ma b th neith er kn w nor i

in~

rmed about Macbeth' future

murder plan ofBanqu . If Lady Macbeth wa in the ame po iti on that he had been, Ma cbeth
would ha e ce11ainly appri ed her f hi plan . Kl in xpl ain that after Macbeth kill Banquo, he
" i wholly d minated by elf: ' F r mine ovv n go d I All cau e

hall giv way'" (Kl ein 244) . If

thi be o, th n Lady Macb th' marginali zati on can better be appreciated. It ee m that Lady
Macbeth ' downfall c mmenced th mom nt that Duncan 'v\a putt death . In thi regard .
Macduff s re pon e to Lady Macbeth 's que tion: " What' the bu ines , that such a hid eo u
trumpet I Call to parley the leeper of the house?" (2.3 .83-4) i of great ignificance. Macduff
say :
0 gentl e lad y,
'Ti not for you t hear what I can speak:
The repetition, in a woman's ea r,
Would murder a it fell.
(2 .3. 6-9)
By so aying, Macduff destroys what Lady Macbeth ha tried t achieve o far, which wa
reducing her own womanline

to better re

nate with ma culinit) .

I o, Macduff" , tatement

uggest that Lady Macbeth i n t invited to particirate " in the mal e 'v\ Orld ofrc \ enge" (Klein
246). Thi i to say that there i no pia

for ady Macbeth "in the exclusively male \\orld of

40

tr a

nand r

nge" (- 46) . Lad Ma beth ,

un e ing h r elf appr

iat

h had pre i u I rej ected her femininity by

that he i n t w lc me t the w rld f rna ulinity and fall d wn
ady Ma b th ' " faint i g nu111 e, a

all fa udd n: ' Help m h n e, h !" (2 .. 12

nfin11 ati n f debilit "(246). Wh th r Lad Mac beth ' faint i tru e r n t, " it dramati ca ll y
ymb lize wea kn

. It ha th furth r

p riph er , fr m when

f~ ct

ing h r fr m th

entre f event t the

h nev r r turn "(_4 ). Ma b th , h w \ er, i

c upi ed d e ~ ndin g

him elf that he n gle t hi

wi~ ·

f rem

fall (246). Ma beth ' neg li ge nce ab ut Lady Mac beth in thi

pa11icul ar c ne metaph rically :fl re hadow hi future neglect of Lady Macbeth, whi ch will
ignificantl y c ntribute to her di empowerment.
Macbeth doe n t hare power with Lady Macbeth after he bee me the king.

nlike

what Lady Macbeth had a umed, Macbeth di tance him elf from Lady Macbeth once he put
the cr wn on hi head. imil arl y,
relation hip, but once Iago pollute

thell o and De demona tart out in a le

patriarchal

th ell o' mind , Othell o adopt a more traditi onal ro le in th e

family and distances him elf fro m De demona a we ll a their co nj ugal love. In the sam e way,
Macbeth make hi s own deci i n without haring hi thought and plan with La dy Macbeth.
tated previously, M acbeth doe not inform Lady Macbeth abo ut more murder pl an . Macbeth,
who was dependent on ady Mac beth ' dec i ion when he wa go in g to mu rder Du ncan, doe not
consult w ith Lady Mac beth anymore. A long th e e I ine , Kl ein wri te : "No longer hi
accompli ce, he lo e her role as h u ekeeper. Macbeth plans th nex t fea t, not Lady Macbeth.
It i Macbeth who invite Banquo to it, not Lady Macbeth, wh had wei om d Dun 'an to
ln v rn e

by her elr' (246) . Moreov r, Lady Mac beth i unabl e to conjecture Macbeth· s future

ac ti on or hi s intenti on . Thi cla im can be apprec iated when Lad Macbeth', -pcech at the
b ginnin g of th e pl ay is j u ' taposed with her sentence a fter Dunca n' , death .

41

B [! r Dun an ' d ath , ad Macb th c uld read Ma beth ' fa ial
in tance, when Macbeth ann un

pre i n . F r

that Duncan pl an t 1 a e th em after n day, Lady

Ma beth ay :

ad Ma beth '

Y ur fac , my thane, i a a bo k wh re men
May r ad trange matt r . T beguile th e time,
k lik the tim . Bear welc m in y ur eye,
k like th' innocent 0 wer,
Y ur hand , y ur t ngue.
But b th erp nt und er ' t.
( 1-5)
pe h ugg t th at he an rea d Ma beth ' th ught and ev iI intenti n .

H we ver, after

un can · murd er, Macbeth ay that Lady Macbeth marvel at hi w rd ,

tn inuating that he ca nn ot read Macbeth · fac a a boo k anym re. Likew i e, after th e feast,
Lady Macbeth t II Ma beth : ''You lack the ea

n fa ll natur , leep" (3 .4. 142), not a um mg

that Macb th may be preoccupi ed with another pl an. Thi i to ay that Lady Macbeth cannot
under tand Ma cbeth any longe r becau e "Macbeth i th er beyo nd her reac h and
comprehen ion" (Klein 247) and , a are ult, he become powerl e s.
Lady Macbeth lo e her power and authority afte r Macbeth join the wick d witche .
Without informing Lady Macbeth, Macbeth pay th witche a vi it and leave Lady Macbeth
alone.

nlike Desdemona wh wa alway acco mpani ed with her female friend,

mi lia, Lady

Macbeth i never seen with any women in her company, o she i either alone on th

tage or i

with Macbeth (Kl ein 24 7). Thu one ca n argue th at once Mac beth "aba ndo n her company for
th at of th e witches, Lady Mac b th i totall y alone" beca u e Lady Macbe th lo e the only per on
wh wa depend ent on her decision and wo rd and , a a re ult.

ady Ma beth i "neither\\ ife.

queen, hou ekeeper, n r hoste " (248-9) . It i not acci dental tha t after Macbeth !em es Lady
Macbeth , h i

een in her leepwa lking

ene.

on id ring that Lad Macbeth is either "fast

a leep" (5. 1.8) r lee pwa lking. one can argue that her language is restri ·ted to a space between

pace in th

n e that her

ca n b h ard wh en he i

I ping and wa lking, b th f whi ch

ar e indica ti e f th futility [ her

i e a well a herr 1 in th

Ma cb th ' di emp w e rm nt i r pr

ent db

M a beth , her penitence

er w hat h ha

h r I e p a lkin g and regr t fo r h r pa t
ugge t th at it wa h r d

wr ngd ing . Whil e Lad Ma b th ' w rd

, Lad y

t ry at thi p int.

au

ire to hare p we r with

d i palpabl e . La d y M acb th ay :

ut, damn d p t! ut, 1 ay! n
tw i , m y 1 rd ,
w hy th e n ' ti tim e t d ·t. !! e ll i mu rky! fi e!
ldi r, and afeard . W hat need w fea r w h kn w
it, w hen n n can a ll ur p wer t ace unt? - Ye t
wh w uld ha e th o ught th
ld m an t have had
mu ch bl d in him .

(5 .1.32-7)
ady M acbeth '

ent n e a re not c n tru cted rea o nab ly; it i m re Iike h r trea m

con c io u ne . H owe er, o ne ca n rea li ze w hat h
A p c la rifi es th at Lad y Macbeth u e th e po

f

ay if he/ he ha fo ll owed th e play o far.
iv adjec ti ve" ur" the mo m en t " he spea k of

power, indi cating that it had been h er de ire and intent to hare, a fa nta y he can o nl y live o ut in
ni ghtm are "(207). A I o, Lad y M ac beth ' fin a l ente nce ugge t th at he i infa tu ated w ith her
gu ilt and , as a re ult, h er m o ral crupl e torture her to a grea t ex tent.
Lad y M acbeth ' domin at ion of M acbeth fa d

away compl etely. Lady Macbeth

commands th e " damn ed pot'' to go away, but, in he r ow n wor ld, she is un ab le t remo e the
spot fro m her own ha nd . A I o, w hen he say : "F ie, m y lo rd , I fie! A o ld ier, and afeard?"
(5 . 1.34 ), Lady Macbeth " in he r s lee p re li ve th e m a te ry ve r her hu sba nd he no longer ha "
(A p 207) . Intere tingly, it is onl y in her Jeep th at Lady M acbeth an ha e authority over
M acbe th . A t thi j un cture, sh e ha lo t her co mm and of language and i, remo eel from the entre
o f attenti o n in th e pl ay and i full y revealed a a uhaltem figur who cannot even , peak for
her

If anym o re. Lad y Macbe th i unabl e t co ntr l Macbe th and, as a result, cannot have an

43

fat ful impac t n lum b cau
n r th rul er he had e p

M a b th i n w a king and

t d t be

m e.

1 ng th

lin

ady M a be th i n ither a h u

w iD

, Kl e in argue :

Wh n w
e ad M a b th a t th e nd , th e re D re, he i "w m an ly'' o n ly in th a t he i
ick and wea k. ll th e al r of h r t ngu i g n e, a i her illu i n fit p w r. [ ... ]
1 ng a h li , ad y M a b th i n e r un e d in the nly way h wa nted t be
un e cd- abl e t a t wi th th ru lt y he ig n rantl y and p erver e ly id entifi ed w ith m ale
trength. (250)
Lad M a beth '

nd a

ab ut Dun ca n ' dea th .
m a culine w rld he

urt rn un

hrfemininit pr

p argue , Lad

to be futil e w h n he fee l g uilty

Ma be th at the nd " i c mpl ete ly rem o ed fr m th e

perately wa nt d t enter and w hi c h o effec ti ve ly ha exc lud ed her"

(207). Furth rm o re, Lad M a beth '

ente nce a re n t add re ed l any parti c ul a r per on

although he imagine that he i c mm and ing Macbeth w hat to do and w hat no t to do: " Wa h
your hand . Put o n yo ur nightgow n . L ok n t o pa l "(5 .1.59-60). H er word onl y appri e th e
reader of her ubcon c iou mind and do no t peak fo r her.
M acbeth m arg inalize Lad y M acbeth after he put th e crow n upon hi head and revea l
her statu a a sub altem figure.

pi va k argue that " th e q ue ti o n i not of fema le pati ic ipation in

in urgency, or ground rul e of the ex ual di vi ion of lab ur, for both of whi ch there i evidcnc

It i , rather,[ ... ] th e ideological con tru ctio n of gend r [that] keep the ma le dominant'" (82).
Ju xtapo in g

piva k ' th eory w ith Macbeth, one ca n certainly argue that Lady Macbeth, lik

M acbeth, ha p a11icipated in in urgency by murd ering the innocent and vi rtu o u king; howe er,
w hat keeps M ac beth do min atin g and Lad y M ac beth do m ina ted i " th e idco logi al con truction

f ge nd e r" th at a s ign th e r le of th e kin g to a m a n (Ma beth ) a nd n t a \voman . The moment
that M acbeth i in charge, Lady M a beth gradu ally begi n to lo e h r authorit until . he becomes
in ane. Wh en th e gend er co n tru cti o n a im

t always grants the tit le of a king to the man, x the

w man w ill have to be ub e rvie nt to the m an, and , a a rc ult, the suba ltern tigur' as a woman

44

wiH be unabl t

peak [! r h r elf. Klein throw

m li ght up n thi idea: " Wh en Ma beth

c nunand hi n ble t lea e him al n , ady Ma beth withdra
with them (3 .1.

-4 )'' (247).

tland Lad Macbeth b

hi i t
me

a that aft r M

ilently and unn ticed al ng

b thad pt hi r lea the kin g f

il ent and, a e pli cated by Klein, ob y Ma beth '

rder.

im ilarl , Lad Ma b th · Ia k f nan·ati ea t th end ca n be likened t that [Hindu wid w
wh ha no

ice to pr te t h r lf fr m uch a tradi ti on, pr

ubaltem w man wh a!

di

ing that ady Macbeth i a

like ne .

In h rt, what make D dem na a powerful w man 1 her ability to expre s de ire .
Ironi ca lly, what make herd minant, h r el quence, backfir
crime. Brei tenberg argu

and turn

ut t be De dem na '

th at her r1111 " i ac tin g ind pendentl y nough to activate the alway

pre ent male u pi cion that w men may, in fact, ha e the ame v lition and de ires a men,
howe er di scouraged by th e prevai Iin g bel i f y tern ,. ( 170 ). De demona argue her p int
convincingly and "choo e
di turbing to

thell o: he exe rci e her own ubj ecti vity a de ire/vo liti on in a way

thello and to her father becau e it imitate the condition and contour of their

subj ecti vity" ( I 70) . De demona · s lan guage give her subj ectivi ty, but thi idea ca nnot be
tolerated in the play inc e De demona interferes in men· world by enunciating her idea /de ire .
Patri archy within the play cannot accept the concept that a woman verbali ze what he will
because it cia he with the id ea of being obedient and sil ent that women were preach d to live up
to. A a result,

e dem na 's subj ec tivity i ruined by the repre entative of patriarchy, Othello.

imilarl y, Lady Macbeth ' per ua ivene

which be t w

ubj cctivity on her i not accepted in

the pl ay beca u e a w man' acti ve r le in political affairs ca nnot be tolerated in Shak.e, pearc's
patriarchal sy tem, whi h ift inOu enti al female character out from its ·y tcm . In fa ct. the
m ment that Ma b th put the crown on hi head, ady Ma ·beth gradual! begins to he

di mp w red becau e, a the h ad f the patriarchal r gim , Macbeth need t
fr m hi m ther fi gur wh ha guid d him t b c me th king f

parate him elf

tland . The id ea i that the

patriar hy hould n t be haped by a w man ' inOu n e and that i why Ma b th und rmin
Lad Ma b th '

up rema y b ign ring her.

nd b

d in g, Ma beth revea l Lady Macbeth '

tatu which i a ubaltern w man wh cannot p ak [i r her elf and "will b a mute a ever. "

46

hapter II:
The fleeting empowerment of terma ga nt in King Lear

''

uch me with n ble anger,
nd let n t w me n weap n , water dr p ,
h ek !"
tain m man

King L ar i a tra g d y in which th e ep n ym u king de id e t di vid e up hi kingd m
am ng hi thre dau ght r ,

neril , R egan, and

rd elia , w hen he i

the authority of"the ar hetypal kin g and fath e r," a nd riti
paucity of "

till ali ve . Lear tart with

ha e p inted o ut that hi initial

If-kn ow led ge" partl y emanate " fr m th e prerogative of kin g hip" (

the beginning of the play, Lear, a a fath er and al

vy 85) . ;\t

a king on top of th e pyramid of patriarc hal

power, offer different portion of ngland to each daughter ba ed o n her love for him. And, by
o doing, he inv ite hi dau ghter into an intense ri va lry over pr perty and wea lth :
Tell m e, my dau ghters,
( ince now we will dive t u both of rul e,
Interest of tenitory, ca res of state)
Whi ch of you hall we ay doth love u m o t
That we our large t bounty may ex tend
Where nature doth with merit challenge?- Goneril,
Our elde t bo111, peak fir t.
( 1. 1.43-49)

Novy w rite :"A king, Lear i th e ource

fall mo ney a nd pro perty; in their dep nden eon him

at this point the dau ghters rc cmbl wives in a patriarchal m aniage wh
begging it from th e ir hu band s" (86).

an g t mone by

ea r depict him se lf a a man dependent upon his

daughter ' w rd and flattery. he problem i that when blamey c me into pia , the concept or
truth will be di torted . llow ev r, Lear doc not ·eem to be mature enough to realize it, and \\hat
matter for him i to for

hi daughters to tell him how much the lo\ e him in order to make

47

him plea d and pri i I ged.

lth ugh

neri I' and R gan ' adu lati n [! r L ar help them t

gain L ar ' titl and

rd lia ' truthful p

hand in er I

n ri I' and Regan '

mp werm nt, it i

neril ' and Regan ' auth ritati ve langua ge that

fully di emp wer

[! r

ar pave th e way [! r

ear and depict th m a two p w rful fem al rul er . H wev r, un ati fi ed

with benefitin g fr m the auth ritati

language, b th

neril and Regan ad pt the idea f

ma culinity in rd er t pre ent them 1 c a ind mitabl m a culine rul er , but d ing
th b ginning of their end and e entuall y d pict th m a tw
idea that femal

mp w rment i alway

ph emcral in th e

When bl am ey i admired and truthfuln e

m ark

ubaltem fi gure , c nveying the
elected hakespea rean tex t .

i c n ured, the dd are tho e who are

untru two11hy are t be in an advantageo u po iti n.

indi cated ab ve, Lear ha ex pli citl y

inform d hi daughter that the m re tribute they pay to him , the more land they are go in g to
rece ive fro m him . Thu

on ril enter to "v ie for po liti ca l power thr ugh prote tati on of love"

(Kelly 4 ), and begin to ex pre s her in in cere love t Lear:
ir, I do love you more th an wo rds can wield the matter,
Dearer than eye ight, pace, and libe11y,
Beyond what can be valued, ri ch or rare,
No les than life, with grace, health, bea uty, honor,
A much a child e'er loved or fa ther fo undA love that make breath p or and peech unabl e.
Beyond all manner of o much I love yo u.
( 1.1 .50-6)

oneril' fl atterin g remark are bl atant, but~ r Lea r. \-v ho i intere ted in being in inccrcly and
exce sively praised, uch wo rd s are uffi cient to ea rn her the prop 11y and title he i
What is [ signifi cance is that, a fter

oneril end. her "fu lsome prote tation or love[.] Lear doc.

n t eva luate or prai c her remark "( Ro en ]_4).

oneri l knows how im1 ortant it is for her to

nvin e Lear f her love beea u e d ing o w ul d grant her the third of . . ngland as \\ell as the
privil cg

of a kin g t rul e ver a big chunk of land .

nlikc Dc.·d 'mona, ,oncril docs not
4

pre ent a r a nabl argument t p r uad h r fath er; h

nly flatter

want mainly b cau e he i m re inter t d in adulati n than r a
u c

fu ll guarant e h r wn har b u in g a langua g

that i

ar '' make n

ar to gain what he

n. That b ing aid ,

neril

uitab le G r h r fath r' charact rand

omm ent at all n her . pe ch [b

au e] he ha heard

what h ha wanted t h ar, and h imm di at I be t w up n h r a hare fth e kin gd m"
(R en 1 4 ). ln fa t, th r i n c ntent in h r pe ch up n which t make any
con idering the emptine

f the fi gure

mm ent ,

neril u e , but ear i n t mature en ugh t recogni ze

it.
In the am e wa , R ga n u e n atterin g language t
marked by h w111e

and he ri ght I

a

btain power. Regan'

: " I am made f th at

becau e he ha the ame deviou per onality a

If-m ttl e a my

peech is
ter" ( 1. 1.64)

oneril and , a a re ult, Rega n i a tri cky a

oneril to obtain her own hare of the kingdom. Interestingly, after Regan end her ga ud y li e
about how much he love Lear, Lear ffer her th e eco nd porti on of the kingdom without
saying any word to her becau e Regan, like
wa eager to hear.

oneril , has ati sfi ed Lear by telling him what he

oneril and Regan are both awa re of th eir fa l e tongue becau e tru th i

unimp rtant for these two i ter so long a they can ecure their elf-i ntere t, meaning that the
idea of truth for

oneril and Regan, like ophi sts, is merely ba ed on thei r immediate intere t

and not what the tongue hould truthfully express. This co ncepti connected to the in tability of
language and its relevance to the id ea of c mmodity. Like language, commodity by it very
nature i un tabl e; it va lue i determined by the fac t th at it circul ate . De demona · body i.
li kened t a commodity whi ch ci r ul atc and, a a re ult, i un table. imilarl , the e t\\ o i tcr.'
language is c mmodifi ed to a large c tent becau c it i chang ab le, like an unstable commodity,
in rd cr t deceive car for the sa ke of fulfill ing their own self-interest.

long these lines, Rosen

49

d b th w rid f appea ran e; he m i tak

plain that " Lear ha b en d
f

neril and R gan, their ene r f w rd whi ch

th e utwa rd

ver th e il within th m, [! r the

r a!'' ( I 6).
nlike R gan and
ith urpri

. L ar a k

n ril ,

rd elia d

n t dan e t

rd erli a: " Wh at an y u a t draw I

it r ? I p ak" ( 1. 1. 0- 1). T th at
Flabberga ted by u h an an

rd li a r p nd

er, ea r ay : " M nd

yo ur fortune .. ( 1. 1. 9-90) . Th n

"

ea r' tun and thi

trike him

third m re pul ent th an y ur

thin g, my I rd" ( 1.1. 2) .

ur p

h a Iittl e, I Le t y u may mar

rd li a make her truth ful p ch:

d my 1 rd ,
You ha e beg t me, bred me, loved me. I
Return tho e duti back a are ri ght fitbey yo u, love y u, and mo t honor yo u.
Why have my i ter hu band if th y ay
They lo e you all . Hapl y when I shall wed
That l rd who e hand mu t take my pli ght hall carry
Half m y love with him , half my care and duty.
ure, I shall never marry like my sister ,
To love my fa ther all.
(1 . 1. 90-8)

Cordeli a's respon e doe not li ve up to Lea r· s ex p ctatio n beca u e it i ap pri in g Lea r f the
tru th he i not intere ted in fi nding out. The impli cit truth i that Go neril and Regan are lying to
Lear and their language i replete with bl arney and duplicity in ord er to obtain hi kingdom and
title, but, Lear, who is an an ogant old king with ab olute power, i not mature enough to reali ze
what

ordelia is trying to co nvey. Fu1i hermore,

argue ,

oneriI i ri ght t

ord elia i chall enging Lear becau e, a

o

ay th at "true I ve de fi e th capaci ty of languag to c mmunicate it

full y" and fo r thi pari icul ar reaso n " ord li a' verba l inefficacy prevcnL her from
parii ipa tin g" ( 149) in uch an in sincere h w f love. DifTcrcnt rrom her t\\O si sters. Cordelia ·s
di obedi ence in thi s ontex t emanate from a true love [! r her father un. ullicd b wealth or titl e.

50

f earne t I

F r the ak

L ar and h r uit r France. Har ld
rd lia i

her ' d wer" ~ r th

rdelia a rifi
ddard thr w

e wh m he ad r ,

m li ght up n uch a claim that

one rn d that " ifh r fath r' plan g e thr ugh, h will b gi en t thew rldly

Burgundy wh m he
loe"( ll).

uld nl y ha e de pi

I rather than t the unw rldl y ranee wh m h

rdelia i a are that if he i to be di inh erited and bani hed. th ere i a chance that

the uitor wh d e not car ab ut wealth and p wer, wi ll till ad re her for wh
~ r what

he p

in her tru I v

uit r wh marri
~ r him

If becau

h r future hu band a mu ch a

he lov

a di inherit d prin e

rdelia ha already in~ rmcd
her fath r.

h i and not

i a man intere ted

ear that he is go ing t I ve

ox explain that

rdelia u e th word

"hu band '' and ''fath er'' int r han geab ly and "u nn aturall y oll ap e the di stincti n between
th m" ( 14 ). Ifthi be o, Lear's anger at
compared to

ordelia'

rdelia can b tter be realized ince he i bein g

p u e a if they are f eq ual importa nce.

hat bein g

aid,~

r France

who cares about truthfuln e

ordelia i the be t wi~ a he ay : .. he i herself ad wry"

( 1.1.236). In fact,

peech become m re meanin gful c n id ring that the moment

ordelia '

Burgundy refu es to marry

ordelia, France utters :

Fairest ordelia, that art most rich being poor,
Mo t choice for aken, and most loved despi ed!
Thee and th y virtu e here I seize upon,
Be it lawful I take up wha t' cast away.
( 1.1.245-8)
By aymg o, ranee depict him se lf as a uit r who va lue
lo e her hare of the kingd m, she manie

rdelia ' virtu .

!though ordel ia

ranee whom she carne tl y love for hi, appreciation

of her righteou nes and not her wealth. Keeping in mind that

ordelia love France sine 'rei

and u e " father" and "hu band" int r han gea bly in her pccch. one ca n be c rtain that , he trul)
I vc

ear too, but ear want

ordelia toe pre

that he only lo cs him .

5l

rdelia reje l Lear '

h w fflatt r

ut id appearance matter ; h

~ r th

than n lt ' ha

r him . F r Lea r

ur f him, and when he

ne who alu e

th at in thi parti cular tatement ear

e nl a a mea n

f adding t hi

wn

car i v. hi daughter ' languag a a mea n of communicati on t glorify and

eul giz him publically wherea

rd cli a kn w th at he cann t p

ordelia exagg rati n mean violating the truth, he decid
ri ghteou

~

rd elia : 'Better th u I 1lad l n l been b rn

pl ea ' d me better" ( 1. 1.2 7). R en argu

" i impariiall de cribin g him elf a
van it " ( 135).

that h ha

heri he a charg d languag u d in fa

rd lia r je ling what h wa nt , L ar ur e

find

ere I

111

ven th ugh Lear

ibl y do o, and ince fi r

nl y to be

" tru e" ( I . I . l 0 I ) and

e h r a " untend r" ( 1. 1. I 00) . Whil e it ca n be argued that

ordelia fail to realiz 'what matte r [for Lear] i th e

pre ion of I ve, th e peech u ed to

communi cate emotion-or, more to the point, to con truct th e illusion fit" ( o 148), if he
foil w her i ter ' path fflattery. he will be like th em- a per on wi thout any moral integrity
and given to falsity . ordelia neither u e her language for blarney-a her respon
questi n has indicated- nor for cond emnation a her farewe ll to
know yo u what yo u are, I And like a sister am m

to Lear'

oneril and Regan ugge t : '' I

t loath to ca ll I your faults a they are named"

(1 .1.263-5).

Bearing in mind that

ordelia realizes that lo ing her ti tie to

on ril and Regan threaten

Lear' future add another layer of compl e ity to the tory and the notion f truth .

npackin g

orde lia 's reacti n ugge t that he prefers avoiding flattery in order n t to tain h r
righte usne

rn ea r's show even at the cost of putting car or her. elf in danger. For in tance, if

ranee refu ed marrying

rdelia like hi

wn counterpart,

ordelia would have mo t likcl

been treated like a maid ervant by h r two ister if not worse. In addition,

ordclia' " othing.

my I rd" ( l . 1.82) cana l o e read a an inherent! tru phras be aus' the idea is that now )rds

can truthfully

pre

u ed t c mmuni at
witne
thi be

t

rd lia'

incere I

uch an n ti n t

e [! r ear and that i wh th w rd "N thin g" i

ear. lnd ed,

rd Iia ' lamentati n t her If bear

ucha claim :" Iam ur m I ve' /M r p nd er u thanm t ngue"( l . l .7 -4) . lf
th n

rd elia willingly a rifi e her land and titl e[! r th

h ha D r Lear ind p nd nt f any Oattering remark .

a re ult,

and av id calumniating her language with adul ati n de pite any kind
on quenc , one fwhi hi pa ing th e way G r

ak

f th tru e I ve that

rd elia remain righteou
f detrim ental

neri 1· and Regan' u urpati n f Lea r'

title and land and leaving her ld father in th e hand of tw deceitful daughter .
on ril and R ga n take over Lear' kin gd m and title by abu in g th eir lan guage and
d ceiving him . L ar co mpl tel gi e avvay hi " od-g ive n'' au th or ity a a king. Wh en d ing o,
Lear violate all th natural ord r '' by inv e ting an in ordin ate amou nt f power in inferior
indi vidual ,"and, more importantl y, he makes "th condition for rebe lli n by th
wa enjoined to control" ( aull 335).

e whom h

long th e lin e . Harvey L. Kl eva r exp lain that L ar'

irrati onal deci sion to divide up hi s kingdom repre nt "a eri u di ruption of that harmoniou
univer e wherein a kin g rul ed the

cia I ord er by di vin e, and hence natural, ri ght" ( I 17). Thu

when Lear upset the equilibrium, one expect that hi s action i going to have deleterious
con equences for him. In fact, right after Lear di vi de up hi kingdom and bani he
his tru tworthy nobleman, Kent,

ordelia and

oneril and Rega n begin ch ming again t Lear:

oneril. You ee how full of change hi age i ; the ob ervation
we have made of it hath not been little. He alway lov d our
i ter mo t, and with what poor judgement he hath now cast
her off appear too gro sly.
Regan . 'Ti the infirmity of hi age; et he had c cr but lcndcrly
known him elf.
oneri I. he be t and ounde t of hi time hath b en but rash;
then mu t we look from hi age to rccei e not alone the
imperfe ti n f I ng- ngraffcd condition, but th 'rcwithal the
unruly waywardne that infirm and choleric years bring ~ ith

5_

them.

( l.l. 2 0-90)
Readin g th

ter ' initi al pe h

l

and ju lap

in g th em

ith th eir a ~ rementi n d

dial gue [! r had w Lear' murk futur .
n ril i r p n ibl e [! r "th
h tran [! 1111 h r e

aulh riti e I That he hath give n awa " ( I .. I 7- ),

e ive Datt ry, which wa quite c nvin ing for cart wa rrant her hare,

int th authoritati e lanf:,ruage . The ame claim an b made for Regan wh i '' made f th at
elf- mettl e" a her i t r ( 1. 1.64 ). Th e id ea i th at one' language ca n be per ua ive, but ca nn t
ne e ari I ca u

an a ti n to happen. F r in tan e, De dem na' language wa persua ive, but,

at the end , it could not c nvin e

th ell n t t murd er her. Moreover, La dy Ma beth ' comm and

of language wa admirabl , ) et it fail ed to ec ure a durabl e po it ion ~ r her und er Mac beth '
juri dicti n. What eparat

neril fr m L ar at thi point i that her w rd are go ing to have an

impact becau e he ha u urped L ar· titl e and auth ority. Lea r' w rd are futil e beca u

h i

not a king any long r and a a re ult he i onl y a man tripped of power and auth rity. Un like
Lady Macbeth and Desdemona who have to take advantage f their eloqu ence to execute what
they intend , Go neril and Regan onl y need to command in ord er to obtain what they de ire.
oneril full y demonstrates her effi caciou language on e she speaks to Lear disdainfu lly.
Go neril attend to Lear and har hl y criticize him for not hav in g hi retainer di ciplined . Lo tat
what he ees, Lea r a ks

on ril : '' re yo u our daughter?'' ( 1.4. 178) . The po e 1ve pronoun

"o ur" sugge ts th at Lear till con ider him se lf th e genu ine king and, a a re ult, v ants to be
trea ted as such. However, Lea r is not a igni fican t per on for

oneri l anymore:

n1e, 1r,

I wo uld yo u wo uld make u e or tha t good wisdom
Whereof I kn w y u are fraught, and pu t away
The e di po ition that of late tra n form you
~ r m what y u rightly arc.

54

(1.4.179- 1 2)
n ril ' r mark ar quit innammat r . L ar, a a kin g. ha n
rud manner becau , a a rul er he p
i ed hi auth rit , it i her
hi wi d m i indi ati ve f th

rb n p k nt

e ed the ab lute auth rity, but n w that

rd that matt r.

n ri I'

111

uch a

neril ha

urage t in ult L ar by qu e ti nin g

ignifi ant hift f the balance f power wh n c mparing her

ob equi u

p - h at th b gmmng f th pl ay w ith th e way he peak to L ar n w.

language i

traight[i rw ard and b reft f any adul ati n mce he ow n a language gr und d n

oneril '

actual authority.
In fac t,

n ril · w rd are yn nym u with deed b ca u

ngland wherea Lear ha give n up th at leg itim a

. If thi be o.

shall carry a lot of weight for Lear. F r in tance, the moment

he i a leg itim ate rul r 111
oneri I' w rd and behav i ur

n ril enters before he begin

criti cizin g him , Lear a k : " H w now. daughter? Wh at make th at fr ntl et on? yo u are too much
of late i' th ' frown" ( 1.4. 149-5 0). lntere tin gly. Lea r' Fo I ays: "Th u wa t a pretty fe ll ow
when thou hadst no need to care fo r her frownin g" ( 1.4. 15 1). The im pli ca ti on i that Lea r'
concern about

neril· s frown i indi ca ti ve of hi s inferi rity to Goneril b cau e he would never

need to pay scrupulous attention to her when he wa the king in power. Lo ing the authority ha
made Lear vulnerabl e to hi

wn daughter's behav iour and word . Thi s co ncept i fu ll ..

ubstantiated when Goneril infl icts emoti onal pain on Lear and make him leave h r pala e.
oneril criticize Lear that he should act wisely and not keep numerou knight in her court
becau

th ey are "di ord ered, so debo h d and b ld" ( 1.4. 197). Then

oneril rai e the bar

higher and ays:
Be then desired
By her that el will take the thing he beg ,
A littl to di qu antity yo ur tra in,
And the remainder th at hall still depend

-5

T b u h men a may b 11 y ur age,
Whi h kn w th m e1 e and y u.
( 1.4.202- 7)
n ril ·
ft; it i
w rd

ery dire t b ca u e he i th p
ear

mpl et ly l

hi

an y capacity to impo
on ril de r a
L ar ca n ay to

r f 1egitimat auth ri ty.

ntr I and ta11 cur tn g

add! my h r e ; ca ll my train t geth r. -1
npr te t d and vu In rabl e t

rb are imperati e and her t ne 1 n t

neril ' d

n ril : '

p n hea ring uch

arkn e

and dev il I

g nerat ba tard , I' II n t tr ubl e th e " ( I .4.207 -9).
ar'

nl y wea p n i hi language b reft

r

puni hm nt n her.
th numb r

r ea r' I ya l retain er · to half "within a ~ rtni ght," and all

oneri I i : " 1 am a hamed I That th u ha t p we r t

hake my manh od thu "

(1.4.25 1-2) . Leonard Tenn nh u e expl ain th at ea r' retain er app ar a an impo11ant i ue
which create a di vi i n b tween Lear and hi daughter fo r the rea

n that retainers repre ent

the authority th at Lea r u ed to have, and "detac hed from th e leg itim ate right to exerci e powe r,
they [retain er ] uddenl y po e a potenti al threat to legitim at auth ority" (64). Thi i to say that
Goneril ''fear th e retain ers mi ght e hibit fea lty to the perso n of th e monarch over and above the
newer burea ucracy she has in tail ed'" (64). T e tabli sh her power better.

oneri l need to

eradicate any fonn of loyalty to her fa ther in order to con truct a new sy tem upon which he i
the auth enti c rul er. Go neril ' power i n t merely ba ed on language; it i grounded up n the
legitimate authority that has been pa ed unto her fro m a rightful ki ng. 1n other word , language
is a vehicle through which

neril enunciate her idea and e ecute what he intend, to do .

With thi idea in mind , we ca n appr ciate Lea r' mi er. and

oneril'

upremacy .

In fact, ear i unabl e t take any acti on aga in t ,oneri l, o the only weapon len for
him i to u

an emoti onally charged language. L 'ar say :"B lasts and fog s upon thee!

rh '

6

undin g

untented

fa fath r'

ur

I Pi r e

r

en e ab ut th ee !" ( 1.4.254- ).

n p1 u u I , ear app al t natural and upernatura l [! rc

; Lear ' p wer ha b en attached

t a languag that ha n actual pla e in th p liti al ar na and that i the r a n why hi
langua g i imp tent. lnt re tin gl .

h n

ar· auth rit i

that attache p wer and languag t nature, th c m
indi at d ab

e. H we er,

, h p rtray her lf a a rul er who gr und her deci i n

u h a th claim that Lear, a an ld man, d c not need a hundred

retain er who ar give n to d bau her . di
great threat for

, and upen1atural [! rce a it ha been

n ril ha atta hed her language t c heren t argum ent ba ed on

her wn p liti al intere t . B d ing
on coherent argument

tripped away, th r i a cl ar hift

oneril,

rder. and ind cc n y. In fact, Lear' retainer po e a

he refu e t keep all

f Lear· retainer , politically manoeuvring

Lear by a erting that hi knight have turned her ca ti e into "a brothel'' ( I .4.200). There i no
evid ence for claiming o, but what matter for
pre ented and not it

oneril i the way her argument has been

incerity . Had it been theca e th at he wa interested in truth, he wo uld

have accepted Lear' initial condition, which wa keeping a hundred knight . Indeed,

oneril

depict herself a a ophi t who argues for her elf- intere t only.
onsidering that Regan, like

oneril, posse e an efficaciou language grounded on

legitimate authority, one can be certain that Lear ha to submit to her word too . hortly after
Lear leave Goneril' s palace in tear . hi Fool inform s him that Regan is not different from
oneril :" he wi ll taste as like thi as a crab does to a crab .. ( 1.5. 15). Fool's statement indicate
that he is full y awa re of the fa ct that

oneril and Regan are of the . ame e en e of evil like

Regan has previ u ly utter d: " I am made o f that elf-mettl e a my , i ter .. ( 1. 1.64). In fact. Lear
comes t rea lize that he i completely di emp wered once he vi it Regan . ln Regan· . presence.
ea r di vulge what is in hi hea rt: "Th y i ter· naught.

Regan. she hath tied I Sharp-toothed

57

unkindne

lik a vulture, here. I can

ha genuine grie anc again t

ar

p ak t th e" (2.4. 12 - ) .

neril and trie t

r

n R gan '

ar, a an ld father

h uld r. B in g h artbrok n,

what ear I a t e p t i t be riti iz db Regan at thi junctur . Jn fact, R gan ' re p n
make

ar di c mb bulat d:
1r, y u are ld .
ature in you tand n the very ve rge
f hi c nfine. Y u h uld be ruled and led
y m di creti n that di ern y ur tate
etter than yo u yo ur elf. her [i r 1 pray y u
That t ur i ter y u d make return .
ay y u have wr nged her, ir.
(2.4 .137- 44)

Regan,

h had told

ear" nd find I am alone felicitate I In yo ur dea r hi ghn e 'I ve" (I. I .70-

1), play an entirely differ nt role here. Her flattery ha changed into in ult b ca u e he i now a

ruler to whom Lear mu t ubmit. Regan ca n afford to use uch improper langua ge again t Lea r
becau e, like

oneril, he po e se the legitimate authority adorned with authoritative langu age.

Goneril al o join Regan, and they argue with Lear about decrea ing the number f hi knight to
uch an xtent that Rega n tell Lear not to keep even one kni ght: " What need one?" (2.4.257).
At thi point, Lear' s de o lation can be juxtapo ed with
play.

ord lia ' at the out et of th e

ordel ia' lan guag - albeit in effective-wa repl ete with incerity and truthfulne .

Intere tin gly, Lear's lan guage i al o of grea t veracity th e moment he rea on that he need to
keep hi s knights a a ign of the pre ti ge of th e former kin g f ngland and p int at Regan·
expen ive clothes n l u ed [i r keeping her wann but for statu and lu ury, a plea ·ure that Lear is
ordered to be deprived of for th e ake of oneril' and Regan' more political influence : ""Wh),
nature need not what th ou go rgeo us wear' L I Whi ch scarce! keeps thee \\arm" (2.4.62-63)
Like

ord elia , Lea r' rca onin g ha. no place in Regan's and Goneri I' s world as Cordelia· . true

w rd did not ha e an in Lea r' . Ind eed, it i neither the truthfulness or language nor 1ts
5

r a ning that i imp rtant fl r Regan in thi par1i ular c nte t· what matt r fl r h r i what
n ' lan guag i capab l
h r ommand ha t b

f brin gin g ab ut, and in e h r languag i ad rned with auth rity,
b y db

that p w r i "rath r e er i d, and that it nl
deduce that b th

f the alidity f hi rea

ar r gardl e

ning.

n id ering

t in a ti n" (Pow >r/Knowl ,d e 9)

n can

n ril and R gan are n w tw p werful ruler wh n dominating Lear in

acti n b redu ing hi knight and making him obey their c mm and .
Rega n' beha vi ur di heart n

ea r t

uch a large e tent that he bee me in ane . L ar

cannot t lerat b ing manipul ated by hi daughter ,

he a. k " h aven " t gi

him patien e

and continue :
T uch me wi th n bl anger.
nd I t n t w men' weap n , wa ter drops,
tain my man ' heeks! o, yo u unnatural hag ,
I will hav uch r venge n y u both .
(2.4.269-72)

Rega n and

oneri l bring t ar into Lea r' eyes and coerce him into leavi ng the palace when th

stonn has already commenced. Kahn ca t

orne li ght upon the aforementi n d quotation that

Regan and Goneri l di grace Lear " by brin gin g out th ew man in him " ( I 04 ). Thi
Regan and Goneril not onl y di

mpowe r him but they al ode troy Lear· manlin

to ay that
I o, Kahn

clarifi e that Lear i neither denouncing women nor in inuating that women make u e of their
entim ent to control men when he u e th e term "w men' wea pon " ( I 05) . The imp! ication i
that Lear "feel quite threa tened by hi s own fee li ng " ( I 05) . In addition, Lear aband n the
palace when the torm ha c mm enced. telling hi Fool : " I have full cau e of weepin g, but thi
heart I hall break into a hundr d thou and flaw , I Or ere I'll v.eep.-

f ol. I hall go mad !"

(2.4.277 -9) . ln thi regard, R , en argue that the gar "between the real and the ideal, between

59

hat

n ril and R gan a tuall d and what th

r a on t

h uld d , 1

en rm u that it tear

ear'

hr d , pitchin g him int in a nit " ( 144 ).
mparing Regan and
her in tetm

are ab

n ril with Lady Macbeth

n mce u that

f wick dne . ady Ma beth c uld n t murd er

neril and R gan

uncan beca u e he

remind d Lad y Macbeth f her wn father. Thi i t

ay that hake p are d e not be tow n

R gan and

e pr v ked by ady Ma beth ' m m ry

n ril an " hum ani z in g

of h r fath er" (

7).

rupl e like th

y argue th at one f th e

nvin in g ugg ti n ab ut th eir

beha i uri "thi hint of a om pen at r qu alit in th ir cru elty- a hatred of ther they
con id er w ak b au e of a fea r of bein g w ak" ( 8).
weakn

in hake peare' pl ay

to un ex herself,

iven that femininity i conn ected with

uch a Macbeth , repre en ted there by ady Ma beth ' attempt

on ril' and Regan' end eavo ur to neg lect femininity and embrace

rna culinity adorned with cruelty find a va lid e pl anati on. o when Lea r' rn a culinity i tainted
by hi s tears, Regan and Goneril emerge a two invincibl e rul er to whom Lear ha to bow down.
Lear ' lo

of auth ority begin th moment he put him se lf in th e hand of hi s "daughter th ereby

forfeitin g along with hi s kin gdom hi s masc ulin e ro le a

uperi or, rul er, protector. and pr vid er"

(Rudn ytsky 33 7). AI o, th ere i an impli cati on th at "emancipated wo men are by d fin iti on ev il
and dan gerous'' (Rudn yt ky 303). In fact, the moment they get the authori ty, Regan and

oneril

become monstr u and cruel and are deepl y intere ted in rna culine identity as if they cannot be
w men and be in power.
Ruminating over the id ea f m nstrosity, ne needs t analyze

.
oneri I' and Regan'
....

co n c1 u ne . pi va k argue th at he ha " tacti ca ll y c nfrontcd th e imm en e prob lem of the
co n 1 u ne

of th e w man a subaltern " (92) . he clarifi e th at the fe male onsc1ou ·nes 1s

deemed a

ubaltern when it turned " into the ubject f h steria" (9-) . ll }steria is caus d \\hen a

60

w man 1 unabl t a t ba ed n what he de ir ,
wi ll , her il n d impul
re£ renee t

il l pr babl app ar a ti

neril a 'a di

a

and Regan did n t ha e th
chance t d

r a di

a

r 1n tan

t a t up n h r
, L ar'

that' 1n m fl e h" i g rm an t thi id ea (2.4.2 15).

neril

pp rtunit t a t a c rding t their de ire . hu when they get a

, th y abu

th ir languag and p

er e ten i ely.

the ry, ne ca n argu that by dem ni zing Regan and
" int th e ubj

rh

t

di a e d e to th human b dy.
i ter "are I arly repr

g1 en a chan

when h

t ria ., wh

nte tu ali zing pi ak'

neril , hake peare ha turn ed their

auth rit ha

rippl d England like what a

n idering that, a Benjami n

ona t Rubi write , the e tw

nted a d m n , m n t r , anythin g but hum an [and] .. . are r p n ibl e

for th e chao g in g n and f th di rupti n f th e tate" (qtd . in Da 53), ne can argu that th eir
con c1ou ne , if not them

lve , i co n id ered a

ubaltern at thi p int of the play. Thi id ea

ugge t that th c ncept of ubaltern figure ha cia ped women t it che t and doe not et
them free because even when they are rul er , their co n cio u ne

i targeted as uch. Moreover,

since the e two sister have viol ated truth and morality by having their father thrown out of their
castle , eriou chao i to follow in their kingdom .
Lear' tran iti on into in anity i indi cative of th e chao that ha encompa ed th en tire
kingdom. The world's di order revea l it elf through th e t rm when Lear abandon Regan·
ca ti e. In addition, the world over which

oneril and Regan rul e i very wel l limn d later by

Glouce ter when he says: "'Tis the tim e' plague when madmen lead th blind" (4 . 1.47). Thi
metaphor emanate from the fa ct that
help Lea r rec laim hi throne.
madman to help

loucester ha been blinded by

I uce ter' loya l

I uce ter beca u e

ornwa ll for attempting to

n, - dgar, i the individual \\ho rei gn to be a

lou e ·ter i brain washed by hi bastard ·on,

dmund , into

beli ev ing that dga r is go ing t take ove r Gloucester' s rrorert and authorit) . l'hi s id ea ~ u gg c sb

61

h w ha tic

neril' and Regan ' kingd m ha bee me wh n thee il

faithful on i c n ured and di hon ur d.
madman
bee au

I u

part fr m the fa t that dgar i imp r nating a

i indi ati

nt n

n e th hi rar hi al gradati n i r

rightful fath r king i

n i prai ed and the

r th up ide-d wn w rld in which they ar living
r d by giving auth rity t daughter when the

till aliv -c ntrary t th e id a [prim geniture-th nit i expected that

madmen will lead the blind .
neril, a a w man,

The idea fan up id -d wn w rid i b ttcr ub tanti ated when
want to embrace ma culine qualiti e .

neril' infatu ati n with ma

he tell

at h me, and giv th e di taff I lnt my hu band '

dmund : " lmu t change nam

hand " (4.2.1 -19) . in e th e idea of "di taff' on e
and i relat d to femininity,

ulinity revea l it lfwh n

women' dutie in

hake pea re' time

oneril' metap hor to hand th e '' di taff ' to Albany impli e that he

i go in g to di tance her elf from femininity. Kahn e plain th at " in thi parti cular w rid ,
masculine identity depend on repres in g the vulnerability, depend ency, and capacity for feeling
which are called feminine " (95). Ju xtapo in g Kahn 's defi niti on ofma culin e identit with
neril' behavi our, we can argue that
prove her elf as an indomitabl e rul er.

oneril i determin ed to adop t rna culin identity t
oneril" w !coming of Ed mund uggests that h i

against any noti on co ntrary to masc ulinity: " Welco me, my lord . I man el our mild hu band I
met u on th e way'' (4.2.1-2) . he ha u ed th e 'Word "mild" to contemptuou ly de cribe
becau e she already know that

ot

lbany

lbany doe not po e s th qu aliti es that a traditiona l ma. culine

rol e w uld require uch as repres ing the ca pacity for feeling. Like Lady Macbeth,

oncnl ha

cia ped rna culinity in the arm to be on guard aga inst her own femininity a ir it i. a weak
natur .

62

Iban
cru lty.

c n

r ati n with

lbany criticize

n ri l appri e th audi n e f

n ril' and R gan

neri l II r mi tr ating ear:

What ha y u d n .
Tig r n t daughter , what ha e y u peril rm ed?
fath r, and a grac iou ag ' d man,
Wh
re eren e en the head-lu gged bear w uld Ii k,
M t barbar u , m t degen rate, ha e y u madd ed.
( 4.2 .41 -46)

neril and R gan a ti g r beea u e what they ha e d ne 1

Alban y de crib

rav n u animal d .
hi co nd emn ati n f

n id rin g th at

ar'

n-i n-law and i n t f Lear ' bl

d,

oneril and Regan, vv h are f Lear' ne h and bl od, bee me a

ignificant point b cau e it indica te h
are. Furi ou at

lbany i

imil ar t what

lban y'

rbal attac k.

iniquit u and wicked the e two bi oi gical daughter
oneril all him a " Milk-li ve red m a n · ·~ r th e rea on th at

he doe not care about C rd eli a' in va i n of ngland (4.2.52). For

oneril , it i killing the

French that define ma culinity, and since Albany i n t intere ted in uch a wa r cau eel by
Regan and Goneril , he ca ll him · Milk-li ve red.''

p n hea ring Albany' re pon e,

"Many, your manhood, mew!" (4.2.69). The rea on that

oneril ay

oneril qu e ti ons Albany' manh ood i

hi tend ency to feel for Lear becau e her definiti on of rna culinity violate kindne

and caring

for other . For Goneril the id ea of rna culinity means obtaining more power at th

o t of

ignorin g one' "ca pac ity for fee lin g" (Kahn 95) by any mea n

uch a bringing tears into her

fath er' eyes and throw in g him out of her palace, a deed id enti ca ll y hared by Rega n as \\e ll.
It seems that Goneril and Rega n are not ati fi ed with merely adopting the legitimate
auth rity that they have,

they- a two female monarch -

uddenl y beg in to show deep

intere tin taking rna culine ro le to cover th ir femininity. Like ady MCicbeth who unse. es
herself t rej ect wea kne s equ ated with w manlin 'S in ord r to be Cl superic r gender Clnd
po ibl y hare p wer with Macbeth,

oneril and Rega n also try to lo so 111 order to becom e
63

orne more uperior ru l r than th y already are a two fema l m narch .

a matter f fa ct

wh n, in ge n ra J, " femininity i div reed fr m tr ngth and w manline

equ ated with

w akn

p 202) t de pi ct

," th n thew man will ha

t " r j ect h r wn w man lin e

n ril ' and Regan ' acti n in th p lay, but it

her e lf a ind mitabl . Thi idea d e
explain the rea
dive t them elv

n wh y, all f a udd n, th

f th ir femininity.

appreciated when w e r v r e

tephen

tw

i ter bee m e int re ted in rna c ulinity and

ne ril ' and Regan ' inter

tin rna

ulinity can b

rgel ' th eo ry f w hat m a ke me n wom en .

rgel expl ain

that " the fri ghtenin g part of th e te leo logy for th e R enai ance mind i preci ely th e fanta y of it
rever al , the convi ction th at m en can tum int

r be turn ed int

wom en ; or perh ap more

exactly, can be turn ed back into w m an , lo ing the stren gth th at enabl ed the m ale potential to be
realized in the fir t place" ( qtd . in Breitenb erg 14 ). If the R enai sa nee mind can turn m en back
into women, one can argue that it i possibl e to tum wom en into m en if m e n ' qualiti es a re
adopted . With thi s co ne pt in mind , o ne can full y make ense of

o neril' and Regan 's

end eavour to take up masculine rol e. Like in M acbeth where " m anh ood i equ ated w ith killin g"
(French 15), G oneril 's mind et also defin es masculinity w ith the ability to kill or to repress " th e
vulnerability, dep endency, and capacity for feeling whi ch are ca ll ed fe minine" (K ahn 95) a her
beh aviour w ith Lear and Albany indica tes.

It seem s that th ese two i ters' rna c ulinity i not perfected unl e
represents ma sculine qualities stands besid e th em .

anoth er ma n w ho

s a res ult, they fa ll in love wi th

dmund

becau e hi p ersonality resonate with their definiti n of m asculine id entity w hi ch include
crimin ality .

uall arg ue th at Rega n and

parti cul arly in th eir comp etiti on fo r

o ne ril "as um e inc rea in g ly rna cu li ne attitude ,

dmund ' a fTec ti n" (

7). T he m a in reason for , o doing is

th at ~ dmund hares seve ra l per o na lity tra it wi th th em uc h as ''a co m mo n circumstance of

64

parental de aluation and a criminality" (Hanl y 5). Hanl y thr w m r li ght on Regan ' and
oneril ' comp tition v r him: " dmund is the rna culine in arnation, rendered effectively by
hi martial trength, hi ruthle

commitment to the pur uit of pow rat any cost and hi courag ,

of their own bitter, vengeful hatr d" (5).
ruthle

a Edmund,

go ug in g out

lth ugh Rega n ha a lready found

omwall is weak becau e h i kill d by

louce ter ' eye (Hanl y 5). The m ain reason for

Edmund is hi martial prowe

a well a hi heartle sne

lou e ter '

om wall who i a
ervant wh en

oneril and R egan to love

to commit any murders or crim es.

Similarly Lady Macbeth appri e the audience that her love for Macbeth is depend ent "o n th e
murder that she identifte a equivalent to hi s male potenc y: ' from thi tim e I Such I account th y
love' ( 1.5 . 38-9); ' Wh n yo u dur t do it, then yo u were a man ' ( 1.5.49)" (A ld erman 58) . Thus for
these women, the idea of masculinity i re lated to a man' potency to kill or murder.

In addition, Goneril's and Rega n' s rivalry to lay ho ld of dmund is also indi cati ve of
their masculinity. Gaull argues that " Rega n' s masc ulinity is mo t ev id ent in th e passage in
which, expressing decidedly female jealously of Goneril, she adopts the pare tenns of
battlefront" (Gaul I 337). Rega n tell s Edmund :"] am doubtful that yo u ha ve been conjunct I And
bosomed with her, as far as we call hers" (5. 1. 12- 13). To that Edmund responds: "No, by mine
honor, madam '' (5. J. J4 ). Edmund 's response is short and precise in this particular context
because he already knows that disappointing R egan would put an end to his promising future .
For instance, his promise to marry either Goneril or Regan give him the opportunity to u urp the
throne for him se lf. Goneril's and Rega n 's criminality suc h a blinding Gloucester, driving their
old father insane, and ca using an unnecessary war eparates them from femininity and allies
them with the specific notion of masculinity which is germane to blood hed- a Macbeth'
proof of ma culinity to Lady Macbeth is murd ring Duncan-

yet doing o is not ufficient lor

65

them unles they achi ve Edmund him elf and that i the main rea on why each of the e i ter
make

very attempt to have

dmund by h r ide.

According t thi particular play, th e th er qu ality f ma culinity i being las iviou s, a

£ ature that ha been ad pted by the e tw evil i ter t gain dmund. The play implicitly
attache the idea of m al p t ncy- ma culinity- w ith exu ality. For instance it is
a young man, who

unre train d exuallu t ha produced

dmund .

louce ter, as

lso, ace rding to

oneri I'

account it i th r tainer ' "Epicuri m and lu t" th at have turn ed her palace into " a tavern or a
brothel " (1.4 .199-200).

o n id erin g that Lear' retain r are all m n w ith martial strength , we

can argue that there i a fine co nnection between masculinity and exu ality . However, Goneril
and Regan suddenl y break thi conn ecti on by howing interest in lu t and sexu ality. oon after
Cornwall's death , " th e recentl y widowed Regan not onl y is not mourning her hu band but i al o
inflamed with a desire for Edmund " (Ki evar 119) w hile the other sister, Goneril, wants to be his
mi stress and send s him a love letter when she is still marri ed : " Your- wife, so I would ayaffectionate servant, and for you her own for venture'' (4.6.257 -8). A lth ough Goneri I' s and
Regan's lust for absolute power has been fulfilled , their lust for masculinity, which is represented
through sexuality, has not been satisfied and that is why they are seeking Edmund. Interpreting
this idea metaphorically, one can argue that their sexual lust repre ents Eng land' moral
downfall. If Goneril and Ed mund ac hi eve their goa l, "moral corruptio n and di order would have
been inve ted with the throne" (K ieva r 119). In thi ca e, the play depict Goneril and Regan "a
the source of the primal sin of lust" (Mc lu skie 57).
oneril 'sand Regan' lu st for the bastard Edmund marks their downfall. As
Tennenhouse argues, Regan and Goneri I beg in to uddenly love

dmund e ·ually, and " it is a

curio u moment in the play when the daughters give themselves over libidinous desire which

66

had not b en part of their charact r for the three act precedin g the n et of thi pa s ion ' (69).
Tennenhou e clarifie that as the e two si ters "are red efi ned in Jaco bean term s, furthermore, it
i a if the political threat repre ented by the ir ex ual rebel I ion has a lready found a so luti on"
which i their annihilation (69) . In fact the e two worn n who hould have been chaste and
virtuous by the tandard of the liza bethan audience, are lu tful and are causing chaos and
c01ruption . Along the

lin

, Kl evar exp lain that the res I uti on to such a chaos ' can be

achi eved onl y through cathartic puni hm ent" (120). If soc iety i unabl e to have a remedy for
uch an outrageo us di sord er, then " nature mu t re p nd in her own fas hi on to destroy" those
individual s who hav e upset the eq uilibrium of " nature and the moral and social ord er" ( J 20) .
This is to say that the natura l o rd er wo uld neve r 'all ow the i!l eg itimate pleasures which
weakened the bond s of social ord er to go unpuni shed'' (120). Fo r exam pl e, Gloucester's sex ual
pleasure outside the institution of marriage costs him both of his eyes. Thus reasoning
inductively, one would expect to see Goneril and R egan sternly punished because they have
disturbed the relationship between the moral and social order, paving the way for becoming the
subaltern figures as two significant female rulers .
Discussing the idea of a subaltern figure , one should look at the battleground- on which
Albany, Edmund, Regan, and Goneril are standing- as the sphere of power and authority. It is
not accidental that all those authority figures are brought together in a single place. With this
concept in mind, one can argue that those individu als who retreat from this politically charged
sphere are losing power and those who are holding on to the ground will remain in power. Regan
feels ick and is forced to abandon the battleground . Due to her severe sickness, she cannot ta lk
anymore: " I am not welL else l should answer I From a full -nowing stomach" (5.3.67- ),
bringing to mind the identical description of a subaltern fi gure who cannot speak for herself.

67

Regan ' final word are : "My s ickn
the battleground and get

tripped of her title and auth rity. In th e ame way,

her elf a a ubaltern fi gure.
a k : "M o t mon trou

grow upon me" (5 .3.98) , and he oon i removed from

r e ampl , after AI bany h w

oneril depict

o neri I' lo ve letter to her and

oh! I Kn ow' t th ou th i paper?" (5 .3. 14 8-9),

oneril run awa y from

Albany· he ca1mot tand up again t Albany becau e it seem that the mom ent her faithfuln ess is
questioned h e ha lo t her authoritative lan guage a w 11 a her legitimate authority.
Furth erm ore , one an argue that

oneril ' retrea t, at thi point, depi ct her a a sub altern fi gu re

who cannot speak for her elf either, giving h r th e only opportunity of disappearing from th e
arena without a trace.
their lo

nalyz ing Go neri I' and Regan 's reco il from th e battl eg ro und suggests

of authority in the po litical arena as two subaltern figu res .
What is of great importance is th e di ffe rence betwee n Lea r' s di empowerm ent and th ese

two sisters' as subaltern fi gures. Wh en Lear is co mpl ete ly di sempowe red, he still ha hi s vo ice or
language to challenge his daughters and, as a result, asks supern atural fo rces , the cosm os, and the
heavens to give him patience to endure such ordeals imposed upon him by his daughters.
However, the moment that Goneril and Regan are disemp owered, they cannot even speak fo r
th emse lves and are ph ys icall y remo ved fro m th e pl ay. In additi on, Lea r's language, whi ch wa
impotent and had no pl ace in Go neril 's and Rega n's wo rld , comes to be tru e: ''No, yo u unn atural
hags , I I w ill have such reve nge on yo u both " (2.4.27 1-2), and he clarifies that his repri sal again t
them " shall be I The terrors of th e earth" (2.4 .74-7 ). Gon eril and Regan do not take Lear· cur e
seriously b ecause he is deprived of authori ty and influence. Interestingly, words of an old fath er
king who is stripped of power prove to be fa teful enough to affect the destiny of th ese two
ind omitabl e fe male rul er , whereas when they are di empow ered, like th eir father, they ca nnot

68

have any impact on any individuals any long r; all they can do i to di appear from th e stage
without having any words to defend th em elve .
In fact the de tru ction of

n ril and R egan a two female monarch s jib

definition of ub altern figure . hortl y after R egan and
deliver a dagger w ith w hi ch

n ril ha

with

pivak'

onerill eave the battleground , a kni ght

tabbed her e lf in th e hea rt: " 'Ti ho t, it smo kes. I Jt

came even from the heart of-oh, he' dead! " (5.3. 197- 8), and Regan ' By h r is p o i o ned"
(5.3 .201) and i dead . ventually, R egan and

oneril are everely punished becau e in th e first

place up etting the relation hip b etwee n moral and ocial ord er and in the econd pl ace eeking
illegitimate sexual pl easure could not go un an wered , as Albany says, by " This judgment of the
heaven s that makes u tremble" (5. '"~ .205). A id e from the fact that the consciou ne s of Regan
and Goneril i pre ented as ubaltern, these two i ters are literall y annihil ated as ubaltern
figures. Along the e lines, Jane D all argues that " hakes pea re' reso luti o ns do not suggest
positive involvement of women within the politi cal structure. In fac t, th e resolution com es wi th
th e ablut io n of women from p o litical rea lm " (qtd . in Das 51) . In thi s parti cular case, the abluti on
ofGoneril and Regan from th e po litical sphe re ha ph ys ica ll y happe ned. In fac t, Goneril's and
Rega n' s bodies represent a failed attempt of two female rul ers to remai n in power at a ny cost a nd
reveal them as two disempow ered subaltern women. Also , their vo ice is muffled pern1anently,
remindin g us that the id ea pro posed by Spivak that th e wo man as a subaltern fi g ure "will be a
mute as ever" (90) is ind eed correct regardl es of th e woman's race or positi o n.
Furthennore,

o rd e li a's dead bod y ca rri ed by Lear in the very same place sub stantiates

the claim that fema le empow erm ent ei th er pos essed by corrupt isters or a righteous lady i
destined to be eph eme ra l. Whil e th e e two ister ' e uallu t ha brought about their end,
ordelia acrifices her life so that Lear ca n Jearn th at it is not out ide appearance that matter and

69

word are not what they m rely appear. Lear ' enlight nment begin the moment that he i
di re pected by

oneril.

fter that he learn that di owning and bani hing

mi tak : ' 1 did her wr ng" ( I .5 .20) and later on h t li s

ordelia wa a

ord el ia : ' Pray yo u now, D rget I And

forgiv ' (4 .6. 8 I -2) which ugge t that h ha finally realized that he houJd not have evaluated
hi dau ghter ' I ve ba d on th ir word and flattery.

on id rin g that

ord e lia is a virtuous lady

who tand up for truthfulne , on can argue th at he i the rcpre entation of Je u
is beli eved to have given up hi s li fe for the ake f humanity. Like
becau e he sacrifice her life for truthfulne , and , by o doing,

hJ·ist,

hJ·ist, who

ordelia i murdered

ordeli a teaches Lear a Jes on .

Apart from Cordelia' action , her corp e on th batt] gro und , a the French qu een who e
authority brought the French army to rein tate Lear in England , ugges t that even a virtu ous
woman like her ha no pl ace w ithin the ph ere of power and auth ority in

hakespea re' play.

This reminds the audience that the concept of sub altem fi gure has cia p ed all women, whether
righteous, like Cordelia, or evil such as Goneril and Regan, to its bosom .
In conclusion, Goneril and Regan are removed from the throne and are replaced by
Albany and Edgar. In fact, Shakespeare's patriarchal system in th e pla y seems to be sugges tin g
that women should not pa11ake in sharing power, and if by any chance, a woman makes u e of
her language skills to fill the vacuum created by a weak patriarch, the system is eventually going
to remove her from her position. For instance, as the head of the patriarchal system , Lear is an
immature king who is deprived of sanity. Thi provides an oppot1unity for Goneril and Regan to
ab use their language to flatter the old king in order to usurp his place and title. In this case,
Goneri I' s and Regan 's how of love can be read as a symptom emanating from a di ea e, name!
a weak patriarchy that is not operating properl y. It is in thi particular broken ystem where
women such as

oncri l and Regan can usurp authotity and become two indomitable rulers. AI o,

70

the play implie that a country cann t b run by two [! mal u urper when the old patriarch is
till alive and if thi happen , chao will nc mpa

the entire kingdom: " 'Tis the tim e's pla gue

wh en madm n lead th e blind '' (4. ! .47). Thu in ord r to rein tate patriarchy, hake peare
contrive King L ar in uch a way that when

oneril and Regan are removed from the politi cal

arena two righteou male character take ver ngland.

lth ugh

oneril and Regan prove to be

two powerful women, th ey cannot hold on to their upremacy and are finally revealed a two
ubaltem figures. Thi id a ugge t that fem ale empowenn ent i alway., eph emeral and und er
no circumstances i to be accepted in these pati icular tragedi e .

71

Chapter III:
The evane cent empowerment of mazons in H enry VI

" he-wolf of ranee, but wor e than wolve f
France
Who e tongue more po iso n than th e add er ' tooth
H w ill-be eemin g i it in thy ex
T triumph like an Amazonian trull [.]"
(3H 6 1.4 . 111 -4)
In Hemy VI, Part 1, th audi en e 1

p

ed to a domineerin g dam el by the name of

Joan La Pucelle-known a Joan of Arc- who i detennined to fi ght against th e E ngli hand et
France free from the Henry V I' hege mony. Thro ughout th e play, Joan proves herself to be
superior to her male counterpart . Like Joan, M argaret also proves her elf to be an important
woman whose supremac y exceeds Henry's auth ority, but, like Joan, she is di sempowered .
Analyzing these two French dam se ls sup eri ority over influ enti al m ale characters evince th e
notion that the paucity of dominant m en in the play causes a power vacuum th at is fill ed by these
French women . This is to say that Joan 's and Margaret' s empowe rm ent is a sympto m of a
disease, a weak patriarchy that cannot rul e any longer. In other word , Joan and M argaret onl y
take up the rol e that has been vacated by th eir ow n m ale counterpmis . The dil e1nma in the pl ay i
that weak male characters- Charles and King H enry who are depri ved of both physical and
emotional strength- have brought about a situation in which Joan and M argaret mu t exist if the
patriarchal system is not to crumb! . Both Joa n and M argar t share ignifi cant simi laritie th at
enabl e th em to obtain power. Joan 's v ictori es over hi gh-profile m ale fi gures as well as her
c mmand of language present her as a domineerin g woman. In th e ame wa y, Margaret'
eloqu ence in additi on to the masculinity he adopt bestow uch superiority upon her th at she
eve ntu a ll y e ceeds Kin g I lenry' auth ority. imil arl y, these two pow erful female charac ters ar

72

equally demonized and di

mpowered a two ubaltem figures wh

e language make

orne

empty words without having any impa ct on p eople, conoborating the the ry that f emale
empow erment i alwa y evan e cent in the e partic ul ar tra gedi e and hi tory play .
Joan depict h er elf a a aintly wom an the m om ent that h e appears in the play . Joan
utter :" od ' m o th r de ig ned to appear to m e, I [... ] Will d m to I ave m y ba

vocati o n I And

free m y co untry fr o m cal amity' (1H6 1. 2 .7 - 1) . T h e idea that th e Virgin M ar y ha s appeared to
h er u ggest that Jo an end eavour to a

ociate h er elf w ith h olines becau se, r eli gio u Jy

p eaking, the odd are that the Virgin M ary , w h o is well-know n fo r h er sanc titi e

i n ot going to

reveal he rself to an uncha te o r a co rrupt pe r o n . It seem s th at Joan 's effo rt to affili ate he rse lf
with th e Virg in Mary i indi cati ve of he r inte rest in b in g po rtrayed as a " ho ly m a id" w ho is
call ed upon to erve h er n ation a a aviou r. H owever, C h arl e , the D auphin of France, does no t
assent to th e truth of J oan 's w o rd s unl ess she beats him in a co mbat. " U ntra in ed in any kind of
art" (1 H6 1. 2. 72), J oan s uccessfull y triumph s ove r C ha rl es th ro ug h " th e p ower of ' H eave n a nd
Our Lad y,' s ignificantl y a power d e riv ed fro m ' fe mal e,' no t m a le di v ine powers" (G uti rrez
187), and p roves to C ha rl es that she actu a ll y exceed s he r "sex" ( I H 6 I .2. 90) by m a kin g good use
of th e " phys ical prowess equa l to a m a n (sy mbo li zed by he r arm o r)" (G uti e rrez J 87). W h ile Joan
appear s as a dominant w om an , Charles's lack of physical streng th represented b y his defeat in
th e h ands of a sh epherd girl b ecom es con spicu ou s .
Before Joan a ppears, th e B astard d esc ribes he r as ''A ho ly m a id'' ( I H 6 1.2.50) wh o i
" sent fro m heaven" ( I H6 1.2.5 I ) and possesses " T he spiri t of deep prop hecy" ( I H6 1.2.55 )
w hi c h re nd e rs he r he lp ful e no ugh fo r the French " to raise th i tediou s iege'' (I H6 1.2.5 ). In
fac t, he e nd o rse th e Basta rd 's state me nt by c la imi ng that the Virg in Mary " reveal ed he rse lf' to
J oa n a nd " H r a id he pro mi sed a nd a s ured s ucce ss" ( I H 6 1.2. 82- ) and bl es ed h r w ith

7

" beauty ' (l H6 1.2. 86). It

m that J an i c n tructin g a n ew identity for her

lf that r

onate

with the notion of "' h ly maid , a t rm w hich in r li gious and patriarchal conventi n u gge t
the feminin virtu
and elfl

f cha tity

il nee and obedi nee, linked with religiou virtu es of humility

ne " ( uti errez 187). Whil u in g the term ' holy ma id " b t kens th e

afi rem entioned feminine v irtu e , wh at i deepl y ironi c i that Joa n, a a w arri r woman, is
9

neither cha te, nor il ent n r b di ent. Whil e th male dominated wo rld look at cro -dre m g
women a " mon trou perv er ion of natura l ord er" (Bre iten berg 15 ), Joan offers a new
definition for h er own armor. H er annor i be towed on h er by th e Virgin M ary for the sake o f
protecting France. In thi s ca e, Jo an redefine her id ntity to becom e an acceptable fem ale fi gure
in the patriarchal w orld in w hi ch she li ves beca u e after all she is wearing God-given ann or fo r
the ak e of a holy m i sion . In addition, Joan 's depi cti on of her e lf as a co urageo u wo man ( I H 6

1.2.89) comes to be true and offers proof to her word s when Ch arl es co nfirms it him e lf: "Thou
art an Amazo n" ( 1H6 1.2. 104). R andall Martin expl ains that th e A mazo n ''we re rega rd ed as
wondrously admirabl e, more often as a bomina bl y frea ki sh for in v rtin g ' natura l' masculin e
domin ance over wo men" (1 83) . If this be so, it is not clear which m eaning of Amazon i Charles
is referring to at this juncture.
Joan 's superi ority ove r mal e fi gures is expressed by her victory agai nst Charles, the
future king of Fran ce . On e can rea li ze C harl es's inferi ority to Joa n w hen hi s language " lo e it
ambi guity" (Guti errez 188). C harl es demand s that Joa n needs to "buck le with'. him. "a phra e
meaning to engage in a swordfi ght, or to m ake love- to prove her d iv ine m i sion" (Gutierrez

188). hakes peare's pun on th e wo rd " bu ckl e" i ex treme ly twi ty and ca n be read in two
compl etely different ways ; he pun on th e mea nin g of" bu ckl e" as well as on the word Amazon,
both of w hich are indi ca ti ve of Joa n' preca ri ou po iti on in the French camp. This idea suggests

74

that to be r pr

nt d a a p r

lib rate France fr m the

n wh m J an claim t b , namely a holy m aid et in m tion t

ngli h , he ha t d pl y her t ry 111 u ch a wa y that h r nanativ i

c nJun tion with h w h e want t be e n . Int r
th r le f Petrarchan I

tingly, a ft er J an defeat

e r, a ma n at th e me re of hi

1111

tr

111

harl e , he " ta ke o n

" ( uti rrez 188 ).

ha rl es ay :

" Let m e th y e rvant and n t overe ign be" ( l H 6 1.2. 111 ). To th at Joa n re p nd :" I mu t n t
y ie ld to an

rite

fl o e" I H

1.2. 11 ). Joa n ' re p n

repre ented : a ch a te French dam el w h ha a ho ly mi
parti cular cen e u gge t th at J an i a w m an wh

re

na te w ith th e way he want to b

n to accompli h . M reover, thi

hap e her own fa te and doe no t all ow o ther

m en like

harl e t di p arage h r by punning o n th e m ea ning of wo rd . In o ther word , Joan

prevent

harle fr m narratin g her tory in her pl ace and w rite her own tory instead .
Joan not o nl y va nqui he him but hea l o rejects hi s love . A t thi mo m ent,

harl e ' s

m asculinity i heavil y cen ured b ecau se he is defea ted and rejected b y a wom an who i

uppo ed

to b e inferior to him; however, Joan em erge a a grea t wan·ior wom an w ho is strong enough to
m ake the mo t ignificant French command er yield to her both ph ysica lly and em oti onall y.
B earin g in mind Fouca ult' s definiti o n of powe r th at it i " neither g ive n, no r e changed , nor
recove red , but rath er exerc i ed , and th at it o nl y ex i t in act ion" (Power/Knowledge 89) , one can
ascertain that Joan is a powerful wom an w hen d omin ating th e Dauphin of France-literally- in
acti on. T hi s is to say that Joa n exercises power over

ha rle by rejecting

hart e ' offer. Joan

emasculate the D auphin of France by m aking him beg fo r her attention and love. In thi rega rd,
harl e very well limn how he h a been co nqu ered or ema cu lated by Joan : "my heart and
ha nds th o u has t at once subdu ed" ( I I-1 6 1.2. 109) . In addition, Joan demonstrate th at 'he i. th e
onl y alternative ava ilabl t
most we ll -know n

et ra nee free from I Jenry VI' forc e becau se th e debility in th e

rench comma nder,

harlcs, appri e the audience that wh en men arc weak,

75

women like Joan will have t rep lace them. Moreov r one hould not di regard the idea that
Joan's cro -dre ing ha al o helped d minat
r v r d," it i thew man wh " tak
Joan prov
driving back the

harle b cau e wh n "g nd r role are

harg '' ( uti errez 188).

h r military and phy ica l pr we

in an actual battl fi ld one more time by

ngli h am1y which i an ther unnatural b haviour from a woman who i

uppo ed to be " ilent and

b di nt. " Thi concept in inuat

manly deed and o to tran gre

gend er cat g ri

(witchlike)" (H owa rd and Rackin 45). lnd

that '' fo r a wo man to perform

ould render her and her deed demoni c

d, Joan ' prowe

make Talbot " impotent" and

divests him of hi military pow er (Howard , and R ackin 45 ) to such an extent that he utters:
" Where i my trength , my valour, and my [! rc ?" ( I H6 1.6. 1). What is of grea t importance is
Joan 's attack on Talbot, who i the mo t powe rful Eng li sh champi on; Joan cri es out loud :
"Come, come, 'tis only I that mu st di sgrace thee" ( I H6 1.6.8). Joan' s fi ght with Talbot is re lated
to the idea oftrial by combat. This is to say that Joan 's ph ys ica l prowess to fi ght again t Talbot
and not be defeated is connected to the divin e naiTati ve that she ha co nst1ucted for her elf
because it is almost impossible for Joan, as a shepherd girl, to chall enge Talbot, a seasoned
waiTior. Furthermore, the lack of masculinity represented by C harles's weakness forces Joan to
take up his masculine role by inviting Talbot to a combat, what Charles is supposed to do with
his own counterpart-Talbot. Shortly after, Talbot tate :''[Joan] like HannibaL I Drives back
our troops and conquers as she li sts" ( 1H6 1.6.20- 1). This statement sugge ts that it is Joan'
presence that has forced the English troops to run away and not the supremacy of the French
anny, depicting Joan as a pow erful wan-ior who can be compared to Hannibal, one of the be t
commanders of all time.

76

The war betw een the rench and the

nglish r ach

a critical m m nt when the French

need to eparate the Duke of Burgund y-H nry V 1' un ci - from T albo t if the rench army
want t d ~ at H nr

1' fo rce.

n ca n rea lize Joan' imp rtance w hen a ll th French

command er app eal to Joan for help . F r in tance, w hile

harl e admit th at they h ave b

n

guid ed by Joan o fa r and her kill " had no diffi dence" (1 H6 3 .. 10) and th e Bas tard as k Joan
to m ake u e f h r int lli ge nc "for ec ret po li cie " ( I H 6 3 .. I 2),

len<;: n pro mi es Joan to erect

her tatu e " in o rn e ho ly pl ac " and hav her "reverenced I ike a bles ed sa in t" ( I H6 3.3 .14- 15) .
With thi id ea in mind , on can appre iate th at Joan '

kill s and power have bee n recogni zed in

such a way that Charl e him elf confirm s th at France co uld have bee n saved from Henry's forces
if they managed to do what Joan i capabl e of, depicting her as a nati onal saviour; C harl es tells
Joan : " Ay, marry, sw eetin g, if we co uld do th at I France we re no pl ace fo r Henry's warri or "
(l H 6 3.3.2 1-2). A lthough Joan has not yet talked to Burgundy to goad him into siding w ith the
French against H enry VI, th ere is a lot of confi dence placed upon her role in thi s rega rd. In oth er
words, Jo an h as successfull y been abl e to convince all the important French ma le figures abou t
her own narrative at this point, nam ely who she claims to be. Interestingly, Joan apprises the
audience that she is going to use the advan tage of her "suga red wo rd s'' ( I H6.3 .3 . 18) to entice
Burgund y "T o leave th e Talbot and to fo ll ow" the French (1 H 6 3.3 .20) .
One can certa inl y argue that Joan's powe r is a lso fo und in her la nguage. Joan
acknow ledges th at " B y fa ir persuas ions" ( I H6 3.3. 18), she w ill conv ince Burgundy.
Interestingly, the m om ent that Burgund y appears to ta lk to Joan, Charles says: " peak, Pucelle,
and enchant him w ith thy wo rds" (1H 6 3.3.40). Char les is not trying to demonize Joan by
attaching such a loaded term, "enchant," to her . He seems to be conveying the idea that there is a
parti cul ar power in Joan's language th at can effl ctively execute her intention. In her

77

conv r ation with Burgundy Joan pr ve h er lf to be a great orator. Joan addre

Burgundy

a " undoubted hope of France" and ay :
k n ~ rtil
ranee,
look the m o ther on her low ly b ab e [ ... ]
ee ee the pining m alady of France ·
B ho ld th wound , the m t unnatural w und , [ ... ]
t1i k e tho e that huti, and hmi not th e that h elp .

L ok n thy countly I

(1H6 3 .3 . 44-53)
Joan appeal to patho by ch aracteri zing Burgund y a the m oth er and France as a littl e baby in
need of he r moth e r'

are and attenti on. T hi idea i quite important co n id ering that Burgund y i

French by birth and not E ngli h. M o reover, one can argu e that in this p a1i icul ar context, Joan is
al so appealin g to Burgund y' " patri oti m , pl ay in g upo n hi g uilt fo r turnin g renegade,
p ersoni fy ing death a nd F rance herse lf' ( tapl eto n and A u tin 242) . Furth erm ore, in th e
aforem enti o ned qu otati on, Joa n is mak in g good use of repetiti o n " (' loo k,' ' ee ,' 'wo und s,' and
' hurt'). Thi s, a lo ng with he r a lliterati o n, link th e id eas in Burg und y ' s mind th at Joa n want him
to rem ember" (2 42-3) . Apmi from Fran ce losing its indep end ence and power as a country, it
see ms that th e main id ea th at Joan wants Burg und y to bea r in mind is hi s co untry' s mi e ri es d ue
to H enry's siege of F rance, w hi ch co mmuni ca tes th e notio n that France has b een enslaved by
H enry' s fo rces .
Joa n 's co mm and of language is q ui te effec ti ve and admirabl e . T he moment th at Joan
end s the first p art of her speech, Burgund y reveals to the audi ence that Joan has had a h eavy
impact on him :" he hath bew itch ' d m e w ith her wo rd s" (1H6 3.3 .58) . Joan app eal to patho
o ne more tim e to affect Burgund y : " th ou fi gh 'st aga in st th y co untrymen" ( 1H6 .3 .74 ).
onsidering that he is the Duke of Burgund y and , a a result, is a hi g h-pro fi l Fr nchm a n, .l oa n '
stateme nt is goin g to fatefull y affec t him beca u c he has co n tructed already a nationali sti c
id ntity for him- " Loo k at th y co untry"- and ha metapho ri cally c hara cterized France as

7

B urgundy ' child. J an adroitly put the e premi

t gether and appri e Burgundy that if he

remain loya l to Henry V I he will be murderer of hi own peopJ : "And join ' t with them wi ll
be thy alught rm n'' (I l-16 .. 75). J an trike th final bl w for u ce

by de cribing

Burgundy a th murderer of hi countrymen. While doing o co uld have prov ked Burgundy '
anger, Joan rhetorically u e the arne techniqu e of rep etition to better get the m e sage aero s:
" ome, come, return; return, th o u wandering lord , I Charl e and th e re t w i II take th ee in their
arm " (I H6 3.3.76-7). Like her ability to con tru ct a particul ar narrative for her elf, Joan
succe sfully make an w id ntity for Burgundy in order to alienate him from the ngli h and fit
him into the French camp .
One can fully recognize Joa n' powe r once Burgund y s id es w ith hi s own peo ple against
King Henry. When Joan end her poignant peech, Burgund y furtively acknowledges that he has
been "vanquished" by Joan ' "haughty word "( 1H6 3.3. 78 ). In fact, Joan's command of
language was so persuasive that Burgundy finds himself completely convinced. Apart from
significant differences between Desdemona and Joan of Arc, like De demona, who m ake a
compelling speech in the senate before the Duke of Venice and argues in such a way that th e
Duke has to other option except allowing Desdemona to join Othello in Cyprus, Joan, a an
eloquent speaker, articulates her ideas to such an extent that the Duke of Burgundy seeks no
other choice except joining the French forces. Interestingly, Burgund y describes himself being
defeated by Joan in that her " word s" have bombard ed him " like roa rin g cannon-shot" and have
made him "yield upon " hi s " kn ees" (I H6 3.3.79-80). This idea sugge ts that Joan has
uccessfu lly triumphed over another high -profi le Frenchman.

a great peaker, it i her

eloqu ence that portrays Joan as dominant and victorious in this particular conte t. Affected by
Joa n'

peech, Burgund y sides with hi "countrymen" and utter : "My force s and m; po\\ er of

79

men ar

ur I

far w II , alb t" ( I H6 .. 8 -4) . Int re tingly it i not the fir t tim that

Joan, a a w man, ha br u ght a man t hi kn e . h e ha mad
he ha d D ated Talb t and retaken

by her phy ical pr we
"va nqui h d" th

uk

f

harl

h er 1 ver and pr tege

rlean · and finally he ha

urg und y by he r " hau g hty w rd " ( I H6 .. 7 ). Ind eed, Joan preva il

on Burg und y t c01runit w hat h want him to d , and by d ing o, 1 an how that h e i a
powerful lad y equipp d with 1 qu ence t chan ge th e fat
Although J an ha r p atedl y pr ven h r

f h r nati n .

If to be a domin ant w m an, h e fully lo e h er

upremacy once the audi nee 1 arn that h r deed di ffer from her word . H eavil y outnumbered
by the French army, Talb t' troop are deD ated, but, oo n a fte r, w lea rn that th e " divided "
ng li h army " i now conjoined in n " ( I H6 5.2. 12). Thi is a dan gerou

itu ati on for th e

French, o, a the national aviour, Joan decide to m ake u e of m agic power to ave her country.
For the fir t time, we are ex po ed to Joa n' in vocatio n of devi Is: " You speedy he lpe rs, that a re
sub stitute I U nder the lordl y monarch of the north/ Appear, and aid m e in thi e nterpri e'' ( I H 6
5.3. 7). All of the implications that have shaped the idea that Joan i a orcerer make en e all of a
sudd en. One ca n argue that phra es such as "fa ir persuas io n, mix ' d w ith sug 'red word ," ( I H6
3 .3. 18), being " bew itc h ' d" with Joa n 's "wo rd s" ( I H6 3.3 .5 8), and Ta lbot's de cription of Joa n
"that damned orceress" ( I H6 3.2.37) that would liken " Joa n to witchcraft" (Gutierrez 192) find
some solid evidence all of a sudden here. These statement are genera ll y made by other men- abo ut h er rather than by Jo an about herself. Iron ica ll y, it i men ' account th at eventu ally
determine Joan ' fate or story. Thi s particular cene is th e fir t tim e the audience ee Joan
u ing her words to conjure fi end . And, it i the only mom ent she write her story differently
from what he had initiall y dec lared , and, a are ult, thi s

ene puts an e nd to Joan's natTath ' .

nee J an i dive ted of her narrative, she beco m s ju t a woman ubject to defeat and lo. s. like

0

pivak
men,

white Briti h m n w h have narrated th

tory of Hindu widow , it i

hake peare ' s

harles, Talbot and later on Y ork, who p eak abo ut J an ' narrativ e until th y can

ultimate ly override Jo an ' s tory.
Joa n' s di empowem1 ent is fo re hadowed when the no tion of m onstro ity i atta ched to
her. To av Orl ' an fr m H enry V I'

iege, Joa n invade Ta lbo t' fo rce and , a a re u lt, is

depicted as monstrous and unnatural. Ta lbot' lament, " O ur Eng Iish troops ret ire; l cann ot stay
th em I A w oman clad in arm o ur cha eth th m" ( I H6 1.6 .2-3) refer to Joan ' s suit of armor. T he
gen eral idea in ea rl y m odern

ng land wa that " wo rn n in mascu lin e attire we re ' m onstro us '

perversion of natural ord er" (Bre ite n berg 153 ). T he rea on that wo m en were deem ed monstro us
and unnatural in m asculine atti re is that cro

-dressing- as th e w riter of " H ic Muli er,"

represe ntativ e of sev era l " ma le-authored, earl y m odem texts about gend er and sexu ali ty,"
argu es-wo uld be synonymous w ith tran gress ing t he "fund amenta l di ffere nces'' between men
and wom en whi ch are " natura l and God- g iven'' (Bre itenberg 153). Jn oth er wo rds, any s imil a ri ty
betwee n oppos ite sexes would be interpreted as " in direc t co nfli ct w ith God 's des ign"
(Breitenberg 15 3) . Interestingly, while Joan h opes to m obilize the idea th at her armor is
associated w ith the holy mission ordained by the Virgin M ary to protect France, the m asculine
gaze, represented by Talbot, interprets her arm or as " in d irect co nfl ict w ith God's des ign'' and, as
a result, m onstrous. To better decipher such an idea, one needs to examine the cultural politics of
su ch a phenom enon in early modem England. Due to the controversy caused by aristocratic
wom en in London who w ere wearin g men' s attire, in 1620 the author of " Hic Mu lier. "
end eav o urs to res pond to " th e surro und ing co ntrover y" as we ll as " a threat posed" by such
wom en (Breitenberg 159) . Although this pamphlet co mes out after Shakesp eare has written hi s
pl ays, it is quite applica bl e to the

ngland of the 1590s because it refl ec ts the ame controversy

81

and anxiety about worn n' cro s-dr

ing that hake pear ha convey d in thi particular play.

T he 'I ic Mu li r" pamphl t argue that w men wearing " men ' fa hion " are " manlike not only
from th head to the wai t but to the very£ ot and in every condition : man in body attire, man in
behaviour by rud c mplim nt" (qtd . in Br itenb erg 159). Thu ace rding to early m d rn
theater-goers in n gland , J an can b
difference , betw
patriarchy

n " mon trou " beca u e he has effaced th e" od-given"

n g nd r by wearing a suit of arm r, and a a result, in the eye of

he repre ent th id a of perv r ion of natural order, which lead Joan to her

imminent di empowerment.
Joan 's di empowerment i fully dem on trated once he is apprehended by the Eng li h.
Right after the sorcery scene, Ri chard Duke of York capture Joan and describes her with
opprobriou lan gua ge:" nchain yo ur pirit n w with spe llin g charm s, I A nd try if they can gain
yo ur liberty" (1 H6 5.3.31-2). It is not accidental that shortl y after Joa n i invitin g " fi end s" to
help her so ''that France may get the field " (I l---16 5.3. J 2), the French arm y is defeated . It ee ms
that Joan 's miss ion, a the sav iour of France, ceases the moment he is found seeking assistance
from evil spirits and not from a spiritual so urce, nam e ly ''God' s mother" ( 1H6 1.2. 78). Thus
juxtaposin g Joan' s statement, "Chri st' s moth er helps me, e lse I we re too wea k'' ( J H6 I .2. 106),
with what she does in the sorcery scene su ggests that she is an untru tworthy damsel. Having this
apparent contradiction in mind , one can argue that Joa n' s behaviour in 5.3 reveals her true
chara cter to the audi ence which tmnishes her reputation, puts an ignominiou end to her "holy"
mission, and apprises the audience that Joan, as a witch, is literally a perversion of natural order.
Furthermore, Joan is to be demonized becau e her nanative ca nnot be convincing for anybody
once she i pre ented a a sorcerer.

82

J an' d monizati n 1 c n
Th op nmg cen of ct 5,

yed t the audi nc by h r interacti n with her own father.

en 5 D re had w that Joan i g ing t be cha ti

Richard Duk of Y rk ay : " Bring D rth that

d

v rely.

c nd mn dt burn "( IIJ6 5.5. l) . Joani

brought t h r father, wh i a heph rd . H w v r, J an d ni e her wn father n the ba i that
h i "de cend d fag ntl r bl
b cau

d" ( I H 5.5. 8). h r ject her fath er' claim pr babl y

b in g a h ph rd' dau ght r und ermin e th e id entity that Joan ha con tructed for

her !fat thi p int. J an' e

e

1

e oppr brium i con pi u u : " D cr pit mi er, ba e ign ble

wretch I [... ] Th u art n fath r, n r no friend of min " ( lH6 5.5. 7-9). It

em that by in ulting

her own father, Joan attempt t di tance her elf fr m the ru ti city that h r fath er represent a a
simp!

hepherd . Flabberga ted by J an' relent!

demea nor, Joa n's father ay : "

d kn ow

that thou art a col lop of my fle h" ( 1H6 5.5. 18 ). Faced with Joa n's ac rid denunciati on, Joan'
father appeal to

od who would bear witne

to hi tru e words, and to impact Joan, h appeals

to emotion : "And for th y sa ke ha ve I hed man y a tear. I Deny me not I prithee, gentl e Joa n"
(1H6 5.5.19-20). Indifferent to what her father has said , Joan still refu es to tell the truth and
carries on with her chicanery and in ists that what he claims i legitimate. Joan raises the bar
hi gher: "Pea ant, avaunt! (To the

ngli sh) You have uborned thi man/ Of purpo e to ob cur

my nobl e birth" (I H6 5.5.2 1-22). Thi

entence demonstrates that Joan i not a reli ab le per on on

the ba is that the end justifie the mean for her, and o, to fulfil her goal- de cending from
noble blood-she rejects her own father.
Fina ll y, Joan ' statu a a ubaltern figure is revealed, o her languag i un ab le to prot ct
her anymore. Irritated by Joan's effro ntery, Joa n' father ay : " Do t thou deny thy father, cur cd
drab? I

burn her, burn her! ll anging i too good" ( 111 6 5 .. 2- ). Joa n' father take umbrage

at Joan' remark , o he[! minizcs hi dau ghter by ca lling her a "dra b," and b) so aying, he

3

und rmm

the fact that J an wa a warri r w man who wa c urag ou enough t drive back

ngli h tr

p .

abriele Jack

warrior woman and i ' ub
in Liebler and

n argue that inc Joan repre ent the idea ffr

dom as a

r ive ly p werfu l," he ha t b " feminized and demonized " (qtd.

hea 0) . More ver, a J an' narrati e turn o ut to b fau lty, he, an eloqu nt

peaker ha lo t th impact of her langua ge, and h er word cannot have any effect on people. For
example, J an argue that a "a virgin" he i "c hat and imma ulat "( ll-16 5.5.5 0- 1), but when
York doe n t pay att nti n t

uch a claim , Joan mak

up an ther t ry that he i pregnant

with a child. And York override her narrati ve: " th h ly maid with child ?" (I J-16 5.5.65). Thi
mean that Joan i like a ubalt rn figure who cann t p eak for h erself anymore. Her condition
can nicely be juxtapo ed with

pivak ' th o ry that " th e s ubaltern wo man w ill be a mute a

ever" (90) becau e Joan, de pite her pa
tongue only make

ive effort s to save her elf, is mute in a sen e that her

ome empty words. Finall y, Y rk utte r :" Brea k thou in pi eces, and co n um e

to a hes'' (JH6 5.5.91-2). Joan ' ineffec tive word can beju xtapo ed with th e Hindu widow'
lack of narrative, substantiating pivak 's overall argument that wom en in "gen eral" are ub altem
figures regardless of their race or nationality (90).
The moment that Joan of Arc is demonized and di sempow ered, Margaret of Anjou
replaces her. It is not coincidence that when Joan is captured by York, Margaret appears on the
sta ge. Similarly, Marga ret, just like Joan, " i he ld pri so ner by a n

ng li shm an" (Liebler and

hea

8 1). Thus when ruminating over the notion that b th Joan and Margaret are young, unmanied,
French, and beautiful and th e fact that th ey are both apprehended by the Engli h a
Marga ret- "Thou are my pri so ner I

faires t beauty" (I H6 5.4 .1

u1Tolk tell

ne can argue that the

audience i go ing to be expo ed to another ubv r ive ly powerful woman. In addition, Liebler
and

hea argue th at " Joa n i de fro ked. tripped of aura of 'Ji\ inity,' literally demoni.1cd \\hen

4

.. . he i

een

njurin g de il ' and it i at thi parti ular m m nt " hak

Marga ret to tak up th r I

p are introduce

f Maid f Franc ," th r le that Joan abandon when he ay that

h i pr gnant with a child ( 1). M ore

er lik

harl e w ho fell in 1 ve w ith Joan ,

uffo lk

b g in to lov M argaret r m anticall y the v ry m m ent u f[i lk ee h r. Butt m ak e ure th a t he
can carn ally ben fit fr m M argar t,
Kin g H nry. Toe pre

uf[i lk arrang

a r ya l m arri age between M argaret and

her gratitud , M a rgar t a ll w

th y e lf' ( I H6 5.4. 14 1-2) . Li ebl er and

uf~

hea clarify th at, by d in g o, M argaret " ubtl y

ackn owl ed ge hi attrac ti o n t he r" (82 ). In fac t, u ffo lk '
of the D a uphin · pa

lk t g iv he r a k i : " T ha t for

i n "fo r J an : a Joa n u

d her

b e

i n w ith Ma rga r t r mind s u

ua l a ppea l to en ure her place in th e

F renc h arm y, M a rga ret u e he r to e n ure her m arri age to the k in g" (82).

o mpa rin g th e

tw

dam e ls, one ca n a rg u th at Ma rga ret i go in g to mirro r Joa n ' be havi ur a a noth r ig nifi ca nt
wom an .
Like Joa n, M arga ret' la ng uage prove to be quite effecti ve . Margaret addresses Henry a
" G reat Kin g of ng la nd " and her "grac io us lo rd " (2 H 6 1. 1.24) .

in ce Henry VI i too yo un g, he

is depend ent on his uncle Duke Humphrey of G lo ucester for m aking decisions. T hus ri ght from
the outset of th e pl ay, M argaret' s fl atte ry i co nspi cuo u . Moreover, Ma rgaret ki II f ull y ma nage
the practice of o bsequi ou sness:
T he mutual conference that my m ind hath had [ ...]
With you , min e alderli efe t sovereign,
M ake m e th e bo ld er to alute m y king
With rud er te1ms, su ch as m y w it afford
A nd overjoy of heart do th mini t r.
(2H6 1. 1.25-3 0)
in g th e phra es uch a " th e mutu a l co nfe rence ," " min e a lde rli e fe, t ove re ign,"' a nd "o \ erjo)'
f hea rt" ugge t th at Marga ret ca n ve ry we ll use a lo t o f b larn ey to ea rn' hat she is loo king
for.

he c laim th at th e rea on he ca n greet King Henry is fo r all th e intima te co n\ -rsation she

had with Henry " 8

day, b ni ght ;

[h r] b ad ' ( l 1-16 1. 1.26-7).

aking, and in ... [her] dream ; I Jn c urt ly company, rat .. .

!though it i n t c n picu u wh ther or not Margaret i t !ling

the truth, what i under tandabl e i that Margar t i

killful at u ing Oatt ring lang uage to obtain

power. Th id ea i full y demon trat d nee we are aware [the fact that when King H eru·y
agr e t w d Margar t, h will c n equ e ntl y bee m e a p werful woman a th e qu een of
ng land . Thu Marga r t' lan g ua g i in trum ntal in nti c in g H nry into takin g he r a hi s own
que n a well a pr p llin g her into th e r ya l p wer.

ike

n ri I' and Rega n ' flatterin g

remark which wer put into prac ti ce t deceive Lear in rder to ecure the ir elf-inter est,
Margaret al o make goo d u e of b
It

quiou n e

to fulfil her own immediate intere t.

em that, like th e Duke of Burgundy w ho wa e nchanted by Joan ' w rd , Kin g

Henry feels th e impact of M arga ret's language. lntere tin g ly, Margaret' s flattery bear fruit very
quickly becau e a

oo n a

he nd s he r e nte nce, H enry utter : " Her wo rd s yc lad w ith w i dom'

maje ty, I Makes me from wond ' rin g fall to wee ping joy , I ... welcome my love" (2H6 1.1.336) . Henry 's reaction indicates that Marga ret's words ha ve influenced him to uch an extent that
he unhesitatingly decides to marry Margaret w ithout consulting his uncle, Glouce ter. Thi
concept implie that Marga ret's lang ua ge ea rns her the title she is seeking, the queen of ngland .
This is to ay that Margaret prevai l on King H emy to do what she intend , and by so doing,
Margaret portrays herself as an influential lad y equipped with eloquence to dominate whomever
she want . Like Joan whose "sug'red wo rd s," ( I H 6 3.3. 18) mana ge to make Burgundy change
hi s mind and side with the French, Marga ret' word , adorned with wi dom according to King
J lenry, make Henry with hi s " heart' s content" (2H6 1. 1.35) welcome Margaret a the future
queen of ng land. In addition, if Joan' per uas ion brought Burgund to hi knee , Margaret's

6

ton g ue literally mak

all I rd of ngland knee l befo re h r to cry o ut lo ud unanimou ly: "Long

live Qu

ngland' happine " (2H6 1.1.3 7).

n Margaret,

Henry' reacti o n ugge t that he i depri ed f ma culinity. H e lack all the qualities
that the idea of ma culinity demand ; fo r in tan e, Henry' can neither fi ght with a word; [n o r]
tilt with a Jan e" (Howard, and Rackin 71 ). Jn additi on, H enry' aD re menti oned reacti o n i quite
effeminate b eca u e the m ment that M arga r t nd her p eec h, he i to fal l "to weeping j oys"
(1H6 1. 1.3 4) . In fact, it i not exp e ted that the king of ngland wo uld be dominated by motion
a it i di pla yed by hi t ar , which end or e

u ch an argument th a t in all likelihood hi s future

"fa ilings as a kin g are thu presented in paii a fai lin gs of ma sc ulinity" (7 1). Juxtapo in g Henry's
be havi o ur with Margaret' perfo rman ce in th e c urt beD re all the

nglish lo rd s indicates that

Margaret will have to "fi ll the vac uum created by Henry's ineffective performance as king" (72).
For exampl e, when H emy i on the verge of tear , Margaret ad dresses all the lords quite
po liti cally: ''We thank yo u all'' (2 H6 1. 1. 3 8). Marga ret expresse her gratitude to all w ho are
addressing h er as "Eng land ' s happiness" (2 H6 1.1.37), but the subject "we" is a roya l pronoun
used by kings such as Lear or H en ry him se lf. Thus w hen Margaret refers to herse lf as "we," one
can argue that she sees h erself right from th e outset of the play as a dominant king- figure who
has every potential to replace H enry whenever needs be.
Margaret ' s influence is nicely limn ed w hen she stand up against G loucester. There i an
unusual friction between

ng li sh lords in Henry's presence about wh should become the re gent

of France, York or Somerset. It seems t hat Margaret's intention is to get omerset in stated in
such an office because when Salisbury asks, " Why Somerset hould be preferred in thi s (?]"
(2 H6 1.3 . 11 5), Margar t re ponds : "8 cau e the King, forsooth , will hav e it o" (_H6 1. .., . 11 6).
I Ienry' interest in appointing omer

t to the regentship di splays his lack of und erstanding

87

about uch dyna tic p litic a there i a I ng enmity betwee n om r
"Fo r my part, n bl lord , 1 car not which; I

t' andY rk ' familie

r omer et or York, all ' one to me ' (2H6

1.3 .102- ). Marga ret' word are indi ative fth noti on that he i fully parti ipatin g in
England' nati nal po litic at thi juncture. H r influence i palpabl th e m om ent that we
recognize that Margaret i talkin g on behalf of a pre ent King . Moved by Margaret's
interfer nee , Glouce t r remind Margaret that ''the King i o ld no ugh him elf I To g iv e hi
cen ure. The e are no women' matter '' (2 H6 I .. I 17 -8). Irritated by suc h a tat ment, Margaret
respond : " If he be o ld enough, what need your grace I To be Protector of hi exce ll ence?" (2 H6

1.3 .119-20).
By addre sing Glouce ter with uch ententious remarks, Margaret is openl y chall enging
the second most powerful man in the kingdom. Pre ured by Margaret' words, Gloucester
responds: " I am Protector of the realm, I And at hi pleasure will resign my place" (2 H6 1. 3. 1 19-

20) . Interestingly, Gloucester again gives the absolute authority to his nephew with his stated
willingness to resign at the kin g's behest. While Gloucester proves that he is a righteous per on
who would renounce office for the sake of the interest of the state, Margaret demonstrate that
her desire to obtain more pow er is voracious: ''Resign it then , and leave thine inso lence" (2H6

1.3 .123). These sentences describe Margaret as a self-interested person who is willing to
sacrifice Gloucester to obtai n more political power within the realm . Marga ret' reaction
indicates that she is talking on behalf of H enry one more time as if he is not pre ent. This idea
conspicuou sly evinces the fact that he is already replacing the Kin g at this point of the play.
Removing Gloucester from his position means earning more pow er for Margaret and thi is the
reason why she want

louce ter to resign from his rank. If th ere i no Gloucester, Henry can be

easily mana ged by Margaret as he ha already been dominated by her when he e pres e her

8

wn int ntion under th gui e of Henry ' . inc Margaret' authority emanate from Henry'
he ne d to enunciat h r id ea a if they ar H nry

and , by o doing, sh e exercises a lot

influence a it i pla yed ut in thi
lb it temporaril y M argar t d fea t
Margaret trik

th e fin a l bl w fo r ucce

l uce t r by m aking him leave the stage. In fa c t,
by ay in g: " hy a le of offi ce and town in Franc e-

/ if they w ere known [ ... ] W ould m ake thee qui ckl y hop without thy h ead " (2H6 1.3 .136-8) .
What i of extrem e imp rtan c i th fac t that M argaret is th e onl y indiv idual who h a
co mmunicated th e ve ry fir t pe n threat to Gl o uce te r's li D so far. In additi on, th e place upon
which Margaret and Glou ce ter are standing can be interpreted as the sphere of power and
authority b ecause all the pow erful facti on of ngli h no bility h ave happened to gather togeth er
at the sam e time and in the very am e place. H av ing thi s concept in mind and reali zin g th at
Gloucester leave the stage ri g ht after M arga ret's threate nin g re mark s, o ne can better apprec iate
Margaret's suprema cy . Co ntex tu ali z ing Fo uca ult' definiti on of power th at it i " neithe r g iven,
no r exchan ged , no r recove red, but rath er exe rc ised, and th at it o nl y ex ists in acti o n''

(Power/Knowledge 89), one can argue that M argaret h as obtained power w hen sh e dominates
Gloucester by making him leave th e stage, w hich m etaphorica ll y sp eaking is the sphere of power
and authority.
M a rgaret' s supremacy is full y demonstrated w hen she make Eleanor ab andon the stage.
A pro pos of nothin g, Marga ret punches G lo uces te r's w ife , Elea nor, w ho i a bumpti o u woman ,
in th e ear a nd feigns that she did not know it was Elea nor: " 1 cry yo u m rcy, madam! Wa it
yo u?" (2 1-1 6 1.3 .140). However,

lea no r seem to be full y aware of Margaret' nature and he r

intenti o n beca use in res po nse to Henry's reac ti on th at "'twa again t her will."

leano r qui c k!)

re po nds: ''Aga in st her w ill. good K ing? Look to ' t in time" (21-16 I .. 145). U nlike ll enr),

89

Elean r 1

ugg ting that MaJgaret punched her n purpo e, and

I anor ' fina l entence: " Look

to 'tin tim '' in inuate that it i only time that wi ll e entua lly teach Henry about th true nature
of hi wife. Different fr m the King,

lea n r i cognizant of the fact that Margaret plan to

"climb beyond her affixed plac ''(Hunt 163). Jn addition, E l anor proph e ie that ne day
Margar twill b

up eri or to him :" he w ill pamper th ee and dandl e th ee like a bab y. I Th ough in

thi s place mo t rna t r wear no bre
Macbeth a her child and guid

h " (2 H6 I .. 146). Lik Lady Macb th w ho looks at

him to do what h desire , Margaret is al o described a a

woman who will treat King H enry a her bab y. E leanor i

ugge tin g that " in the co urt th e per on

mo tin charge (the queen) wears no pant yet u urps rul e with masc ulin e authority" (Hunt J 63).

In fact , Margaret coerces E leanor into abandoning the ta ge, and exe1is uprem e influ ence on
such an important political phere of authority while King H enry, a a phl egmati c rul er, remain
silent, and Margaret, by so doing, paves the way for her future masculine authority proph e ized
by Eleanor.
Marga ret' s ma sculinity is contingent o n her demonizati on. And to be demonized ,
Margaret's chastity need s to be tarni shed. Margaret has already rebelled against all the
conventional feminine virtues such as sil ence and obedience. She has flagrantly proven that she
is an influential lady equipp ed with eloqu ence to dominate w hoever she wants by making good
use of her langua ge, conveying the idea that she is not a silent woman. Furthennore, Margaret
demonstrates the fact that she is not an obedient wife either because a submi ssive wife is not
go in g to exerc ise influence over her " lo rd '' by talkin g on behalf of him w hen he is present. The
only important virtue left for Margaret a a woman is her cha tity, whi ch needs to be que tioned
if she i to be co mpl etely demonized. Interes tingly, M arga ret is not a cha te wife either becau e
she is fulfillin g her exual desires out ide the institutio n of marriage. It ecms that

hak ' pcare

90

'a

iat

h r ut p ken trength

ith hei ghtened

idea i fu ll dem n trat d them ment
clarif , "when

uf~

lk i bani hed , th ir far

ua lit " (H ward , and Rackin 72). Thi

kat uffolk' departure . A H ward and Rackin
ell i an impa i ned aria punctual d with ki

and tear " (72). Margar t a
ive me th y hand ,
That I may dew it with my m urnful tear ; [... ]
he kiss ,s his hand.
uld thi ki be printed in th y hand ,
That th u might t think up n the by the ea l,
Thr ugh whom a th u and igh are brea th d ~ r
thee!
(2 H6 3 .2.3 43-9)
Th farewell i quite en ual and i indicati e f a ~ rbidd en I ve between uffolk and Margaret.
Thu the textual evid ence ugge t that Margaret i not a cha te wife eith er. Margaret ha been
p rtra yed a a woman who ha rebell d again t all the important feminine virtu e

uch a

il ence,

obedience, and cha tity, paving the way for her c mpl ete demoni zati on.
The idea of cha tity i one of the m

t fund amental element of politi cal culture in the

ea rl y mod rn peri od. Al ong th ese lin . Breitenberg argue that " nowhere is thi more ev id ent
than in th e peri od' ob e sion with female cha tity, whi ch i

ft en de cribed a the linchpin of

every oth er aspect of the oc ial network" (24 ). If thi be so, one ca n better recogni ze how
deleteri ou Marga ret' adultery can be acco rdin g to th e ove rall cultural e ·pectati on of th
lizabethan audience. Moreover, Breitenberg clarifi e th at " in ge neral:' during the earl) modern
peri od, "a wife's cha tity fun cti oned to ec ure and pre rve ac tu al eco nomic intere t (patrilineal
inheritance and th e av id an e of ba tard y)" (24 ). If thi idea is importa nt for the ma<se , it
hould be of grea ter signi fica nce for the roya l fa mil y beca u c th succc -, ion to the

nglish

throne will be hadowed if the queen i cnjo in g an illicit sexua l relation ·hip with someone else,
' uf~ lk in Marga ret'

ca<c. Thi i to sa that " Marga ret's adulterous relationship'' ith ufTolk
91

c uld al l into qu
uf~

ti nth I gitima

f J lenr ' heir " (J J ward, and Rackin 7 ). AI
, b ~ re ex cuting him , th

lk ' adu lter u de d i n t t I rat d within th play be au

' lieut nant" " m nti on ki

in g the qu

n' lip a

(7 ). Th

ieut nant utter : ''Th lip that ki

4. 1.75) . Jf

uf~

d wa

fth cnm

~ r which h

mu t uffer"

ueen hall wee p th gr und " (2H6

lk' dea th i part! g in g t redee m hi adulter u

bey nd red mpti n du e t her later atr
that a g

d th

n

in , Margaret eem t be

i u d d , namely murd ering Y rk. ln h rt, it eem

f "dem ni zin g" Marga ret i t p rtra her "a a fi gure of p n and unre train ed

exual pa ion" which i indi cati e of"th dan g r of a~ mininity n t firml y und er th e c ntr
of a father or hu band" (74 ). If thi be o, Margar t h uJd be read as a ymptom [a di ea e
which i a defunct patriarchy-repre ented by King Henry-that ca n mana ge nei ther the country
nor w men like Margaret.
Margaret' conver ation with uffolk i indi cative f h r rn a culin e qualitie . Befo re
Suffolk abandon Margaret, she begin to vehementl y cur e Henry for banishing uffolk. Upon
hearin g it, uffo lk ays:" ea e, gentle

ueen, th e e execration , I And let thy uffolk take hi

heavy leave" (2 H6 3.2.309- 10). Irritated by uch a respon e, Margaret chid es uffolk for not
behaving in a manl y manner: "F ie coward woman and oft hearted wre tch!" (2 H6 3.2. II). Lik
Lady Macbeth who wa

f the opinion that femininity i equated wi th weaknes . Margaret'

sentence suggests that he also believes that femininity i tantamount to being" oft-hearted" or a
"coward." Lady Macbeth' per pecti ve of ee in g femininity a

yn nymou with frailty makes

her adopt rna culine traits, and Margaret, like Lady Macbeth, i intere ted in adopting ma. culine
qualitie when cen urin g femininity. Furthenn re, it eem that ufTolk' " tatu · a her ltncr and
hi lac k of re i tance to hi ca ptor make the woman of him " in the eye · of l\1argarct (Stapleton
111 ). ln other w rd , Marga ret e pects uffolk to at lea t hov s me opposition- e\ en 111

word - to hi enem1 e rather than humbl y ace pt H enry' co mmand : " Ha tho u not pirit to
cur

thine en mi e ? , (2 H6 3 .2.3 12). uffolk hould not act pa ively becau e Margaret is of the

opinion that it i wom n who are exp ected t b timid and oft-hearted and not m en like uffolk.
Thi i to ay that M argaret feels enmity t w ard her own gend er, elu cidating h er future attempt,
" by tran -g nd ring her elf, b c ming m a culin e, [and] e hibitin g an abili ty to c han ge her fo rm "
( tapleton 111 ), to u urp rn a culine preroga ti ve a a wom an general.
A the play pr g re e . M a rga ret' influ enc a nd powe r w ill b increas in g ly blatant. Du e
to H nry' ineffi cacy. th e co untry b eco m e embroiled in a civil war. A fter H enry m akes York his
heir and di inhe rit Prin ce

dward in o rd er to re ma in in p owe r, Ma rga ret' s reacti on beco mes

quite considerable in the context of power tru ggles betw een Kin g H enry and M argaret. The
moment that Margaret e me rges. th e Duke of xete r te ll s Henry: '' Here co me th e Qu ee n, w hose
loo ks bewra y he r an ge r: I I' II stea l away" (3 H6 1. 1 .2 11 -2). Looking at the hi erarchi cal gradati on,
the audi ence cannot chide Exeter for doin g so because after all M argaret is a qu een and Exete r is
a Duke. H ow ever, w hen H enry him se lf utters, " xeter, so w i II J" (3 H 6 1.1. 2 13 ), one learn s th at
M argaret has b ecome so powerful that sh e can m ake the king of E ngland fl ee fro m her presen ce.
Margaret' s word s su ggest that she is the superi or partn er w ithin the power re latio ns: "Nay go not
from me, I wi II fo ll ow th ee" (3 H6 1. 1.2 11 4 ). To th at He nry responds: " Be pat ient ge ntle Queen
and 1 w ill stay" (3 1-1 6 1.1.2 11 5). T hi s shoti co nv ersati o n between Kin g Henry a nd Q ueen
M argaret is indicative of M arga ret' s sup eri o rity over Henry. Furtherm ore, Marga ret take one
step further and desc ribes Henry w ith a n oppro bri o us language such a "A h wretched man" (3 1-16

1.1. 2 17), " unn atura l fa th er," (3 1-1 6 1.1 .2 19) and "Ah tim oro us wretc h, (3 1-16 1.1.232).
M arga ret' unc hallenged sup eri ority over Henry i easy to notice. Undoubtedly
M argaret' la ng uage depi ct he r uperi ori ty over King Henry, and it eems that she want to

93

rep lace Henry " t guarantee Prince

dward '

n to th Eng li h throne" (Howard , and

ucc

Rackin 84) :
Th north rn 1 rd that have for worn thy col r
Will[! 11 w mine if once they ee them pread;
nd pread th ey h all be, t thy foul di grace
And utter tuin of the h u e f Y ork.
Thu d I leave thee.- ome, on, let' away.
ur ann y i r ady.
m , w ' II afte r th m .
(3 H6 1.1 .2 19)
A Howard and Rac kin argue, by di inh ritin g hi

wn

n, H nry a ll ow M arga ret " to b co m e

the famil y's patri arch'' in th at he ha t u urp th 'a uth ri ty in th e famil y and in th e tate" (84)
by takin g over H enry' arm y in ord er to he lp Prince

dwa rd "to c la im th e patri archa l legacy hi s

fath er ha betra yed" (85). It i M arga ret w ho proves to be Edward 's "fath er" when ta lkin g to
H enry. For instance, w hen H enry ask if Prince E dward would stay with him, Marga ret rejects
hi s demand : "Come so n away, we ma y not lin ger thu "(3 H6 1.1.264). Hav in g in mind th at " in
early modern culture, children w ere assumed to be long to th e ir fath er ,'' Margaret ' behav iour
depicts her as the fa ther-fi gure for E dward by takin g " him away from hi s fa th er" (85) to protect
Edward from his enemies and ultimately defeat them . In fac t, it is at this particular m om ent that
we learn M argaret has fu lly taken over Henry's masc ulin e auth ority as prev ious ly prop hes ized
by Eleanor because it is not H enry but M argaret w ho is raising an arm y to go to war with York.
T his is to say that M argaret, as a wom an general, is waging war against the Duke of York, o she
needs to wear m asculine attire, whi ch is closely getmane to the idea of becoming mon trou .
Juxtaposing the concept that wo men wea rin g " men's fas hio n "are manlike "in every
condition : m an in body att ire, [and ] m an in behaviour by rude com pi iment" (Breitenberg I 9)
w ith Marga ret's ro le in th e pl ay, we can ee it re onating with the identity Margaret ha already
constru cted for her elf in ord er to help Prince

dward to su ceed King Henry to the throne and

94

elf-fa hioning i g nnan t the id a fa rna culine

de troy the Duke ofY rk. Margaret'
patriarch who appr priate b th a man

c loth es and Kin g H nry' power to dec id . And for o

doing, he chao e a particul ar narrative a indi cated above, that rever e the natural order in th e
play a if it i Margaret wh i the king and H nry, th e qu een.
of armor and by doing o effac

th "

ike Joan f Arc, wh wear a uit

d-g ive n" di ffer nee between g nd ers her

dopp elganger, M argaret, tran gre e th e " fund amental di fferen es'' betw en men and wo men
and " with all th e north rn arl and lord " attac k York ' arm y (3 H 6 1.2.49). Breiten berg argue
th at " th e demand for w m n to be 'cha te, il ent and obedi nt' [i ] o frequentl y echoed in the
peri od ' mainl y becau e "cro -dress ing wom en'' wo uld und ermin th e masculine identity th at
men were interested in m aintaining for them elves (166) . H aving thi s id ea in mind helps us to
recognize why Marga ret' A mazo ni an power i thu s co nn ected to monstros ity .
What needs to be elucidated is th e similarity that one can fi nd among M argaret, Joan, and
Queen Elizabeth I in te1ms of wearin g a suit of armor. For exampl e, Queen Elizabeth herself
wears armor wh en delivering her fam ou s sp eech to the troops in T ilbury: " 1 myself will be your
general, judge, and reward er of every one of yo ur virtu es in the fie ld " (qtd . in Marcus 54) . This i
to say that, like Joan and Margaret, Queen Elizabeth is also a wom an general. Along the e lines,
Leah S. M arcus argues that Shakespeare's Joa n of A rc rep resents " a set of suppres ed cul tura l
anx ieties about the Virgin Qu een, her id entity, and her cap acity to provide continuing stability
fo r th e nati on" (53). This idea suggests that, even as a queen,

lizabeth is not exempt from "s ign

of anx iety" that have " bee n ex pressed" by her "vio lati on of sex ro les" in Tilbury (Marcu 64-65) .
That being said , what di stingu ishes

Iizabeth from Joan is the idea of having legitimate acce

to

power that Joan i deprived of. As th qu een of ngland , Iizabeth ' " bod po liti c" is th e bod)
of a ki ng of ngland whi ch i "carry in g the trength and ma cu iine spirit of the bes t of her male

95

[! r b ar ''(54).

hu when

u en lizab thad pt rna uline attire in ilbury

claiming '[! r h r lf her fath r' militar

e !at'' (

ne can

e her

hl in rand J hn n qtd . in Marcu 55).

Que n Iizabeth I i a legitimate rul r wh i deriving her rna culine per ona from Henry VIII,
the fl rrner king of ngJand . In th r w rd , what eparate
Margaret i the fact that

ueen Jiza beth I from J an r

liza beth I, a a tru e ruler and pr teet r f ngland, ad pt

uch a

" martial elf-repr entati n" in rder t ev ke the n ti n of"her r emblance to her father" (54),
from wh m

ueen

Jiza beth Ire eive h r wn legitimacy. However, neither Joann r Margaret

i a legitimate woman gen raJ in a en e that they u urp ma culine authority a well as rna culine
attire b cau e their male c unterpart , harl e and Henry, are too weak to effectively rul e or
fight , leading the e female character to demonizati n and mon tro ity.
Like Joan, Margaret i con idered an "A maz n" ~ r r ver in g th e ' natural ' ma sculine
upremacy over women . At fir t. York ' s n. Richard. i of the pinion that Margaret can be
easi ly defeated: "A woma n' general; what should we fear?" (3H6 1.2.68). In the ame way,
York claims: '' Many a battle have 1 won in France I Whena the nemy hath been ten to one; I
Why should I not now have the like ucces ?" (3H6 1.2.73-5) . Unlike what York and Ri chard
think, Margaret puts an ignominiou s end to York' s ambitions once we learn that York's troop
"Turn back and fly" (3H6 1.4.4). To humiliate York, Margaret giv es him a napkin tained with
hi s so n's blood and puts a paper crown on hi s head in order to get him to peak. Contrary to what
is ex pected, York makes a meanin gful peech by calling Marga ret " h -w If of France" (3 H6
1.4.111) who repre ent the idea of dev iatin g from one's own gend er b rejoicing at another'
defea t or agony like "a n Amazonian trull " (3 116 1.4 .114). Along th e. e line , Ho\\ard and Racl.. in
clarify that York allude to
ontemporary myths about Amazons, warlike women with origins in cythia who
uppo edJ y cut off a brea t so that they cou ld better usc bows and arrow · and \\ ho li' cd

96

in all-.D male gr up u ing men nly [! r r pr ductive purp
. Margaret, triding int
battle, orche trating th knighting f her n (Il.ii .5 -60), ilen ing h r hu band if h will
not give defian e t hi enemi (Il.ii . 11 ), and in tilling urage in her ldier by her
rhetori ( .i .1- ), i a fi gure h e k what we mi ght all ' maz n an iety.' (94)
ike J
u

rib d a ''a n

h

maz n" ( I I I6 1 .~. 1 04) by

harl e after he

er him . Marga r r beha i ur th at fully tand m pp

fully triumph d

iti n t all the

rmp riant .D minine qualiti e all w Y rk t Je en the imp rtance f Marga ret' victory by
c mparin g her to ''a n

maz ni an trull " ( H6 1.4.114 ). The tenn

paradoxical b cau e it an be a word f b th prai
m n tro ity, Marga ret'

mazon i ex tr mely

and bl am . Linked t the n ti n of

elf-fa hi nin g f rna culine id entity make it quite unambi gu u that it

the latter that i intended after he give a bl oody napkin t Y rk to wi pe hi tear with .
Margar t' m n tr

ity i publi cly revea led to the audience before he murd er York.

Y rk lament the fact that Margaret ha "ti ger' heart wrapped in a wo man' hid e," and h a k
her: "How could t thou drain the life-blo d f the child/ To bid the father wipe hi eye withal

[?]" (3H6 1.4.137-9) . What i blatant in York· dial ogue with Marga ret i the repeated
invoca tion of mon tro ity that break th e di tinction between hum an beings and animals and
attache wild nature of ra venou animal to Margaret. Furth ermore, York clarifie that Margaret
i th e opposit of what femininity represents: '' Women are oft, mild[ .. .] I Thou tem, obdurate,
ninty, rou gh, remor ele "(3 H6 1.4.141 -2). Juxtaposin g Margaret·

piteful behavi our 'v\ ith

No rthumberland ' utteran ce , "hi s pa ion move me o I That hard ! can I check my eye from
tear " (3 H6 1.4. 150- 1), one can leam better ab ut Marga ret' mon tro ity and bruta I it)
co nsiderin g that Northumberland i Margaret's all y and York' enemy. Afflicted with l\1argaret' s
vic iou ness, Y rk addre es Margaret a a " ruth les queen" (3 11 6 I .4 . 156) \\ ho i, ten time
" more inhum an" and " more ine orab lc" than "ti gers of I I rcania " (.) 116 1.4.154-5) anJ utter~ : '"I
with tear do wa h th e bl ood away'' ( 116 1.4 .158) . York 's noble tears can be compared to Km g
97

Henr ' . While Henr ' '

eep111g J

peech indicate Henr ' Ia k of
fhi murd r d

but weep with him I To e h
plain that '"th

f Marga ret ' bea ut and

lf-di ciplin e and rna culinity, Y rk ' t ar are hed in 1 mg

n and n t G r a

pain and uffering, n n ed t

Rackin

" (2H6 I . I . 4) G r the ak

man' " ight" (2116 1. 1. ~) . T appr

iate Y rk '

rthumberland ' react i n: " I h uld not, G r my life,
rr \\- gripe hi

ul' ' ( H6 1.4. 170- 1). H ward and

rthumberl and a

w epin g pectat r t Margaret'

atr citi e in ite the audience t rec gni ze thee t nt f h r violati on f pr per G mininity'' (95) .
In addition, Margaret' cruelt reac he it z nith wh n he tab Y rk t death: "A nd her

t

right ur gentle-heart d king" C' H6 1.4. 176). Thi particular cene di play Marga ret'
mon tro ity and very well de cribe her a a dem ni zed

maz nian woman. Margaret, who

would pr viou ly talk on beha lf of Kin g Henry, i now ac tin g on Henry' behalf, ugg ting that
he ha compl etely u urp d Henry' prer gat ive and auth or ity.
Marga ret' s victory over York throws the country into civil unre t. While York's elde t
on, Edward, proclaim himself to b th e ri ghtful king, Henry'
Somerset, Oxford, and Margaret fight aga inst him , but it i

upporter

uch a Warwick,

dward who wi ll ultimately emerge

triumphant. Margaret's ignominiou d feat make her a pri oner, and, a a r ult, her upr macy
is ruined. That being sa id , Margaret till proves to b an eloquent peaker. Richard of Glouce ter
threatens to chasti e Prince dward for hi co ntemptuou beha iour: 'T il plague thee for that
word" ( H6 5.5.27). To that Margaret re pond : "Ay th u '"'a t born to be a plague to men " C'l-16
5.5.27). Punning n the word "p lague," Margaret
wh

e pre ence w uld d troy all humanity. Thi

mpare Richard to a deleteriou di ea. c
t

ay that Margaret can ~ till make u. co r h ~ r

language t atta k her enemie , but to become a ubaltern figure, Margaret ha. to be reduced to

9

the I

an n ither defend n r peak [! r h r elf. In h rt, although Margar t i

I of a w man wh

h ld pri

n r h

an make u e f el quence t d fend her
t be a p werful

lth ugh Margar t pr
ll enr '

d t th audi nc

n, he bee me the ''
[! reed to ad

ward

man" (2H

pt the tan e f

After dward , Richard , and

uf~ lk wh

dward .

maz nian w man by ventril qu1 zmg

ice in p aking and ultimate ! a tin g n hi behalf, the r

ubalt m woman i di

he i

n, Prin

nc her

lati n f herr lea a

n i murd er d. Wh en Margaret I e her

.2.3 11) he wa prev i u ly n guard again t and
wa unabl e t

h w any r i tance t hi capt r .

Jar nee tab Prince dward in turn, Margaret' r acti n i to beg

them t "kill m too" ( H 5.5.4 1), and h faint . In thi rega rd . II ward and Rackin write that
" th e ti ge ri h que n [ i ] h re o compl tely di

mp wered and

finnly repositioned in a

feminine ubj ect po ition" (9 8). Margaret i reduced to a tere typica l w man wh

woon

moan , and be gs--~ r d ath at her captor · hand ,"but cannot g ad th m into ending her life
(98). Margaret is depicted a a mourning mother who cannot peak for herself anymore; her

voice only make so me empty word with ut attracting anybody' attention. Her w rd

u ha

'Til pard on thee my death'' (3H6 5.5 .70) and her plea to ''do th ou do it" (3H6 5.5.73) cannot
help Margaret at all. All Marga ret' s effort can do i to get her removed from the tage. Margaret
ha been reduced to th level of a subaltern woman who e voice ca nnot be heard anymore,
reminding us that female empowerment i never t Iera ted within the, e elected hak . p arean
tragedi es and hi t ry play .
By using eloqu ence, both Joan and Margaret pr ve their uperiori ty over important male
character and bring them to their kn ee . Neither Joan nor Margar t would have been dominant
women had it been theca e that the patriarchy wa fun ctioning proper) . If the rench camp had
a p werful national aviour, there would be no nc d for Joan to take up masculine r ))e to sm c

99

her nati n. imilarl y, if Henry wa an ind mitabl e rna culine kin g, Margaret w uld have never
been abl t ventril quiz Henr '
"th

e w men are p

ice in hi pr

n e and ab

Jean ... H ward put it,

n e.

rful , and[ ... ] are ilift ed- [i r cru elty, D r wit h raft , for adultery, for

pride, D r u urpin g men' r I

and I th "(4). In the

amined hake pearian tragedi e and

hi t ry pla y , wh n patri ar h or a male hara ter' auth rity i chall ng d by a w man, it i that
particular w man wh

hall be cha ti ed in rd er [! r th patri archy to rein tate it elf.

in tan e, after Joa n hall eng
upr ma y i to be end d n da

harl e ' and

alb t' auth rit , nc ca n

n. imil arl y, when Marga ret defi

r

njecture th at her
I Ienry' auth rity, he

inadvetientl y bring an end t her ow n p iti n. Thi mea n that when Margaret begin to act on
her own authority, he i di empoVvered beca u e he depri ve her clf of ll enry' auth rity. In her
own per on, Marga ret appea r '·more in e a rab le" th an ''ti ger

f Hyrcani a" (3 11 6 1.4. 154-5), ''an

Amazo ni an trull " C H6 1.4. 114), and " he-wo lf of France" (3 1-1 6 1.4 . 111 ) in the disco ur e a
omething abominabl e. In fact, if, in these parti cul ar pl ay , a w man pr ves her elf to be
dominant and uperior to her male counterpart , the patriarchy wo uld ift
from it

mazoni an women out

ystem and repl ace them with other male characters.

Conclu sion :

By making good use of their eloqu ence, the e women can obtai n power and exerci e a
great deal of influ ence and contr 1 over their mal counterpart . De demona prove her elf to be
a d mi nant yo ung w man when he makes use of persuasivene

before her father,

thcllo, and

the Duke of Venice and convinces them all of what he wan t . ince the notion of a powerful or
authoritati ve woman i not rcgi tered with in the patri archy, w men arc de ribcd with pcjoratiH~
term , o Brabanti '

min u wa rnin g t

th e II , "Look to her, Moor. if thou hast C) CS to sec:

, he ha dece ived her fa th r, and may th ee" ( I. .

-4) makes , ense.

!thou gh I ha\ e argued that

100

d n languag cann t b fully r li d upon,

th pow r/authority ba
y ta

hic l [! rh rt "

her own ubj ec tivity a de ire/v liti nina way di turbing to

th II and t h r father beca u e it imitat
ubj ctiviti

th e

" ( reit nb rg 170). Jf thi be

imitating men'

ubj

ti iti

pow r/auth rity t it u

d mona' el quence 1

a a w man .

nditi on and c nl ur

e dem ona i chall n ging patriarchy by

th n

lth ugh langu age in it elf do e not give

r( ), th mal e-d minated

iety i

woman ma y acquire bye pre ing h r de ire . tall ybra
made a ig n of cha tity" (qtd . in Breitenb rg 170),
their own de ire, hence th e charg

r ' Ia

fth ir [m n ' ]

n

an

till afraid

f th e ubj ec tivitie that a

add that i r " th

lo ed mo uth ... i

e wo rn n ' t ngue "a

1gn of

iv i u t ng ue ., (Breitenb erg 170) . H av ing thi notion

in mind, we can better deciph r the rea on why hake p eare h as depicted these highl y articulate
female charac ters deprived of cha tity; after all

thello , the repre en tative of patriarchy, i

beguil ed into thinking that his cha te and righteous wife ha cucko ld ed him and ca ll her a
whore.

In the same way, Lady Macbeth proves to be a po werfu l woman w hose language kill
have a hu ge impact on Macbeth. By making good use of eloqu ence, Lady Macbeth fo rce
Macbeth to do what she desires . But Lad y Macbeth ' a uth ority is not ad mired within the play . At
the apex of her position, Lady Macb eth i descri bed a a wi tch-like woman who un exes her elf
w ith a kind of grotesque rhetoric to gain power. How ever, she is reveal d to be a ubalt m
woman w hen Macbeth puts the crown on hi head . In oth er words, after Macbeth adopt hi rol
as th e kin g of co tland , Lad y Macbeth become
Desdemona who e language kiJJ s threa ten me n'

il ent a nd obey Macbeth· ord er. Lik
ubjectivitie , Lady Macbeth ·

uperi ority

over M acbeth a her child can be to lerated o 1 ng a he i not a king, but once he sits on the
thr ne, the maturin g M acbeth replace

ady M acbeth ' wi ll with hi

wn, just like a Regent i ·

101

replac d when th king come of age.

th r pre entative of patriarchy, Macbeth limit Lady

Macbeth ' influ nee b cau e her eloqu nc , which an imitat Macb th '

wn ubjectivity, i a

threat to him. Lady Macb th i powerful a I ng a Macbeth act a an obedient on and does
what he per uade him to do, but inc th e child/moth er tro pe i temporary Lady Macb th 's
upremacy is also hort-lived and ph m ral.
Another e ample where patriarch y i

ubve rted by women' language i germane to the

play King L ar. Goneril and Regan u e flattering language to exce ively prai e Lear. By so
doin g, the y can ucc

fu ll y u urp Lea r' titl e and authority.

nee they have secured their

authority, Goneril and Regan dominate him by reducing the number of his knights and making
him obey their command . Ind eed, patriarchy, repre ented by Lear, has to submit to th e e female
rul ers. However, when Regan and Goneril begin to act as their own , th ey are described as two
rapaciou ti ger-like si ters by Albany: " What have yo u done? I Tigers , not dau ghter " (4.2 .41-2) .
Since there is no mechanism for Goneril and Regan to legitimately exercise authority and power,
their authority appears in terms of monstro sity and disruption . imilarly, Joan is demoni zed as a
witch-like, unchaste woman and Margaret, in her own per on, can only appear in the di course of
patriarchy as somethin g markedly stran ge, like a "she-wo lf,'' not animal , not human. In the same
way, all these women adopt the idea of ma sculinity to become some indomitable rulers a if
femininity does not bestow such a quality on them mainl y because '' in a ociety in which
femininity is divorced from strength and womanliness is equated with weakness [ ... ],the trong
woman finds herself hemmed in psychologicall y, forced to reject her own womanliness, to orne
extent if she i to be true to her strength" (Asp 202). Bearing thi concept in mind, we can better
appreciate the reason why all these female characters avoid their womanliness and embrac the
notion of masculinity to such an extent that they become monstrou , witch-like, animal-like, or

102

adulterou . In fact, taking up rna culine identity i merely u ed a a trategy by the e fl male
character to gain more power or auth rity, but doing
eventually, pow rful worn n, good or bad feminine like

d e n t change their de tini e becau e
e d m na or masculine such as

Goneril , are ubj ect to obliteration.
What make the e female chara t r p w rful i th ir eloquence. The e ubaltern women
have demon trated a hu ge capacity to de tabili ze th e patriarch al stru cture . That b eing said,
" rna culine identity dep nd o n th e preroga tiv e to pea k it de ire , to expre s its volition , but
al o the power to deny the priv il ege of the ame m edium to wom en ... by articulating and
enforcing their chastity, il ence, and obedience'' (Breitenb erg 170) . Wh en

hakes pea re' s wo men

peak their own de ire and vo lition, they begin to threaten patriarchy to a large ex tent beca u e
after all " masc uline peech condition and exe rci e male subj ectiviti es" and that is the ma in
rea son why "the threat represented by female tongues is also figured as an appropriation of
ma sc uline speech ' ( 170). Usurping masculine speech is related to exercising male subj ecti vi ti es,
and that is the reason why all these subalten1 women pose a threat to their male-dominated
societi es . It is not accidental, as Stapleton argues, that Ri chard of Gloucester " offe rs to ki II "
( 119) Margaret: " Why sho uld she live to fill the world with word ?" (3 H6 5.5.44). M argaret' s
ability to express her desires/volition is threatening for Richard because her tongue is "figured a
appropriation of masc ulin e speech" and can be conducive to exercising male subjectivity.
Furthennore, it i not a sheer coincidence that the revelation of the sub altern status for all of
these women is connected with either losing their langua ge ski lls, like D esdemona and Lad y
Macbeth, or mi ss ing the effi cacy of th eir language, like Goneril, Regan, Joan, and Margaret.
inally, while applying Fouca ult' mod el of power to these[! mal e characte r sugges t
how influential the e women can beco me and how ea ily ub alt cm fi gure can destabilize the

103

patriarchal tructure , hi definition i ultimately refut d in th e elected hak pean an
tragedie and hi tory play . If power i
action" (P ower/Knowledg

omethin g "rather xerci ed, and that it onl y ex ist m

9), th r i no rea on fo r M argaret not to be the king of ngland

when he do e what a king i requir d t d . In th r w rd , nea r the end of hi play ,
hake peare chall eng

th notion that power i

m thin g "e ercised and it onl y ex ist m

acti on." The rea on why F u ault' definiti n of pow r cann ot be va lid , all the way, i germane
to patriarchy' r i tanc to wo men' part icipati on in powe r r po liti c . In fact, hake pea re'
patriarchal structure cannot tolerate ubver ion by women, so a a ystem it di empowers fem ale
characters by demoni zing them as monstrous, w itch-like adulterou wom en. A ll of these
powerful wom en have demonstrated their uprem acy to such an extent that their statu s, a
sub altern figures, has not been revealed to the audience fo r a long ti me. H owever, once
Fo ucault' s definiti on of power is chall enged, a kind of illegitimate power that the e women have
exercised is also disputed and, as a result, Shakes peare's fem ale characters are fu ll y revealed as
sub altern wo men deprived of language skills and power.

104

1

Jean . H ward e plain that "the ffi ial erm n n matrim n read in Pr t tant hurche
throu gh ut ngland in th i teenth
t au]' injun cti n: ' Wi
, ubmit y ur elve
hu band i th h ad f th e wife, a th
hri t i
unt y ur wn hu band , a unt th
the head f th hur h' ( phe ian : 22- )" (41 ). In additi n in their cha ter, vVomen ' Role in
th e R nais an , r wn and M rid
pl ain th at '· female elf-a erti n wa c n id ered
di rupti e and even m n tr u ; the id a! w man wa cha t , il nt, and b di nt" (4).
, Ju an
Lui Vi
in i t n w m n' '' re pon ibilit t e rei e cha tit , pi t , bedi en , and il nc "
(Kl in 9 ). In hi fir t b k, Th In. lru lion of a hrislia n Woman, i e
pl ain : "
~ r
eloqu en , I ha e n grea t care n r a w man n dcth it n t, but he ne deth g dne and
wi d m. or tt t n ham e G r aw man t h ld h r peace" ( I 0 I). Vi ve ' tatement i in lin e
with th id a th at ugge t an id ea l w man h uld be taught "t culti va te th virtue f pa ivity
and m d t ... [b ca u e] her pi a e [i] in th e h me, a w ife, m th er, r daughter" (Brow n and
McBride 4).
2
To b tter appr ciat why b y , a tran
tite a t r , w uld pl ay w men' r I , pi a e chec k
t ph en rge l' intr du ti on and chapter n , "Th PerG rm an e f e ir " (1- 0) in hi book
Imp rsonation. .
3
In the introdu cti n of hi b ok A F minis! ompanion to hak '.spew·e, Dympna all aghan
give a uccinct ummary f Rac kin ' argum ent.
4
Th ma lyo t' Latin t t' til e, The De(ens o.f ood Wo men ( 1540) tran lated by Ri chard
Hyde, who had "translated Vi ve ' te t n edu ating wo m n," ugge t w m n ar eparated
who are cha te, il ent, and obedi ent,
" into 'good' and 'w icked' with good w men b in g th
and the wicked being tho e who are ex uall y acti ve out id e marri age, sharp -tongued, and o f
independent wiII " (Kemp 57).
5
Thi particular id ea about power ha to do with repre in g " nature, th e in tin ct , a class , [and]
indi viduals," whi ch is "fir t and foremo t" tantamount to an "analys i of th mechani m of
repress ion" (P ower/Knowledge 90). In fact, thi th e is will h w how th
elected female
character manage to ucce full y exerci e power by repres ing important male character .
6
When esdemona and milia , Jago' wife. arri ve at ypru , a io. th ell · li eutenant, and
Iago visit them on hore. assio kisses mili a and tells Iago not to get up et beca u e he i
showing hi s outm o t re pect to her. To that !ago re pond : " ir, wo uld he give yo u o mu h of
her lip I A of her tongue he oft be tows on me, I Y u · II have enough" (2.1. 100-2). I ago
impli es that Emilia i o loquac ious that he ca nnot tolerate her anym re. H re Iago, th
mi ogyni st, acc u e hi wife of bein g a hrew "whi ch wa a co mm on, not inge ni ou , a ertion··
(Wayne 160) in that time if w men tend ed to spea k and were not il ent.
7
Kemp expl ain that in earl y modern ngland an increa ing number of worn n were illit rat
and write that "between 1580 and 1640 in Ea t An gli a, for e ampl e, 95% of fe male witne es in
the c urt co uld n t write th eir name , whil e in Lond n th e rate wa ap proxima te] 90o/o (4 ).
Also, the percentage of illiterate wo men was hi gher than their male count rpa11 (45) .
8
ueen Iiza beth I is an excepti on although he always identifi d her elf with rna ·uline trait
beca use generall y femininity in liza bethan soc iety wa ynonymou with frai lty and weakness :
" J know I have but the body of a wea k and feeb le wo man; hut I ha e the heart or a k.ing, and of a
kin g of England t o" (N i h Ia , Pro resses, 2:5 6).
9
Wearing rna culinc attire by wo men, u h a armor in Joa n's ca e, i again ·tall f'mininc
virtues uch as il cnce, obedi ence, and chastity acco rd ing to the cu ltural expectations in carl
m d rn ngland (Brcitenberg 166 ).

105

Bibliography
lderman , Jan t. "

p tl

anta

f Mat rna! P wer 1n Ma beth ." Ma ·beth .

rint.

Paul. '' I T im th

Too ls. Jupiterlmage

2: 11 - 14 -

d.

rp , n.d. W eb.

ct. 2014.

ar lyn. "Trag i
Bloom .

Bel y,

r w man :

Ian infi eld . L nd n: Ma mill an P, 19 2,

9
p,

rn

ti n and

e ·ual

ew Y rk : hel a H u

d.

d. Harold

Publi her , 199 1. 19 -2 10. Print.

ath erin e. "Juli et and th e Vi ci itud
Rec 'Piion, Pe1/o rmance.

tcre t p111 g 10 Ma ·heth ." Macheth .

f

end er." Women Makin Shakespeare: Text,

rd n McMull an., et a!.

ew Y rk : Bl o msbury

Publi hing, 2014. 111 - 120. Print.
B

th , Wayne

. " Mac beth

Trag ic Hero." Machetlz . Ed. Haro ld Bloom.

ew York :

he! ea

Hou e Publi h r , 1991. 9 1- 10 1. Print.
Breitenberg, Mark. " Introdu cti on." A nx ious Mascu lin ity in Ear~v Modern England. New York:
ambridg UP, 1996. 1-3 6. Print.
''In cripti on of Difference: Cro -Ores mg. Androgyny and th e Anato mi al Imp rat ive."
A nxiou Masculinity in Ear~v Modern Eng land. New York:

ambridge

P, 1996 . 150-

20 1. Print.
Brown, Meg, and Ka ri B. McBride. " Women and th e Renai ance ." Women 's Role 111 the
Renaissance. New York: Greenwood P, 2005, 1-25. Pri nt.

all aghan,

ympna. " lntrodu ti n." A Feminist Companion to

allaghan. Mas achu ett : Bl ac kwe ll Publi hers, 2000. i" Beguilin g I~ i ti on ." Wo men Making
rd n McMull an., ct a!. New York :

hokc.\'Pcarc.

d.

ympna

. Print.

lwkcspearc: Tnt. R.cccptwn . Pcrf(nmancc

d.

loomsbury Publishing, ~0 14 13 -2.3. Pnnt.

106

ar I,

el T. " W m n and Men in

W man ?" Th Woman 's Part: Fe minist
ayle

ar l T.

re ne and

uch a

liD

with

rilicism of. hakespear

d.

ar lyn R.

thell : What

eel .

h uld

rb ana and

hicag :

m

d a

r ity f lllin i P, J 9

2 11 -2 9. Print.
ox,

ath rine . " n - c II nt
96 .2 (1 9

Philo /a

hin g in W man:

trg and Virag

111

Kin g

ear. '' M odern

): 14 -157. Print.

Da , Pragati . " hake pea re'

R pre entati on

f W m n 111 hi

Tragedi e ." Prim e Uni1'ers ity

Journal 6.2 (20 12) : 7-5 6. Print.

Da h, Irene
Ta med.

" Woo ing, Wedding, and P w r: W men in
ew Y rk :

Foucault, Michel, and
1972-1977.

lumbi a

olin

hake pea re'

Pl ay ." A Wo man

P, 19 1, 103- 130. Print.

ardon. P ower/knowledge: Selected interviews and Oth er Writings,

ew York: Pantheo n Book , 19 0. Print.

French, Maril yn. "Mac beth and Ma culin e Va lue ." Macbe th . Ed. Alan

infi eld . London:

Macmillan P, 1992. 14-24. Print.
Ga ul!, Maril yn. " Love and

rd er in Kin g Lea r.'' Educational Theater Journa l 19.3 ( 1967) : 333-

342. Print.
oddard , Harold

. ''Kin g Lear.''

hakespeare 's King Lear .

d. Haro ld Bl oom. New York:

hel ea House Publi her , 19 7. 9-43. Print.
---." Macbeth." Macbeth .

d. Harold Bloom.

ew York: hel ea Hou e Pub li h r , 19 7.

-37.

Print.
Hanl y,

harl e . "Lea r and hi

aughter ." The International Rc1·icw o( p,~, ·ch o-Anah·sis

13 ( 19 5): 2 11 -220. Print.

107

H b n, Alan . "Thi

n-hand d J u tice." Ma b th.

H u e Publi her , 1991 . 170- 1
H lmer, J an

d. Har ld

m. New Y rk:

hel ea

. Print.

. " e dem na , W man Warri r: ' , the e m n, th

men! ' (4 .3.5 9)." Medieval

and R nai sance Drama in En land 17 (2005): 1 2- 164. Print.

Howard, Jean ~. "F mini t
ford

riti i m.'' hak . peare.

d. tanl ey Wells,

ena

rlin

xford:

P,2003 . 411-4 O. Print.

"Edward Ill: Women and th

Makin g

Makin Shak peare: T, xt, R

f

hake pea re a

Ji tori ca l Dramati t. '' Wom en

d.

rdon McMullan., et al. New

eption, Performance.

York: Bloomsbury Publi hing, 2014 . 1-12. Print.
Hunt, Maurice." limbing for Place in
Ed. Pendleton Thomas

hake peare' 2 Henry VI .'' Henry VI:

ritical Essays.

ew York : Routledge, 200 1. 157- 176. Print.

Kahn , Coppelia. "The Ab ent Mother in King Lear." King Lear. Ed . Ki ernan Ryan. New York:
t. Martin 's Press, 1992. 92- 113 . Print.

Kelly, Phillipa. "King Lear: Kinder Casts for Goneril and Rega n." Sydney Studies 27 (2001 ): 116. Print.
Kemp , Theresa D. " Women in Shake p are'

World ." Women

117

the Age of Shakespeare .

alifomia: Santa Barbara, 2010. 29-64. Print.
" Wom en in

hakespeare's Work ." Women in the Age of Shakespeare. Ca lifmni a:

anta

Barbara, 2010 . 65-110. Print.
Kl ein , Joan L. " Lady Macbeth : Infirm of Purpo e." The Woman's Part : Feminist Critu:ism o f
Shakespeare.

d.

arolyn R.S Lenz, Gayle Greene, and

arol T. Neely. Urbana and

hicago: University of Illinoi s P, 1983 . 240-255 . Print.

10

---. ' Jntrodu ti n.'

aug ht r , Wiv

, and Widow .

d . Joan

ar n Klein.

hi cago:

niver ity

fIll in i P , 1992 97-100 . Print.
Klevar, Harvey L. " Th

nnatural

uptial

r ach. "

hak sp are Quart er~v 23. 1 (1972): 117-

121. Print.
Langi ,

nhae . " Marriag , the Vi I nt Trav er e fr m Tw
and

Lenz,

th II .'' Journal o{ th

arol R . . ,

ay le

Ttflooden

re ne, and

y rnpo. zw11

rbana and

Liebler, Naomi

hica go:

., and Li a

ne in the Tamin g of the

hrew

(2008): 45 -63 . Print.

aro l Th o ma Neely. ' Intr duction. " Th e Woman 's Part:

Femini I Critici rn of Shake p ear .
Neely.

t

d.

arolyn R .

Lenz,

ay1e

arol T.

reene, and

niver ity of Illinoi P , 1983 . 3-16. Print.

cancella

h a. " hake p are'

nruled ?" H emy VI: Critical Essays.

Queen Marga ret

nruly or

d . Pendlet n Thomas A . New York: Routl dge,

2001. 79-96. Print.
MacDonald, Joyce G. " Black Ram, White Ewe:

hakespeare , Race, and Women .'' A Feminist

Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Dympna Callaghan. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers, 2000 .
188-207. Print.
Marcus, Leah S. Puzzling Shakesp eare: Local Reading and It. Discontent . Berkel ey: U of
alifomia, 1988 . Print.
Martin, Randall, Ed. Henry Vi , Part Ill. By William

hakesp are. New York: Oxford UP, 2001 .

183 . Print.
Mclu ki e, Kathleen . "The Patriarchal Bard : Femini t Criticism and Kina Lear." King Lear. Ed .
Ki ernan Rya n. New York : St. Martin ' Pre , 1992. 48-59. Print.
Mill ett, Kate . "Theo ry o f

e ual Politi c ." Women's Liberation and Literature .

d.

laine

howalter. New York: Harco urt Brace, 197 1. 289-326 . Print.

109

Nan

uti rr z."

nd er and Valu in ' I Hen

Journal 42.2 ( 1990) : 1

o y, Mariann
Harold Bl
rg 1,

ew Y rk :

s and Public Proc , , ions of

u

n

lizah th .

v 1. 1 2 .

M , 196 .
rg1ve ne ." , hakesp eare 's King Lear.

" Patri ar h , Mutu alit , and
m.

r J an de Pu c 11 " Th atr

he R le

- 19 . Print.

ich Ia , J hn, d. Th Pro re
R print,

Y J':

d.

ew Y rk: h I a H u e Publi her , 19 7. 5-95 . Prin t.

teph n. Imp r. onation: Th
ambridge: ambrid ge

wen , Brenda, et al. ,

Performan ce of

'ender in Shakesp eare's England.

P, 1996 . Print.

d . Oth 1/o. By Willi am

hak pcare. Minn e ota:

M /Paradi gm

Publi hing, 2005 . l 0 . Print.
Praka h,

yan. " ubaltern

tudi e a P

tc I ni al

riti ci m." The American Historical Re1•iew

99 .5 (1 994): 1475- 1490. Print.

Rac kin , Ph ylli . "Mi ogyny is Everywhere." A Fem inist
Dympna Ca ll aghan.

ompan ion to Shakesp eare.

d.

xford : Blackwell Publi hers, 2000 . 42-56. Pri nt.

Rackin, Phylli s, and Jean E. Howard. " ngend erin g a Nati on." Feminism. 111omen, and th e
Shakesp earean History Play. Lond n: Routl edge P, 1997, 20-30 . Print.

" ngenderin g a Nati on." H emy VI, Pa rt I. London: Routl edge P, 1997, 43 -64 . Pri nt.
" ngenderin g a Nati n." Henry Vi , P art II. London: Routledge P, 1997 , 65- 2. Print.
" ngend erin g a Na ti on." J-Ie111y VI, Part III. London: Routl edge P, 1997,
Ronk, Martha. "De demona'

-99. Print.

elf-Pre entati on." English Literary Renaissan ce 35. 1 (2005):

2-

72 . Pri nt.

Ro en, Willi am. " Kin g Lea r." King Lear.

d. Har ld

loom. N w York:

hclsca Hous ~

Publi her , 1 83 . I 2- 167 . Pri nl.

110

Rudnyt ky, Peter L. "The

ark e and Vi i u Pia

: Th e

r ad

f th e Vi gina in Kin g Lear. "

M odern Philology 96 .3 ( 1999): 291 - 11 . Print.
nknown Fea r: Th

and er , Wilbur. " An

Bloom. New Y ork:

hel ea Hou

ra gedi e [ i ] of M a b th ." M a beth.

d . Haro ld

Publi h r , 199 1.1 47- 169. Print.

hakespeare, William The Trag dy of Ki n Lear.

d. Jay L. H ali . New York:

ambrid ge UP,

1992. Print.

-------. Henry VI, Part 1.

d . M icha 1Taylor.

ew Y rk:

xford U P, 2003. Print.

-------. H enry VI, Part Il.

d. Roger W arren.

ew York:

xfo rd

P , 2002 . Print.

-------. Henry VI, Part Ill. Ed. Randall M artin . New Y ork: Oxford UP, 200 1. Print.
-------.Macbeth. Ed .

icholas Brooke. New York : Oxford UP , 1990. Print.

-------. Othello. E d. Brenda
piva k,

Gayatri

Ch.

wens. M inne ota :

"Can

th e

uba ltern

di scourse/Can the subaltern speak. pd f.

MC/Paradi gm Publi shing, 2005 . Print.
pea k?''

http://www .mcgi ll. ca/files/crclaw-

From Marxism

and the Interpretation of

Cu lture. Ed . Cary Nelson & Law rence Gros berg. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois P,
1988.27 1-3 13. Print.
Stapleton, M .L. , and Stephen F. A ustin . ''S hine It Like a Co met of Revenge." Comparati1'e

Literature Studies 3 1. 3 (1994): 229-25 0. Print.
tapl eto n, M.L. " I of O ld Co nte mpte Co mpl ayne: Marga ret of A njo u and Eng li h

eneca."

Compara tive Literature Studies 43 .1-2 (2 006) : 100-133 . Print.
Tenn enh ouse, Leo nard . "The T hea tre of Puni shme nt. " King Lear. . . d . Kiernan Ryan . New York:
St. Ma1i in ' Press, 1992. 60-72 . Print.
V ives, Ju an L. " In tru cti on of a

hri sti an Woman." T ran . Ri chard Hyde . Daurz;htcrs. Wi1'C'S. and

Widows. d. Joan Larsen Kl ein. hicago : U niversity of ll linoi P, 1992, 100- 122. Print.

1 11

Wat on Robert N . "Thri ft!

Ambiti on F

li h Wi he , and the Tragedy of Ma cbeth ."

Ma cbeth . d. HaroldBloom . NewY rk: h 1 ea H u

Publi her , 1987 . 133 - 168 . Print.

Wayne Va leri e. 'Hi tor ica l Di fferences: Mi ogyny and Oth llo .'' Th

Material Femini t

riti i rn of Shak sp eare.

Matter of Difference:

d. Val rie Wayne. N w Yo rk: Cornell UP,

199 1, 153 -179. Print.

l 12