1
10
1
-
https://omeka.ibu.edu.ba/files/original/4c596664a86f12128270aedf48997549.pdf
0b5ef5489d706ef8bf3478874b7c8c9f
PDF Text
Text
INTERNATIONAL BURCH UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SHAKESPEARE’S FEMINISM vs. 20th CENTURY FEMINISM
GRADUATE PROJECT
by
Raisa Bušatlić
Project Supervisor
Dr. Shahab Yar Khan
SARAJEVO
December, 2010
�SHAKESPEARE’S FEMINISM vs. 20th CENTURY FEMINISM
Raisa Bušatlić
MA, English language and literature, 2010
Submitted to the Graduate Study Unit in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in
English Language and literature
INTERNATIONAL BURCH UNIVERSITY
2010
�INTERNATIONAL BURCH UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SHAKESPEARE’S FEMINISM vs. 20th CENTURY FEMINISM
Raisa Bušatlić
APPROVED BY:
Dr. Shahab Yar Khan
University of Sarajevo
...
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Azamat Akbarov
International Burch University
…
Prof. Dr. Gunay Karly
International Burch University
…
APPROVAL DATE:
�SHAKESPEARE’S FEMINISM vs. 20th CENTURY FEMINISM
Abstract
We know very little about William Shakespeare. What we do know for a fact: he is a
social phenomena, his name echoes everywhere. He is celebrated as a local poet all over the
world. In the history of mankind no writer has enjoyed so much prosperity and reception. In this
work I have presented one aspect of his work, his attitude towards womenhood in socal, political,
and emotional context. Through few plays I emphasized Shakespeare's approach towards
philosophy of life, not only when he spoke about women; life in his case has levels which are
being reached, and his heroins proove this easily. Finally, this work will explain feminism
through heroism in Shakespearean drama, studying similarities and differencies within this age,
history, and Shakespeare's universal era.
Key words: feminism, womenhood, universalities
�Acknowledgements
Nothing is its own excuse for being, everything happens for a reason. This is the important thing
I’ve learned from my supervisor, Dr. Shahab Yar Khan, and he is the first person to whom I have
to say “Thank You”. I am deeply grateful to him for letting me “use” his mind to the maximum.
I have to thank the International Burch University, my professors there, and especially my
colleagues from the class for being patient with the only woman among them, and the youngest
one as well. Moreover, many thanks to kind employees who led me through this process, even
though I wasn’t the easiest student to handle.
Many thanks to my dearest ones for all the support and sacrifices, patience and encouragement...
My parents, my sister, and my love…
�If I would choose any earthly reason for dong this it would be to please You…
To my dearest ones…
�Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iii
1. Inroduction ..............................................................................................................
2. Historical Background of Faminism ....................................................................
2.1. Three Waves of Feminism ………………………………………………….
2.2. Important Documents Regarding Women’s Rights ………………………..
3. “As You Like It” – Character of Rosalind …………………………………...
3.1. Creation of Rosalind’s Character and its Importance……………………….
3.2. Purpose of the Play …………………………………………………………
4. “Macbeth” – Character of Lady Macbeth…………………………………….
4.1. Iron Lady or Disatrium? …………………………………………………..
5. “King Lear” – Character of Cordelia ...............................................................
�5.1. Cordelia – Machiavellian or Christfigure? ………………………………..
6. “Hamlet” – Character of Ophelia ……………………………………………
6.1. Ophelia’s Frailty ………………………………………………………….
7. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………..
References ………………………………………………………………………..
Curriculum Vitae ………………………………………………………………….
��Chapter 1
Introduction
The best thing about being a woman is to feel like one. “Ţene su narod za sebe.”
(Talmud, 1982) Translation of this sentence is: “Women are nation for itself.” While reading
Talmud one afternoon I came across this sentence, which is, in a way simple, yet so complex;
depends who, and why is one reading it. Some crazy feminist would probably categorize this
sentence as anti feminist statement, and just the thought of it makes me angry. If we have in
mind perfect literary works, sacred books, like Koran, Bible, or any of Shakespeare’s works, we
cannot fail to observe the fact that women have been placed on a golden throne ever since the
Earth felt human feet on its surface.
O mankind! Surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and
families that you may know each other; … (Kur’an s prevodom, 1991)
This means that male and female complement each other in numerous ways; in mental, physical,
and emotional qualities. Women in Islam, as in any other religion, are seen as independent, and
self-reliant individuals, therefore, this challenges the traditional view of Islamic family structure,
and her position in Islamic society in general. For those more suspicious ones these words will
say everything:
“O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also
have rights over you… Do treat your women well and be kind to them…” (Last Sermon, Prophet
Muhammad a.s.)
Words spoken centuries ago, by Prophet, make such a great impact on us. The thing that troubles
me is that human beings found the way to ruin sacredness of existence, whether it is male or
female existence. For example, word mankind ruins sacredness of female existence. Does this
word mean woman is kind of a man?! I’m not trying to say that the word should be womankind,
but it is a simple fact that some other languages found better solutions for this specific word, like
Bosnian language – čovječanstvo – it is more neutral. Does this mean that West had less
sensitivity when equality, in every sense, is concerned? Of course!
�Here is another example: Olympic Games, or better to call those, a farce. There we have a proof
so obvious that I can’t perceive why nobody spoke about this. Why do we have separate
disciplines, male and female disciplines, at the Olympics, if men and women are equal? Even
though, in this writing, I’m ode to “defend” women, I have to point out that not only men are to
blame for farce of this kind – women are to be blamed too. It is women’ attempt to compete men
in every section of life: military, sports, cooking, baby sitting … It is simply unnatural. Men and
women keep forgetting one thing, and that is Balance. If God wanted He could have created us
the same, but He obviously had other plans, and hypocritical West can’t realize this, not even in
21st century.
Moreover, from 12th to 15th century, women played an important role in foundation of many
Islamic educational institutions; it means women were educated, they were business women, like
Muhammad’s wife, Khadijah, or hadith scholars and military leaders like his other wife, Aisha;
while in West, women were shadowed, and had to fight, even for their natural rights.
However, lesbian – feminists dare to criticize everything mentioned, including Shakespeare.
Having a pure and opened mind, I decided to write my paper on “Shakespeare’ feminism vs. 20th
century feminism”, hoping I’ll free some other minds and souls, giving them opportunity to
enjoy natural balance of male and female figures in Shakespeare, as well as in life itself. While
the West was sleeping, and women were poisoned by the “tradition”, “About three hundred years
ago William Shakespeare, not knowing what to do with his characters, turned them out to play in
the woods, let a girl masquerade as a boy and amused himself with speculating on the effect of
feminine curiosity freed for an hour from feminine dignity.” (Bloom, 1999)
This is what I want to talk about in my paper, about unconventional Shakespeare, about his
female characters, about genius that created us, because:
… Shakespeare’s function is to bring life to mind, to make us aware of what we could not find
without Shakespeare. (Bloom, 1999)
Before I start writing about Shakespeare’ plays, I have to give short historical background of
feminism, just so comparison between history, presence, and mindset of Shakespeare could be
made.
��Chapter 2
Historical background of Feminism
Feminism is the belief that women should have political, social, sexual, intellectual and
economic rights equal to those of men. According to some, the history of feminism can be
divided into three waves; the first wave was in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the
second was in the 1960s and 1970s, and the third extends from the 1990s to the present. Feminist
activists have campaigned for women's legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting
rights); for women's right to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for
reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection
from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; for workplace rights, including maternity
leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination. Feminists and scholars have
divided the movement's history into three "waves".
2.1. Three Waves of Feminism
The first wave refers mainly to women's suffrage movements of the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries (mainly concerned with women's right to vote).
The second wave refers to the ideas and actions associated with the women's liberation
movement beginning in the 1960s (which campaigned for legal and social equality for women).
The third wave refers to a continuation of, and a reaction to, the perceived failures of, secondwave feminism, beginning in the 1990s.
2.2. Important documents regarding women’s rights
American women gained right to women' vote from 1920s. In 1918 the British Parliament finally
passed a bill allowing women over the age of 30 to vote. In 1928 the age limit was lowered to 21.
Women first won the right to vote in New Zealand in 1893, in Australia in 1902, and
�in Finland in 1906, preceding the United States and Britain in affirming full voting rights.
Different conventions, agreements, and documents were signed, ratified and came into force, in
order to protect rights of women, even though those rights are guarantied by the low of Nature.
Some of those documents are: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW). This document is described as an international bill of
rights for women, it came into force on 3rd of September 1981. The United States is the only
developed nation that has not ratified the CEDAW.
Maputo Protocol is The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the
Rights of Women in Africa. It was adopted by the African Union on 11th of July 2003.
The term women's rights, refers to freedoms and entitlements of women and girls of all ages.
These rights may or may not be institutionalized, ignored or suppressed by law, local custom,
and behavior in a particular society, but we were born with those.
�Chapter 3
“As You Like It” – Character of Rosalind
When talking about Shakespearean feminism it is inevitable to start from his play „As
You Like It“, and his famous female character, Rosalind.
Shakespearean women are almost without exception faithfull as wives, as lovers, as servants,
regardless of changes in circumstances. Shakespearean men may well, as we know, waverand
change, forsaking parents, siblings, wives, lovers, and masters. But the women are almost
always ready to take risks, leave name, put on a new and dangerous identity, to serve those to
whom they have pledged themselves. (Schalkwyk, 2008)
3.1. Creation of Rosalind’s Character and its Importance
Shakespeare wrote this play for personal reasons. If “Hamlet” was written for his son, than “As
You Like It” was written for his daughter. This is the first objective reason why this play cannot
be anti feministic. Shakespeare gave Rosalind strong and powerful mind, so she can easily be
compared to Hamlet and his mental capacities. Every sentence given to Rosalind, by
Shakespeare, is meaningful and intellectual, starting from her humor. Rosalind is the only
character in the play to whom Shakespeare gave intellectual kind of humor, and she is a female
character in comparison to Touchstone’ professional humor, and Jaques’ melancholic, dark
humor. This is one of the reasons why this play is significant, and it has to be said that,
Shakespeare, by no means, harmed female mind. Rosalind dominates this play. As George
Bernard Shaw said:
Rosalind matters to us… (Bloom, 1999) for three reasons:
1. She speaks blank verse only for a few lines; Rosalind speaks to us in prose, and that is
Shakespeare’ greatest achievement, because this was prose heard for the first time. Prose
makes this play the most understandable one. After 450 years, we still speak this way.
�It must not be forgotten that a woman, Rosalind, was the first to speak this way. The
conclusion emerges: Shakespeare liberated women’ minds from the boundaries of those days
tradition, he liberated intellect of nowadays women. Shakespeare created emancipated
woman.
2. She wore skirt for few moments. Rosalind matters to us for another reason: we dress like
her. She was the first woman to wear men’ clothing with pride. This is where
Shakespeare put the sign of equality between men and women. Maybe, nowadays, this
doesn’t seam like something special, but in 1597/98 it was of a great significance. Truth
is:
If femininity and masculinity have any permanent validity, it exists independent of the clothes
society ordains for men and women to wear… a woman in disguise, or the masculine woman
in breeches, is changed by her male dress only because it allows her to express a part of her
nature which society suppresses in the interest of that narrow femininity… Disguise makes a
woman not a man, but a more developed woman. (Dussinbere, 1975)
3. Finally, she made love to a man, instead of waiting for a man to make love to her.
Genius, Shakespeare, liberated sexuality of a woman. It is sad that his message isn’t
completely understood in 21st century; however, he gave us sexual power. In my opinion,
the purpose of the play is to explain men – women relationship:
...that between you and women the play may please... (Shakespeare, 1996)
This play was not written to glorify women and degrade men, nor the other way around, but
to give an example of how things should look like. Just like Prophet, Shakespeare gives us
instructions for future. His every play can be applied to any time. Every period sees
something of its own interest in Shakespeare’ plays and characters; Elizabethans and
Victorians were not exception, nor are we today.
�3.2.
Purpose of the Play
Shakespearean dramas often attribute cunning intellect, calculated control and enigmatic
beauty to his female protagonists. (Bence, 2001)
Shakespeare was and still is beyond conventions.
Rosalind who was then unconventional for an houris now the convention of an epoche. (Bloom,
1999)
As far as this play is concerned, he went against one of the two main principles of drama; he
gave woman the power and asignement of chorus, he left her sum up the play, he gave her
epilogue:
It is not the fashion to see the lady
the epilogue; but it is no more unhandsome
than to see the lord the prologue... (Shakespeare, 1996)
As professor Khan said, her epilogue comes out of the mouth of 20th century feminist, not
Elizabethan. Fascinating.
Rosalind is a joyous representative of life’s possible freedoms… (Bloom, 1999), and depiction of
modern women, us.
�Chapter 4
“Macbeth” – Character of Lady Macbeth
It is absolutely fabulous how Shakespeare portrayed his heroines. It is certain that he
knew origin of female character and its essence. His every heroine represents one aspect of a
woman which is undeniably there, hidden or obvious, but still incorporated in a woman by her
birth and knowledge of the world. I can’t decide which one of Shakespeare’ heroines I like the
most, but it is certain that all of them deserve respect.
Talking and writing about Lady Macbeth would be so easy if I could only gather my thoughts.
So many things I have to say about IRON LADY.
4.1. Iron Lady or Disatrium?
While reading some “feministic” criticism, which I will not bother to mention here, concerning
Lady Macbeth as a female character, and Macbeth as a play and character, I couldn’t stop
wondering; am I being too pretentious when calling myself a feminist, or so called feminists lost
their sense of femininity, so they are categorizing Macbeth as anti feministic play. Then I came
to a conclusion: not every soul has the capacity to see behind, and not every feminist is a lesbian.
However, Lady Macbeth is so impressive female character of Shakespeare. She is ambitious,
passionate, brave, and she deserves our respect; but most of all, her role is the leading one
because Macbeth needs her. She moves his mind.
So, not only has Shakespeare equalized man and woman, but he put woman ahead of man. Still,
we cannot forget that:
…with surpassing irony Shakespeare presents them as the happiest married couple in all his
work. (Bloom, 1999)
Shakespeare surpassed those days patriarchal system and he showed true love of a man for a
woman. We can clearly see that in a letter that Macbeth sent to his lady, where he called her:
…my dearest partner of greatness… (Shakespeare, 1996)
�Besides that Shakespeare made Lady Macbeth an expert in speech:
… yet do I fear thy nature;
It is too full o’th’ milk of human kindness
To catch the nearest way: thou wouldst be great;
Art not without ambition; but without
The illness should attend it: what thou wouldst
highly;
That wouldst thou holily, wouldst not play false,
...
...
...
…That I may pour my spirits in thine ear;… (Shakespeare, 1996)
No misogynist could give such speech to a woman. Shakespeare made intellectual, competent,
strong, and authoritative woman who spoke philosophy. Not only she made herself “big” by her
statements and acts, but Macbeth speaks of her as the great one:
Bring forth men – children only;
For thy undaunted mettle should compose
Nothing but males… (Shakespeare, 1996)
This is Scottish/Irish context and it means that Lady Macbeth is a woman who is greater than
women. Macbeth glorifies her, he admires her. Macbeth’ psychological life depends on Lady
Macbeth;
Psychologically and spiritually she is more potent. (Khan, 2008)
Since Lady Macbeth looks scary, at least in the beginning of the play, and as professor Khan
says: “inhuman”, I feel obliged to elaborate on her femininity which she tried to conceive.
�… Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here;
And fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full
of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood,
Stop up th’ access and passage to remorse,
...
...
...
…Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murd’ring minisTers, … (Shakespeare, 1996)
It has to be understood that Lady Macbeth would not invoke evil spirits to come into her if she
was evil in her nature. Shakespeare did not take away her femininity. He gave her consistency
and ambition. Even her cruelest sentences like:
I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluckt my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dasht the brains out… (Shakespeare, 1996)
preceeded with lines like:
I have given suck, and know
How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me: ... (Shakespeare, 1996)
Just like professor Khan said:
… a woman is the symbol of life and care… (Khan, 2008)
Shakespeare didn’t deny that part of Lady Macbeth’ personality, but he emphasized her ambition
and consistency. With these lines she was persuading Macbeth to proceed with their plan. She
was manipulative, and she didn’t choose means to gain her goal.
Moreover, Shakespeare didn’t deny her feminine weakness, or better to say her humanity:
�Ark! The crime is not done
Hath he not resemble my
father I could have done it
myself. (Shakespeare, 1996)
Clearly, she is making excuses not to commit a murder. This is perfectly normal state of mind.
Guilty conscience made her weak:
Out, damned spot! out I say! One, two;
...
...
...
Here is the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand… (Shakespeare, 1996)
She is a very complex character, and as professor Khan said, it is in her character that in her
weakest moments she can stop the agony of her life with only one determined strike. (Khan,
2008) Great woman!
�Chapter 5
“King Lear” – Character of Cordelia
“Today is to be decided…” (Shakespeare, 1996) if the play “King Lear” should be
categorized as misogynist play. Shakespeare’ tragedy “King Lear” is often criticized by feminists
for its supposed misogyny, but opposing patriarchal and feminine notions prove exactly the
opposite. One would underestimate Shakespeare by saying such nonsense. To prove that
Shakespeare pictured strong female characters, I will analyze this play through character of
Cordelia. In hope that my words, some day, will be taken as positive, true, feministic theory, I
will try to convince poisoned female minds, and say that very few men in the world will have
negative concept of women in their minds, unless women make them think so by their constant
effort to find “humiliating statements” spoken or written by men and concerning women. Dear
ladies, expand your horizons.
Cordelia appears in the play only few times, but the impression she leaves is long and permanent.
She is not representative of mercy, but morality. Everything about Cordelia is love full, starting
from her name: “cor” which means heart, or “cordel” which means one that unites. She is totally
“love personified”. (Khan, 2009) Shakespeare made her, from the very beginning, such a
symbolic character. Only a very crazy person can say that Lear is misogynist. How can hatred
exist in a father – daughter relationship? It is not possible, and the text proves my point:
Now, our joy,
Although our last, not least, to whose young
love
the vines of France and milk of Burgundy
Strive to be interest; … (Shakespeare, 1996)
Before these lines were spoken, Lear spoke to his other two daughters:
Goneril,
Our eldest – born, speak first. (Shakespeare, 1996)
�and
Our dearest Regan, wife to Cornwall? Speak. (Shakespeare, 1996)
It is more than obvious that Lear loves Cordelia the most. He changed the tone and vocabulary
when he spoke to her. So, by no means Lear is misogynist.
Shakespeare gave to Cordelia only 16 years and a very strong mind. When Lear asked her what
she had to say concerning her love for him, her answer was:
Nothing, my lord. (Shakespeare, 1996)
Lear loved her so much that he gave her more than one chance to “mend her speech”, but she
stayed persistent in her decision, and proved feminine determinacy and morality. Shakespeare
gave her very honest and truthful speech:
I love your majesty
According to my bond; nor more nor less.
...
...
...
Good my lord,
You have begot me, bred me, loved me: I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you, love you, and most honor you:
Hoply when I shall wed,
That lord whose hand must take my plight shall
carry
Half my love with him, half my care and duty:
Sure, I shall never merry like my sisters,
To love my father all. (Shakespeare, 1996)
This is so beautiful speech. She remained faithful to her heart. She thought her sisters’ speeches
were hypocritical, and she didn’t want to deliver one like they did.
�This can, also, be explained as Machiavellism, because we can suppose that she was in love with
king of France.
Anyway, Shakespeare portrayed Cordelia as strong, love full and honest person. She might not
be willing to respect “code of mannerism” (Khan, 2009), and speak the way one speaks to a king,
but the point is that she could not be different.
Even, when her father banished her from England:
Here I disclaim all my parental care,
...
...
...
thou my sometimes daughter. (Shakespeare, 1996)
she only wanted to explain her “sin”:
I’ll do’ t before I speak, - that you make known
It is no vicious blot, murder, or foulness,
No unchaste action, or dishonour'd step,… (Shakespeare, 1996)
These words gave Cordelia even bigger reputation, and king of France was impressed. His
statements like:
She is herself a dowry.,
or
Love is not love
When it is mingled with regards that stand
Aloof from the entire point., (Shakespeare, 1996)
show that in only few minutes Shakespeare gave respect, honor, love, and a title of a queen to a
female character. I am sure that this proves my point.
There is another fact that proves Lear’s true love for Cordelia. He wanted to marry her to
Burgundy and not to King of France because he wanted her to be close to him, always. Even
�when he banished her from country, he offered her to Duke of Burgundy, just to keep her close
to him.
5.1. Cordelia – Machiavellian or Christ figure?
Shakespeare gave Cordelia the power to be everything. At the beginning of the play she was
Machiavellian (but not in negative context – Shakespeare created characters who are positive
Machiavellians), then she left the play, and when she came back it was to restore balance in the
kingdom. She fought for the cause which was not entirely hers, that is why critics properly called
her “CHRIST FIGURE”. She fought for the cause for which she suffered, but she was mindful of
a great sacrifice:
We are not the first
Who, with best meaning, have incurr'd the worst. (Shakespeare, 1996)
The woman is not harmed in this play. Great tribute that Shakespeare gave to a woman/Cordelia
is Lear’s kneeling and begging for her forgiveness. But, “Cordelia’s feminine modesty is active
and heroic” (Fernie, 2002), and Shakespeare gave a suggestion that “men should learn shame
from women.” (Fernie, 2002)
When Lear asked Cordelia for forgiveness, his ego was not functioning. “Since there is no self,
there’s no ego. Lear’s self has Cordelia’s self, and reversely. Without erasing ego there’s no
love.” (Khan, 2009)
In the end, when Cordelia dies, Shakespeare’s intention is clear; “she may die, but her purpose of
life becomes her essence.” (Khan 2009) That essence will continue through a man, Edgar. From
her very first sentence and after her death Shakespeare portrayed Cordelia as a great woman, and
this play must not be argued as misogyny.
�Chapter 6
“Hamlet” – Character of Ophelia
When the time came to write about “Hamlet”, or to be more precise, Ophelia, I felt very
uncomfortable. She is a kind of a woman that makes my heart sorrowful and her destiny makes
me very angry. She is the symbol of humbleness, as professor Khan says, but he also suggested
that her being humble, very often, transmits into being weak. She is gentle, mild, submissive,
obedient, and fragile. These are all human qualities, in general, but a woman should own them to
some extend. Everything else is about being post of society. If the line: “Frailty, thy name is
woman.” Has double meaning, than this other, negative one, can easily be applied to Ophelia. I
cannot ignore the fact that Ophelia was only 16, she was a teenager, insecure, childish, innocent.
Professor Khan said that her innocence gives to her character such a charm, that despite her
frailty, she is so lovely. (Khan, 2008)
6.1. Ophelia’s Frailty
I appreciate professor Khan’s comment so much, because he described Ophelia’s character in
very positive manner.
Ophelia was not sure about anything; she didn’t even know if she loved Hamlet, or not, she
didn’t know herself primarily.
However, I have to justify her – she was a teenager in pursuit of happiness – in pursuit of “self”.
Some people spend their entire life trying to discover the essence of their own life and don’t
�manage to discover it, that is why we cannot blame a 16 year old girl for being weak and not
revealing the “only truth”. She is not passionate like Cordelia, but maybe, just maybe, she didn’t
want something so badly like Cordelia did. If she was passionate enough about anything, the
action would be certain. We cannot underestimate her character if we have in mind her
estimation of Hamlet’ character: courtier, soldier, scholar, an example of all Denmark. Character
of Ophelia can’t be fully analyzed without Hamlet. He is the reason for her tragic outcome. Critic
described him as:
A hero who pragmatically can be regarded as a villain: cold, murderous, solipsistic, nihilistic,
and manipulative. (Bloom, 1999)
Each of these characteristics influenced and helped Ophelia’s madness, and finally, her tragedy.
In Act I, Scene III we have obvious example of Ophelia’s childishness. Leartes tried to worn her
about Hamlet:
For Hamlet and the trifling of his favor
Hold it a fashion, a toy in blood;
A violet in thy youth of primy nature,
Forward, not permanent, sweet, not lasting,
The perfume and suppliance of a minute;
No more. (Shakespeare, 1996)
Ophelia didn’t believe that love was just that; she laughed. Every word Leartes had spoken came
out to be truth. It seams like Leartes knew Hamlet better than anyone else. Shakespeare created a
character who would protect Ophelia, but the only person from whom he couldn’t protect her
was Hamlet, because Hamlet was a King.
How innocent was Ophelia to think, in one moment, that she loves Hamlet, when in other she in
other she is so scared of him:
Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced;
No hat upon his head; his stockings foul'd,
�Ungarter'd, and down-gyved to his ancle;
Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other;
And with a look so piteous in purport
As if he had been loosed out of hell
To speak of horrors,-- (Shakespeare, 1996)
How can a person that you “love” so much scare you that way. Indeed, she was not only childish,
but childishly confused.
One group of critics said that Hamlet went to Ophelia after meeting ghost of his father, because
he needed a word of consolation, and these critics would blame Ophelia because of not saying
anything.
Other critics said that Hamlet went there on purpose, to give an impression that he is mad. He
appeared to her as a mad man, so she could tell that to her father, Polonius to King and Queen; so
Hamlet would gain his aim. Ophelia was used by Hamlet.
Hamlet is not the only one who used Ophelia; Polonius and king used her too. Two of them
agreed to set a meeting between Hamlet and Ophelia where she was suppose to prove that
Hamlet is m ad because of love letter he allegedly wrote to her. When they saw each other they
hugged, and for a second, Ophelia forgot the purpose of her being there:
My lord, I have remembrance of yours
That I have longed long to re-deliver;
I pray you, now receive them. (Shakespeare, 1996)
But Hamlet, superior mind, knew that something was going on:
No, not I;
I never gave you aught. (Shakespeare, 1996)
Now Ophelia changed her mood and gave Hamlet idea something was wrong. After this, Hamlet
turned to be very violent. He pushed Ophelia and he insulted her by saying:
�Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners? …
He literally pushed her to madness.
God has given you one face, and you make
yourselves another: you jig, you amble, and you lisp… (Shakespeare, 1996)
She is innocent and 16, so we cannot believe Hamlet. If we remember description of his father,
that Hamlet gave to us, or his accusations of Claudius, than we are aware of his exaggeration.
Professor Khan divided this play into two parts:
1. before “About, my brain!”, which he calls emotional part, and
2. after “About, my brain!” which is, according to Khan, intellectual part. (Khan, 2008)
The way he spoke to Ophelia I can only describe and categorize as his emotional crises. This
was Hamlet’s state between “To be” and “Not to be”. When the “player scene” took place I
realized that Shakespeare’ design was very clear:
Hamlet was designed as deranged person, with deranged mind. (Khan, 2008)
Hamlet: Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
Ophelia: No, my lord.
...
...
...
Hamlet: I could interpret between you and your love, if I
could see the puppets dallying.”
Ophelia: You are keen, my lord, you are keen!
Hamlet: It would cost you a groaning to take off my edge. (Khan, 2008)
�This conversation was happening in front of Polonius. This was the way people talked to
prostitutes. I can’t figure out who is to be blamed for this: Hamlet for being so obscene,
Polonius for not reacting, or Ophelia herself, for being so weak.
This play is not the tragedy of Hamlet, it is the tragedy of Ophelia; undeserved destruction
and death. She is a victim.
To make things worse, at Ophelia’s funeral Hamlet said:
I loved Ophelia: forty thousand brothers
Could not, with all their quantity of love,
Make up my sum.- (Shakespeare, 1996)
This is not romance for God’s sake. It is just the way to compete with his brother. It is just a
matter of possession.
Hamlet had no mercy, not just for Ophelia, but for his friends Rosencrantz and Guildestern,
Polonius, Claudius, nor anyone else in this play.
Life remains imbalanced, inharmonious; so purpose of existence is to create balance,
harmony, paradise. (Khan, 2008)
Hamlet shows how balance can be achieved; Ophelia, unfortunately, didn’t live long to do
the same, or at least to try. Probably, she wasn’t suppose to. Maybe, she was simply
depiction of those days women. However, Gertrude’ words spoken at Ophelia’s funeral:
“sweets to the sweet”, best describe this lovely woman.
�Conclusion
I must say, it was so easy to write this paper, I enjoyed every second of it. Shakespeare and
professor Khan influenced my life so much. It seams like all of us were veiled “…till one
greater Man Restore us…” I felt so many things before we have met, but I couldn’t name
those. Now, my universe functions perfectly. Certainly, “The mind is its own place, and in
itself can make a haven of hell and hell of haven.”
This topic, “Shakespeare’s feminism vs. 20th century feminism”, gave me a lot of things to
talk about. My freedom was unburdened. I loved writing about Cordelia, Rosalind, Ophelia,
Lady Macbeth. Moral, strong, independent, weak, lovely, women released all my passions.
The thing that makes this topic even more attractive is the fact that all these women were
explained and carefully stored in my mind by a man, actually, by two men.
When Shakespeare was creating, God was expressing Himself, it was the Beauty, it was the
Truth. The tragedy of human existence is passing time, but Shakespeare and his Ladies are
eternal. Now, I feel like I leave a part of me with them, and I know I’ll be there longer than
even I can perceive.
Now I am sure that words of a certain lady:
“If a woman has a misfortune of knowing something, she must conceal it. Imbecility in a
woman is great enhancement.”, were completely wrong.
One of Prophet’s friends once said that we should say whatever we want, because our death
protects us. I know these words are true.
This is the reason why I wanted to write about women, not to be silent.
�Curriculum Vitae
Raisa Bušatlić was born in Mostar, April 14, 1985. She has graduated from “Dţemal Bijedić“
University of Mostar, Faculty of Humanities, English Language and Literature Department, in
2009. In the same year she has enrolled International Burch University, Faculty of Education,
English Language and Literature Department, for her MA studies. Her research studies deal with
English Literature, specifically William Shakespeare.
She is currently employed at the Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sarajevo, as an Office
Manager and Interpreter/Translator.
�Appendix A Format for References
A.1 Examples for Alphabetical System
The following reference list provides examples of referencing journal articles, books, articles in
a book, theses, conference papers, reports, and articles in the internet.
References
Bence, J., (1891), Shakespeare and the Education of Women, W. Stewart & Co., London, pp.
157
Bloom, H., (1999), Shakespeare the Invention of the Human, Riverhead, pp. 298, 552
Dussinbere, J. (1975), Shakespeare and the Nature of Women, Macmillan, London, pp. 186
Hadimu–l–Haremejni–š–Šerifejni–l–Melik, (1991), Kur'an s prevodom, Sarajevo, pp. 335
Keršovani, O. (1982), Talmud, Rijeka, pp. 3.
Schalkwyk, D. (2008), Shakespeare, Love and Service, University of Cape Town, Cambridge
University Press, Cape Town, pp. 147, 259, 270
Shahab, K., (2008), 3rd year lectures, “Dţemal Bijedić” University of Mostar, Mostar
Shahab, K., (2009), 4th year lectures, “Dţemal Bijedić” University of Mostar, Mostar
�Shahab, K. (2008), O Šekspirovim Tragedijama, Dobra knjiga, Sarajevo, pp. 77, 30, 97, ...
Shakespeare, W. (1996), The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Wordsworth Edition,
Limited, London, 64, 88, 91, 150, 568, 930, 1221
http://www.wikipedia.org
http://www.islamicity.com
http://www.shakespeareswomen.net
http://shakespearesfellowship.org
http://www.stjohns-chs.org
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
743
Title
A name given to the resource
SHAKESPEARE’S FEMINISM vs. 20th CENTURY FEMINISM
Author
Author
Busatlic, Raisa
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
We know very little about William Shakespeare. What we do know for a fact: he is a social phenomena, his name echoes everywhere. He is celebrated as a local poet all over the world. In the history of mankind no writer has enjoyed so much prosperity and reception. In this work I have presented one aspect of his work, his attitude towards womenhood in socal, political, and emotional context. Through few plays I emphasized Shakespeare's approach towards philosophy of life, not only when he spoke about women; life in his case has levels which are being reached, and his heroins proove this easily. Finally, this work will explain feminism through heroism in Shakespearean drama, studying similarities and differencies within this age, history, and Shakespeare's universal era. Key words: feminism, womenhood, universalities
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2011-04-22
Keywords
Keywords.
Thesis
NonPeerReviewed
PC Romance languages