Tag Archives: Shakespeare

SlutWalks and The Rape of Lucrece

I want to focus this post on the topic of blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to sexual violence perpetrated on women. When I was at Lehigh, I took a class on women’s health.  I remember when the crisis of domestic abuse came up: talking about battered wife syndrome, the professor asked succinctly, “Why isn’t it called ‘asshole husband’ syndrome?”  Underlying her question was the tendency in our culture to excuse linguistically male violence towards women. (Consider that the name battered wife syndrome implies the victim’s pathology for the domestic abuse that a woman suffers at the hands of her male partner – there is something “wrong” with her that caused this violence.)

To counter the way language excuses men and implicates women in their abuse, a new type of protest, known as Slut Walks, has emerged. As according to the official website for SlutWalk for Toronto, the target of the protest is the prevalent belief that women are in some way responsible, because of wearing certain styles of clothing, walking down a street alone, or drinking in mixed company, for being sexually assaulted.

I love this protest sign!

The catalyst for the movement happened on January 24th, 2011, when a representative of the Toronto police department ignorantly remarked that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” What this remarks reveals is how the term “slut” is used to make women culpable for sexual violence.  Here is how the website describes its campaign to “reappropriate” the label of “slut”:

We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.

So this past April, around 1500 women, men, and transgendered persons walked the streets of Toronto, some dressed as “sluts,” to counter the dominant attitude that allows men to feel justified in assaulting women due to their behavior.

SlutWalks have become a global phenomenon, with protests in London, Boston, Seoul, Edinburgh, and St. Louis. Also, the first Kansas City SlutWalk is scheduled for Sept. 17th, where protesters will walk from the J.C. Nichols Fountain to Theis Park.  Here’s a link to the article about the KC SlutWalk in Ink. As an added bonus, the crazies of the Westboro Baptists Church are planning on counter protesting!

This misperception that women authorize male sexual violence is a predominant theme in Shakespeare’s long poem, The Rape of Lucrece.While most known for his 36 plays and 154 sonnets, Shakespeare also wrote four long poems, Venus and Adonis, The Rape, The Phoenix and Turtleand The Lover’s Complaint

Frontispiece to 1594 edition of The rape of Lucrece

The first two date from 1593 and 1594, the years when the plague closed down the London theater houses. It was during this time that Shakespeare found patronage in the Earl of Southampton, Henry Wriothesley, and it is to Wriothesley that The Rape is dedicated.

The story begins with Lucius Tarquinius’s 535 B.C.E. overthrow of his father-in-law, Servius Tullius, and establishing his tyrannical rule of Rome.

Image of Tarquinius the Proud

During the Roman siege of its neighboring country, Ardea, Sextus Tarquinius, Lucius’s son, journeys back to Rome with the intent of raping Lucrece, the wife of Collatinus, his kinsman. After stealing into Lucrece’s bedchamber, Sextus threatens her not only with murder but claims that he will kill a household slave and proclaim that he found them in mid coitus. Sextus’s threat places Lurcece in an impossible situation: if she physically resists Sextus, not only does she jeopardize her own reputation but the paternity of her children. Though Lucrece pleads for Sextus to remember his own honor, he gags her with her nightgown. After being raped, Lurcece writes to her husband and father to come quickly home. When they meet, Lucrece recounts what atrocity Sextus committed and then stabs herself. Collatinus and Lucretius, Lucrece’s father, then declare to the Roman citizenry Lucrece’s tragedy, which in turn leads to the toppling of the Tarquin regime and the rise of the Roman Republic. (Shakespeare’s immediate source for the story would have been either that of Livy or Ovid.)

Rubens' 1610 painting of Tarquinius's Rape of Lucretia

Modern feminist readers interpret the poem as critiquing the disempowerment of women within patriarchy. Coppélia Kahn notes how Sextus uses the shame that he will falsely besmirch Lucrece with to defuse her physical resistance to his sexual assault. As Kahn writes, “In the light of this threat, not to resists physically really means to defend Collatine’s hounor; apparently  passivity, in this peculiar case, must be read as covert resistance” (40). For Kahn, then, Lucrece’s suicide is due to the lack of place left to her within the patriarchal culture of Rome as a raped woman. In a 2001 article for Shakespeare Quarterly, Catherine Belsey rereads Lurcece’s death as Lucrece’s final expression of autonomy: “Her final victim-ization, rendered by her own hand, is at the same time the ultimate act of self-determinization; the object of violence is the subject as agent of her own judicial execution” (331). That is, Lucrece takes command over the events of her tragedy by driving the knife into her breast.

The connection I want to point out here between the poem and the SlutWalks is the blame-the-victim mentality. To Lucrece’s question as to why he is going to rape her, Sextus employs the same thinking that turns victims into accomplices: “Thus he replies: ‘The color in thy face,/ That even for anger makes the lily pale,/ And the red rose blush at her own disgrace,/ Shall plead for me and tell my loving tale./ Under that color am I come to scale/ Thy never-conquered fort; the fault is thine,/  For those eyes betray thee unto mine” (lns. 476-482) In other words, Sextus ascribes the lust that drives him to rape as finding its source in the blush in Lurcece’s cheek and her very eyes. To drive the point home even more, Sextus actually states that Lucrece’s own “beauty” has brought her to the peril she now faces ( “Thy beauty has ensnared thee to this night” [ln.485]). Within Sextus’s perverse rhetoric, he himself becomes the victim of Lucrece’s sexuality. This is actually a common trope in love poetry, where the male speaker blames the object of his affections for provoking such feeling in him. What The Rape does is to expose the very dark implications to this notion of the male speaker’s self-proclaimed helplessness.

Even more disturbing is Lucrece’s actually seeing herself contaminated by her rape. After Sextus has stolen away, Lucrece constantly refers to her own “foul-defiled” or “stained” blood, that somehow her own body shares in the sin that Sextus has committed. Yet in recounting the rape to Collatinus and Lucretius, Lucrece ironically reiterates Sextus’s earlier claim that her “beauty has ensnared” her: “My bloody judge [Sextus] forbade my tongue to speak; / No rightful plea might plead for justice./ His scarlet lust came evidence to swear/ That my poor beauty had purloined his eyes;/ And when the judge is robbed the prisoner dies” (lns. 1648-1652). Here Lucrece presents herself as the defendant denied justice since the judge and plaintiff are one and the same.

"Even here she sheathed in her harmless breast/ A harmful knife, that thence her soul unsheathed." (lns. 1723-1724)

 I see modern feminist readings of Shakespeare’s The Rape of Lucrece and the SlutWalks as accomplishing similar cultural work, to expose the impossible position that women are placed in by relocating the catalyst onto those who have been victimized.

Works Consulted:

Kahn, Coppélia. Roman Shakespeare. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Belsey, Catherine. “Tarquin Dispossessed: Expropriation and Consent in ‘The Rape of Lucrece’.” Shakespeare Quarterly 52.3 (Autumn, 2001): 315-335. Print.

P.S. If you liked this post, please share it with others on your Facebook feed. Thanks.

Stanley Wells’ Shakespeare & Co.

In September of 1769, the famed British actor, David Garrick, put on an event that would be pivotal in forming the modern legacy of William Shakespeare. For three days, Garrick celebrated the Bard with a festival, or, as he deemed it, a “Jubilee,” in Stratford-upon-Avon. James Shapiro, finding few to rival Garrick in bardolatory, notes the event itself to have been an immediate failure, setting Garrick himself back two thousand pounds! Yet Shapiro points out two important facets of the modern fascination with Shakespeare to have emerged from Garrick’s “Jubilee”: 1) the Stratford tourist industry along with all other Shakespeare festivals can trace their origins to this and 2) the transformation of Shakespeare into a divine.  In the temple to Shakespeare that he had built on his estates, Garrick displayed such “relics” as an old leather glove (John Shakespeare, the bard’s father, was a glover by trade), an old dagger, and a signet bearing the initials W.S. The culmination of the 1769 “Jubilee,” according to Shapiro, was Garrick’s recitation of his poem, “Ode to Shakespeare.” (While I was unable to find the full version of the poem for this post, Shapiro quotes two lines from the ode that really capture its gushing fan-boy tenor: ” ‘Tis he! ‘Tis he! – that demi-god!/ Who Avon’s flowery margin trod . . . ‘Tis he! ‘Tis he!/ The god of our idolatry!” Is it just me, or does Garrick remind anyone else of Annie Wilkes from Stephen King’s Misery?)

David Garrick reciting his slash fic for Shakespeare and Marlowe, during which all members of team Ben Jonson booed.

My reason for mentioning Garrick’s “Jubilee” is to touch on the fact of, for better or worse, Shakespeare’s centrality for our understanding of the Renaissance, and really English literature in general. Just take a glance at any college course offering in literature: while most English departments are dropping many of their great authors courses – you would be hard press to find a course dedicated to Milton, Chaucer, Austen, or Dickens – Shakespeare generally has at least two courses devoted to his plays and poems. He is so predominant that there are courses specifically devoted drama other than Shakespearean: when I was in the MA program at SUNY Stony Brook, I took a fascinating course entitled Tudor and Stuart Drama other than Shakespeare.

This brings me to Stanley Wells’ Shakespeare & Co.:Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, & Other Players in His Story  (2006).

 (Ironically, being in graduate school when Shakespeare & Co. came out, I was not able to actually read it until just recently.) What Wells accomplishes, quite well I might add, is to situate Shakespeare in the professional community of actors, playhouse owners, and playwrights of the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean period. While very little is actually known of how Shakespeare wrote his plays, hence all of the conspiracies surrounding the authorship of his works, it is safe to assume that he did not work in a vacuum. The theater community in which he spent his career was a closely knit one: Shakespeare was friends with the star actors of his day – Richard Burbage and Will Kemp of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men (the company with which Shakespeare would act, later to be known as the King’s Men) and Edward Alleyn of the Admiral’s Men (played by Ben Affleck in Shakespeare in Love). 

Ben Affleck as Alleyn

Edward Alleyn as Alleyn

Moreover, Shakespeare was a well-respected part of the playwriting circle. (Just before becoming ill with his final sickness, Shakespeare was carousing with Michael Drayton and Ben Jonson in Stratford.)

One of my favorite chapters of Shakespeare & Co. is Wells’ look at the actors of the London’s stage at the end of the 16th century. To offer a bit of background about Shakespeare’s ties to the acting community, he was a founding member of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men – to be exempt from being classified as vagabonds, acting companies had to have noble patrons so as to allow them to tour the English countryside. Richard Burbage was the premier actor of this company, who first played such roles as Hamlet, Macbeth, and Othello. 

Richard Burbage

 His father, James, built the first theaterhouse in England in 1576, unimaginatively named The Theater. Interestingly, due to a dispute over the lease, the Lord Chamberlaine’s Men would eventually have to disassemble The Theater and transport the frame from Shoreditch (just north of London) to the southern bank of the Thames and rename the playhouse the Globe in 1599. Wells does much to remind us of the talent that Shakespeare had to work with in Burbage: “Shakespeare, Burbage’s senior by only four years, must have known him intimately, and the actor’s special talents undoubtedly did much to influence Shakespeare’s choice of material for plays and characterization of many leading roles.” (43) If we consider how demanding and wide-ranging many of Shakespeare’s leading roles are, he had to be very confident in the caliber of acting. Wells points out that Burbage had to be able to play Hamlet (about 30 years old according to the play) and 80-year old Lear within 4 years of each other.

While Burbage was the company’s tragedian, Will Kemp covered the comedic parts.  While scholars know for certain that Kemp played Dogberry (Much Ado About Nothing) and Peter (Romeo and Juliet), other major comedic roles in Shakespeare’s plays prior to 1599 can be ascribed to him as well. Unexplainably, Kemp left the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1599. Yet this would not be end of his fame for on Feb. 11th, 1600 Kemp would morris dance, a type of jig with bells attached to the wrists and ankles, from London to Norwich, a distance of 110 miles.

Will Kemp on his morris dance from London to Norwich, the Elizabethan equivalent of Charlie Sheen's "Torpedo of Truth" tour.

It would take Kemp and his servant, Thomas Sly, nearly a month to make the typically nine-day journey. Wells remarks that Shakespeare’s comedic roles change following Kemp’s departure, since he was now writing for a new comedic actor, Robert Armin: “After Armin’s recruitment Shakespeare began to create clowns who are more wistful, introverted, and musical: semi-choric commentators on the action rather than active participants” (38). (Compare, say, Bottom from Midsummer Night’s Dream to Lear’s Fool or Feste from Twelfth Night.) What Wells does so expertly is to show how the changes in Shakespeare’s plays mirrored those in the acting company he would spend his career in.

The majority of Shakespeare & Co. delves into the professional relationship that Shakespeare most likely have had with other playwrights, including Christopher Marlowe, Jonson, John Fletcher, Thomas Dekker, and John Webster. While most of these names would only be familiar to English majors having taken an introduction to Renaissance literature, Wells offers succinct summaries of their careers and possible influence on or by Shakespeare. Probably one of the most important themes of the book for any student of Shakespeare is Wells’ reminding us that Shakespeare collaborated with other playwrights. For those who remember the film, there is a scene in Shakespeare in Love when Marlowe (Rupert Everett) helps Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) hash out the plot for Romeo and Juliet.

So lets start in Verona, the whole Italian thing is hot right now.

While grossly inaccurate (R&J is based on an Italian story translated by Arthur Brooke in 1562), the scene speaks to the importance of appreciating how Shakespeare worked with his fellow writers. Wells cites the various plays that Shakespeare either certainly or most likely co-authored with another playwright: Titus Adronicus (likely George Peele), Henry VI, Part One (Thomas Nashe), Edward III, Pericles (George Wilkins), Henry VIII, The Two Noble Kinsmen,  and the lost play, Cardenio ( all with John Fletcher), and Timons of Athens (Thomas Middleton, who possibly revised parts of Macbeth).

Overall, Shakespeare & Co. works against the often cited quotation from the First Folio by Ben Jonson, that Shakespeare “was not of an age but for all time.” Wells relocates Shakespeare within the theatrical community to which he contributed to and benefited from.

Works Referenced

Shapiro, James Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Wells, Stanley. Shakespeare & Co.: Christopher Marlowe, Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, & Other Players in His Story. New York: Vintage Books, 2008.

Wilson, Ian. Shakespeare: The Evidence. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999

Oh, Roland Emmerich, Why Must You Do This?

Well, the summer movie season is rapidly coming into full swing, and I have my list of big-budget, computer-generated-special-effects-loaded, blockbuster mind candy all set. Topping my must-see list are X-Men: First Class (I am willing to give the franchise another shot after the disaster that was X-Men 3) and, of course, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 (I am waiting for Molly Weasely’s line, “NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!”)

However, there is one film that I am dreading on a professional, academic, and, yes, personal level, Anonymous. What Roland Emmerich did to climatology with The Day After Tomorrow (2004) he is now doing to Shakespearean criticism.  Here’s the trailer for the film:

(It seems that Emmerich is adopting Edward de Vere’s candidancy for authorship.)

I am going to blog about this film when it comes out. But just to give a little bit of insight into this whole question about the authorship of the plays and poems we, i.e. scholars, ascribe to William Shakespeare, the controversy boils down to this: those anti-Shakespeare proponents don’t feel that someone with Shakespeare’s rustic background could have the knowledge to write his works. In other words, his plays and poetry reflect the mind of a person incredibly widely read in classical literature, familiar with nautical terms, an initimate knowledge of British history, and exposure to the world at court. The skeptics of Shakespeare’s authorship don’t believe that someone with his limited education and family background could write such literary masterpieces. The underlying motivation here is elitism.

To offer a relevant ancedote, I once was teaching Merchant of Venice at a Yeshiva, a private Jewish school. (Yes, the irony did not escape me at all.) Well, everyday, one of my students would always derail the discussion I was trying to get going by proclaiming, “You know, Shakespeare probably didn’t even write this play.” Years later, as I thought about this incredibly annoying student, I realized one of the reasons for people constantly bringing up this question again and again: it is an easy way to sound intelligent. As with the 9/11 conspiracists or the Birthers, to claim that Shakespeare didn’t write these plays and we have all been hoodwinked by a 400-year-old hoax makes one seem like s/he is in the know, has figured it all out. 

Allow me to say something to those Shakespeare conspiracy theory devotees: who cares! They are still great plays and poems!