Shakespeare & women.

[MANICHAEAN]

I have often wondered if Shakespeare had a queasiness before the sexuality of women. In the Sonnets for example one could sense that he; in fact (or in fancy) fell (or imagined he fell) in love with one of his elegant benefactors. It is almost as if he appears to attempt to preserve the mystique of courtly love in Elizabeth's reign and much of its traditional imagery by transferring them to a male beloved.

It seems to be a varient form of theme found throughout significant segmants of his work: men bound together by friendship are sundered by the love of a woman (as inTwo Gentlemen of Verona) and must somehow make another, more fragile compact or sadly learn to part.

It's almost as if, try as he would, Shakespeare could not keep his fear of women and perhaps a disgust with sex from breaking through.

[Scheherazade]

bump

__________________

[MANICHAEAN]

Thanks Scheh
As you can see, I'm still finding my way around!

[prendrelemick]

I don't know about that M, his women are clever and resourceful . In fact it is his admiration of women that always strikes me.

However, reading the man through his work is a game that has been played for centuries, and has led to a lot of nonsense being written about him by people more qualified than I am.

[MANICHAEAN]

Thanks P.
I missed that observation about his women. In fact it stares you in the face.

I had perhaps been influenced too much by a book by Fielder call "The Stranger in Shakespeare"

[kelby_lake]

I think you have a point, M, although some of the female characters are strong. A lot of the plays are about men choosing men over women but that's not to say that Shakespeare advocated it.

[soundofmusic]

It's almost as if, try as he would, Shakespeare could not keep his fear of women and perhaps a disgust with sex from breaking through.

I shall never forgive my professor for telling us, with great authority, that the sonnets proved that Shakespeare was gay...then he sent us out in a cold world full of people who were more equiped than we, who had read all of Shakespeares works, to discuss this with.

Alas, as I have said before, I am a superficial creature and have not gotten near some of Shakespeares more obscure works. However, when I reread some of the sonnets that Hero posted; I am not at all sure they were written for men. Shakespeare seems a great observer of people, and he has presented us with many strong and weak, flawed and abiding characters of both sexes through his tragedies and comedies.

I will be interested in following this thread, Manichean, as you see, we have a great many people who love to discuss more than names for exotic dancers and words not to say when drunk....

Now, I will go back to the warm waters of blissful ignorance....:drool5::sleep:

[MANICHAEAN]

Thank you all for your incisive observations.

Its much appreciated.

SOM. Try the new thread on "The Art of Kissing" It might help you with Sancho!

[prendrelemick]

I wonder if we are looking back through later gender stereotypes at Shakespeare's women. They seem so much more savvy than their Georgian or victorian sisters. Was it Shakespeare's unique attitude we now appreciate, or was he reflecting the attitude of the times?

[MANICHAEAN]

I think that through his representation of womanhood, Shakespeare definately transends the stereotypes of his own time. Although I'm presuming, (rightly or wrongly) that the theatre being the venue of his artistic livelihood, he in the main wrote for male entertainment in an Elizabethan patriarchal society. It would be naive to believe that he created rebellious feminists in an age that had never heard of the term. Nevertheless, writing many of his plays with Elizabeth I on the throne, Shakespeare created heroines who operated in, rebelled against, attempted to rule, or were crushed by a social structure largely determined by men.

The character of Cleopatra immediately comes to mind and if we move on, as you suggest to the Victorian period, she especially was a problematic heroine whose blatant sensuality had to be confronted in an age that valued women's modesty. And yet, with another Queen on the throne in 19th century Britain, both women and Shakespeare were idealized. Editions of Shakespeare were, I believe, produced especially with the female reader in mind. Any passage that might wound a feminine sense of "delicacy" was cut.

The other main female it was difficult for the Victorian age to assimilate was of course Lady Macbeth. Generally it seems they took one of two stances towards her, either placing her in the distant past of the "barbarous" Middle Ages, or seeing her as a Victorian wife, whose ambitions were all for her husband but who was discarded by him after his success, fell into madness, and suffered a lonely death.

I wonder if Shakespeare ever met Oscar Wilde in the hereafter & compared notes on the latter's matriarchal plays with a comic background, especially those two formidable "grand dames"; Lady Bracknall & Lady Caroline Pontefract?

[prendrelemick]

Or Geoffrey Chaucer, creator of the Wife of Bath.