Shakespeare and rape

I'm far from well-versed in his works, which is why I'm likely to defer to your scholarly expertise. ;) What did Shakespeare believe of rape?

Wikipedia reads,

Quote:

---

"Lucrece is described as if she were a work of art, objectified in as if she were a material possession. Tarquin's rape of her is described as if she were a fortress under attack—conquering her various physical attributes."

---

It seems like he doesn't even consider her a person.

Quote:

---

"Although Lucrece is raped, the poem offers an apology to absolve her of guilt."

---

So he thinks it's her fault?!

Quote:

---

"Like Shakespeare's other raped women [emphasis added], Lucrece gains symbolic value: through her suicide, her body metamorphoses into a political symbol. Shakespeare turns rape into a form of wound or mutilation of Lucrece's flesh. The loss of chastity as a symbolic wound is closely associated to the self-inflicted stab wound which puts an end to Lucrece's life."

---

Does he really believe being raped demands suicide and a raped woman is a "political symbol"?

So I disquieted about this aspect of the guy I'm just discovering. Am I missing something?

"The Rape of Lucrece" is an interesting piece. In his earlier, successful, lighthearted poem "Venus and Adonis" Shakespeare promised that the next one would be graver - and he delivered. Indeed, at the time of writing, Shakespeare was just starting to dip into tragedy. Titus was written around the same time, and there are certainly comparisons to be made with Shakespeare's Lucrece and Lavinia in Titus Andronicus.

In case you did not know, Shakespeare did not invent the story. The Rape of Lucretia is an old (supposedly true) Roman story. Shakespeare took it and framed it in his own light.

So what does Shakespeare say about rape? It is hard to say. The whole poem is drenched in allegory. Lucretia represents the "poem" and Tarquin the poet, or more broadly, Lucrece is Art and Tarquin the savage artist, drawn on by lust.

But I don't think Shakespeare can be said to be uncaring about rape. If we look at the two raped characters in his plays - Lavinia and Miranda (sort of) - we see that it is a case, like Lucrece, of innocence being defiled by pure corruption.

If Shakespeare was so great, he should have realized that people with very different world views were going to be reading his works five hundred years after his death. If he couldn't be bothered to pander to our moralism, well, I think we should return the favor and ignore him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

So what does Shakespeare say about rape? It is hard to say. The whole poem is drenched in allegory. Lucretia represents the "poem" and Tarquin the poet, or more broadly, Lucrece is Art and Tarquin the savage artist, drawn on by lust.

But I don't think Shakespeare can be said to be uncaring about rape. If we look at the two raped characters in his plays - Lavinia and Miranda (sort of) - we see that it is a case, like Lucrece, of innocence being defiled by pure corruption.

---

But is that it? Does he see it only impartially as symbolism? What about those plays you just referenced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

If Shakespeare was so great, he should have realized that people with very different world views were going to be reading his works five hundred years after his death. If he couldn't be bothered to pander to our moralism, well, I think we should return the favor and ignore him.

---

I'm pretty sure rape is considered wrong in every culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satyesu

I'm pretty sure rape is considered wrong in every culture.

---

True. But using crimes like rape as events in narrative drama only became unconscionable in the last few decades, because we enlightened moderns realize that the notion of rape would never occur to anyone if they didn't see it in a play or read it in a poem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satyesu

But is that it? Does he see it only impartially as symbolism? What about those plays you just referenced?

---

Hence my last point. The rape of Lavinia in Titus is a horrendous moment (although some post-structuralists will say that Marcus' speech about the rape is so overplayed that it is meant to dissolve the matter.) Nonetheless, we are meant to feel the pathos inspired by the horrible tragedy of her rape.

In The Tempest, Prospero suggests that Caliban raped Miranda. Remembering that Caliban is meant to be seen as a horrible half-man, the rape is meant to turn the audience immediately against Caliban (despite the fact that post-colonial scholars love to build sympathy for him). So Shakespeare did not brush off rape so easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satyesu

I'm pretty sure rape is considered wrong in every culture.

---

Well it destroyed the Etruscan Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

True. But using crimes like rape as events in narrative drama only became unconscionable in the last few decades, because we enlightened moderns realize that the notion of rape would never occur to anyone if they didn't see it in a play or read it in a poem.

---

Rape, or the perception of it, is by no means a novel idea. If anything, the only thing we "enlightened" moderns look at differently is spousal rape - that tends to be more frowned upon now than it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anton Hermes

If Shakespeare was so great, he should have realized that people with very different world views were going to be reading his works five hundred years after his death. If he couldn't be bothered to pander to our moralism, well, I think we should return the favor and ignore him.

---

Your wit is starting to make me feel redundant.

A discussion of rape in literature, particularly in poetry and drama, is different from a discussion of rape in real life. The Tempest and Titus Andronicus are not political or social explorations of rape.

But if we are going to discuss rape, Shakespeare uses the "bed trick" (secretly taking the place of the woman who the lover is waiting for) quite frequently. Is the bed trick a type of rape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

But if we are going to discuss rape, Shakespeare uses the "bed trick" (secretly taking the place of the woman who the lover is waiting for) quite frequently. Is the bed trick a type of rape?

---

I think in Measure For Measure and All's Well That Ends Well, both partners enter into the act willingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I think in Measure For Measure and All's Well That Ends Well, both partners enter into the act willingly.

---

But that is because they don't know who the partner is. There's not much evidence- certainly not in AWTEW- that the man would willingly have slept with the woman. Obviously it exists mainly as a plot point but is it a type of rape?

But is it rape. Let's take all's well:

Bertram enters into the act willingly, and I think it is fair to assume he is on top here. Does it matter that he is with Helena and not Diana? And it's not as if Helena is being raped - she orchestrated the whole thing.