Page 1 of 14 The notion of Authority has been much discussed in relation to Shakespeares tragedies and history plays, but

what concept is it in his comedies? In Shakespeares contemporary period the social hierarchy was very much a turgid and immovable force, governing every aspect of your life from a variety of different sources. Authority could restrict an individual, especially a person from the lowest social strata, through repressive domination oozing down from the many higher tiers of influence. Shakespeare tackles this unceasing authoritative control in his comedies by presenting the audience with a myriad of exercising powers: Measure for Measure (MM) deals with the restrictions of an oppressive legal system; social boundaries are enforced onto the lower class or outsider characters in Twelfth Night (TN) and The Merchant of Venice (MV), as authority attempts to consolidate the English, middle class norm as an ideal; gender repression is also visibly depicted in Shakespeares comedies as father- and husbandfigures render their female counterparts inferior and redundant. Authority then, in Shakespeares comedies, could repress on three significant levels: national, social and familial. Yet the authority Shakespeare presents, despite the image it aims to project for itself, does not always appear altruistic and infallible; the comedies provide a bleak social commentary on authoritys hypocrisy. Often an unexpectedly insightful, lower-class character, like MMs Pompey, will undermine the seemingly omnipotent authority of Vienna in one eerily perceptive statement about the truth of human nature. Similarly, the characters of Feste and Graziano (TN, MV), as the plays fools, will indisputably outwit more influential characters than themselves and, therefore, question who has the right to harness authority. Familial tensions, especially evident in A Midsummer Nights Dream, undo the orthodox idea of a father or husband acting selflessly and correctly, as Shakespeare seems to empathise, not with the authoritative controller, but with the frivolous and celebrates the lighthearted recklessness of love. An authority that claims its own supremacy should be able to withstand a challenge to its foundations; unfortunately, Shakespeares comedies probing portrayals only seem to present authority as a weak, man-made invention desperately trying to cloak its own hypocrisy. 200465837

Page 2 of 14 Measure for Measure (MM) is a play wholly consumed with great questions concerning the limits, the rights and the influence of the legal system that governs a nation. Set in Vienna, with its exotic romanticism and dubious approach to morality, Shakespeare is able to place a fallible authority aside from the contemporary English court. Fraught with ambiguity, the play shifts violently between a light-hearted comedy to a dark psychological drama exploring the boundaries of morality and ensuing authoritative intervention. The plays questionable and unsettling plot caused F.S. Boas to resituate MM in an entirely new genre, considering it too weighty and challenging to be comfortably placed as a comedy, coining, instead, the term problem play.1 The story of a sexually repressed nun presented with an infamous bargain by a corrupt magistrate, originally stemming from G.B. Cinthios rape crimes in Hecatommithi,2 is, undeniably, not an average comic plot. Yet, as Pico Iyer suggests comedy is nothing more than tragedy deferred3 and pressing issues can be analysed and rethought, uncommonly, in the domain of comedy. Paradox and opposition are used in MM for undermining authoritys power. Gibbons suggests there is a polarisation of social life into opposed extremes within the play and, yet, by drawing out similarities between the two apparently conflicting groups Shakespeare questions the self-imposed superiority of authority. The surprising similarities stimulate an audience to a vigorous process of mental and emotional debate and reconsideration;4 although the characters of Angelo and Isabella share an educated and outwardly religious, upper-middle class persona, they are subconsciously owned by sexual desire as much as the lower class characters of the brothels and correction houses are:

1 2

Frank S. Boas, Shakespeare and his Predecessors (London: J.Murray, 1940), p.344-408. G.B.Cinthio, Hecatommithi (In Vingeia: Appresso Enea de Alaris, 1574) 3 Pico Iyer, Tropical Classical: Essays from Several Directions (New York: Vintage, 1998) 4 Brian Gibbons, Introduction in Measure for Measure, by William Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Oress, 2006), p.25

200465837

Page 3 of 14 Thimpression of keen whips Id wear as rubies, And strip myself to death as to a bed That longing have been sick for, (2.4.101-3)

However, Pompey, despite his plebeian vulgarity, uncovers the truth of natural sexual desire in the very first act with the simple statement good counsellors lack no clients. (1.2.89) Surprisingly, even Angelo admits his own moral hypocrisy, albeit in an aside, as he explicitly confesses and likens himself to a painted devils horn. Outwardly Puritanical, Angelo uses a public image to present a consolidated self-assured authority, but is as inwardly immoral as the people he rules over. Blood, thou art blood, Lets write Good Angel on the devils horn, Tis not the devils crest (2.4.15-17)

Shakespeare, through Angelo, undermines the self-imposed authority of those in power by reducing them to the mere mortals they try so hard to elevate themselves above. In Angelos case, MM shows authoritys extreme Puritanical denial of basic human needs as bringing its own forms of corruption, distortion and abnormality which Gibbons claims as an almost perverse paradox.5 This idea of seemingly marked differences between the powerful and the powerless translates to some of Shakespeares other social comedies. Just as the lower class characters of MM understand the truth of basic human nature, the fools of TN and MV speak with more intelligence and insight than the courtly authority they are employed by; this, then, forces a reconsideration of the true fool within the social hierarchy. Elam argues the epitome of this wit comes in Festes we three loggerheads riddle (2.3.14-17) as he not only implies Sir Toby as the third ass in the joke but, Elam argues, pushes the dramatic boundaries and gazes out beyond the bounds of the stage to highlight the onlooker, or audience, as the third fool.6 Furthermore, Elam claims cognitive desire is

5 6

Ibid, p.25 Keir Elam, Introduction in Twelfth Night, by William Shakespeare (London: Arden Shakespeare, 2008), p.11

200465837

Page 4 of 14 the strongest aspiration aroused in the play and, by assessing the characters by their yearning to know and understand, it becomes apparent the most intelligent and inquisitive in TN are not the most authoritative figures, but the controversially dubbed fools. Similarly, the MVs Graziano, despite being portrayed as an excessive and decadent fop in the first act, provides an ominous and profound phrase at Jessicas rescue, All things are, Are with more spirit chased than enjoyed, (12-13)

This statement is uncannily insightful, considering Jessicas probable second thoughts, depicted in the 1970 National Theatre production of The Merchant of Venice, than would ever have been socially expected of him. Pompey, Graziano and Feste, then, challenge the social repression imposed by misplaced authority as they prove more perceptive and intelligent than their social superiors; anarchically, Shakespeare reassesses the class hierarchy by giving more poignant lines and showing greater respect for these lower class characters than the power usurpers who sit precariously and seemingly unfoundedly at the top of the metaphorical social ladder. Shakespeare also gives weight to characters born to be minorities, where his authoritative normal characters do not. Shylock and Malvolio are both repressed by social prejudice because of their outsider values. Finding themselves alienated by simply upholding principles which they perceive as normative, both symbolically withdraw, or, more fittingly, are forced, into darkness unable to place themselves within the boundaries society has imposed. Shylock contains himself in a closed, lightless house after the desertion of his daughter, ashamed of his abnormal religious beliefs, and Malvolio is confined into darkness because of his alien morality. Scared of irregularity, society, using its authority, mentally and literally restricts the potentially corrupting inferior outsiders by shutting them away from the conventional townspeople. The consistent and public torture of Shylock in MV also highlights the way he is regarded; Shylock is considered a threat to their authority because he does not conform.

200465837

Page 5 of 14 You call me misbeliever, cut-throat, dog, And spit upon my Jewish gabardine, (1.3.108-9)

This portrays a very different type of Venice to the upper class frivolity and peacefulness shown to us in the authoritative inner circle of the first scene. Cleverly, then, and more poignantly for modern audiences, Shakespeare has justified Shylocks malice and showed the audience Shylocks back-story and his route towards villainy, unlike Shakespeares other great villains, like Othellos Iago or Macbeths King Duncan. Unlike other Jewish characters preceding Shylock in the literary canon, for example Marlowes Jew of Malta,7Shakespeare gives Shylock a three-dimensional character, aiming to evoke a degree of sympathy for the villain, out of sync with the standard Jewish stereotype. Shylock, more concerned with securing his property than gaining any return doesnt set an interest rate to Antonios debt, let alone a clichd rate of excess. This is highlighted in his slow, repeated consideration of the debt that is owed to him the court scene. Furthermore, Shakespeare gives Shylock an unprecedented intelligence, for a Jewish character, by showing his awareness of religions other than his own, as he quotes biblical passages with accuracy in Act 1.3. Showing this cultural diversity, absent in the intolerant and ignorant Christians, Shakespeare begins to expose hypocrisies within the Christian faith.8 This escalates to an anti-climatic pinnacle in the final scene as the plot seems to resolve itself perfectly; those in any position of social superiority find their troubles completely, albeit somewhat implausibly, solved as Antonios lost ships miraculously return to harbour. Yet, Shylock, an alienated social inferior, is practically unmentioned in the concluding scene having been earlier stripped of his religion, daughter, estate and, in hearsay the audience finds out, his life. Authority, especially for modern audiences, has undoubtedly failed a struggling minority; those with power in MV act out of prejudice, trying to repress anyone outside of their comfortable social system which, coincidentally, favours them immeasurably. Shakespeares radical denial of the Jewish stereotype, considering the previous Jewish characters preceding Shylocks creation, by giving
7 8

Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta (London: Metheun Drama, 2009) Robert Ornstein, Shakespeares Comedies: from Roman farce to romantic mystery(London: London University Press, 1986)

200465837

Page 6 of 14 him emotions and a past of torture and maltreatment, criticises an authority that cannot accommodate social anomalies. Interestingly, Jessica is a prime example of social repression and alienation; despite having denounced her native faith in favour of the socially accepted Christianity, she will never be accommodated by a society that rejects outsiders from their conventional religion. The courts maltreatment of Jessica, although not as bad as Shylocks torture, can be seen as a subconscious want to expel the abnormality of Jessica from their normal society. As Jessica attends group gatherings, at Lorenzos side, the reception she receives is subtle rejection; in Act 3.2 Bassanio welcomes everyone, including the female Portia, except Jessica and, later in the scene, her helpful interjection is completely ignored. The first time she is spoken to after her marriage to Lorenzo is seven scenes after her rescue as Portia briefly says I thank you for your wish. (3.4.43) Meaningfully, even Lorenzo seems aware of her lower value, uttering a mild curse as he frees her from Shylocks grasp, beshrew me, but I love her heartily. (2.6.52) Shakespeare, although never making this social contempt explicitly obvious, forewarns the audience of the hazards of the interreligious union in Lorenzo and Jessicas seemingly romantic expressions to one another in Act 5.1. They begin to compare themselves to great, infamous lovers who, doomed to tragedy, ended up dead; the uneasy similarities to Pyramus and Thisbe, for example, only serve to warn the audience of the condemned end that their marriage is likely to meet, targeted by an unaccommodating and hostile society. Fascinatingly, Jessica appears to have internalised the feeling of rejection through her years of social repression. As she is rescued from her fathers home, feeling subconsciously unworthy of Lorenzos affections as merely a Jewish woman, she brings a casket of jewels and ducats with her as a token of her worth and a hopeful saviour from her inevitable alienation. Also, she is overly aware of her unattractive appearance when she is dressed as a young, male torchbearer, understanding the volatility of her position as a sought-after bride and trying not to tempt Lorenzo into rejecting her. Contemporary social repression, then, had the ability to discard and denounce any alien body, not only just through savage bullying, in Shylocks case, but through conscientious 200465837

Page 7 of 14 denunciation. Authority, Shakespeare highlights, is not always used in positive and altruistic ways, but is instead a convenient tool wielded to keep those in power in place. Alienation becomes a prominent theme when examining the power hierarchy between genders in Shakespeares comedies. His social commentary on female worth within the family unit can be seen most prominently in the liberating heroine of MVs Portia. Unsurprisingly, much praise for Portias complexities has emerged from literary criticism; for example, Ornsteins claim that only an unconventional woman could dominate the masculine arena of the law court, but only a conventional, dutiful woman could submit to her fathers will and not bend an article of it to assure her own happiness.9 Yet, her wit and inherited, familial power are immediately ignored by other men as they assert their genders authority. Bassanio rejects outright any attempt by Portia to reclaim her superiority by immediately assuming his wifes worth as his own; he freely offers unnecessary amounts of his wifes money, without permission, to the lawyer to satisfy his own frivolity and insure his foppish reputation. This leaves the audience feeling unsatisfied by the marriage of Bassanio and Portia: how long can Portia maintain a thoughtless, flippant and volatile husband and, furthermore, will Bassanio ever be able to match and satisfy the wit of Portia to secure a successful and stimulating marriage? This doubt is symbolically encapsulated by the flickering light we see burning in my hall (5.1.89) which highlights the temporary stability of a love formed in a society which doesnt accommodate for power shifts between genders. Shakespeare, in an obvious attempt to present womens place in his patriarchal society, shows Portia as little more than a commercial transaction. She is freed from her fathers ongoing, post-death repression by Bassanio but is immediately transferred into his dominant possession. Shakespeare, by liberating women and showing them capable of wielding power for themselves, and probably more successfully, undermines contemporary authority for not giving up its prejudices and conscious sexism and allowing capable, intelligent women out of their restricted, inferior social placement.

Ibid, p.96

200465837

Page 8 of 14 Gender superiority within the marriage unit is also, perhaps most poignantly, seen in MND. The only marriage throughout the majority of the play is that of the fairy King and Queen, Oberon and Titania. Significantly, this marriage is presented as heavily discordant; they are immediately shown at war with each other due to their exposure with humanity as they clash over the Indian changeling boy and their jealousy for the human Theseus and Hippolyta. Oberon: Ill met by moonlight, Proud Titania. Titania: What, jealous Oberon? Fairies skip hence, I have forsworn his bed and company. Oberon: Tarry rash wanton: am I not thy lord? (2.1.428-432)

In their opening exchange in the play, Titania, although being a forceful and powerful woman, able to make her own decisions, is denounced as a rash wanton for being headstrong and challenging her husbands authority. Knight suggests the action (within the play) depends largely on Oberons quarrel with Titania,10 as society and order break down into magical and meaningless anarchy because Titania refuses to conform to her gender role. Considering in Shakespeares comedies patriarchs attempt to impose a single interpretation on their world,11 Oberon, unable to control his obstinate wife, literally results to drugging her into bowing to his authority. He imposes restrictions on her mind, effeminising and reducing her to the inferior female role which conforms to the society he is secure in and, importantly, in control of. Shakespeare seems to undermine this patriarchal repression within marriage when Titania, in a drug-induced daze, falls in love with an assheaded Bottom. In this union Shakespeare shows a finely poised love, balanced between the material and the spiritual, between the rational and the irrational, described as a symbolic union,

10

G. Wilson Knight, Dissension in Fairyland in Shakespeares A Midsummer Nights Dream ed. by Antony Price (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983),p.65. 11 Peter J. Smith, Social Shakespeare: aspects of Renaissance dramaturgy and contemporary society (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), p.126

200465837

Page 9 of 14 symbolic of the whole play where opposites are so exquisitely blended in unity.12 Outside of her legal marriage, which was fraught with a highly charged battle for authority, Titania finds a perfect love with a lower-class powerless character where a struggle for gender superiority does not consume every action between them. Likewise, the other relationship formed in the courtly circle is Theseus and Hippolyta. Hippolyta, I wood thee with my sword, And won thy love, doing thee injuries, (1.1.16-18)

Hippolyta, despite being from a powerful family, becomes little more than a spoil of violence for the superior Theseus. Women in MND, like MVs Portia, are reduced to their marketable worth and become mere possessions passed around a patriarchal world. Figures of authority, according to Shakespeares anarchic social commentary, become catalysts of chaos in their attempt to maintain the system that sustains their power. The Winters Tale (WT) is a social comedy obsessed with the hazards of how exercising excessive, patriarchal power for the sake of securing the normative hierarchy can corrupt domestic and familial bonds. Leontes, fuelled by an unfounded belief in his wifes infidelity, transgresses from stable king to an incoherent, irrational monster, abusing his prerogatives and power, eventually resulting in the death of his only son and heir. The imitative fallacy of his ambiguous and obscure jealous rant in Act 1.2 seems to directly challenge the divine right of kings, explicitly highlighting its pitfalls and discrepancies; how can a man brought to the brink of insanity, made clear by his ridiculous language and speech patterns, have been chosen by God to rule an entire nation? His reasoning is circular and his syntax is often broken and ambiguous, for example, his unclear cry too hot, too hot! (1.2.108) He formulates lists, adding more examples with no further worth, utilising phrases synonymous with the last. Even in questioning his son with art thou my boy? (1.2.118) he appears mentally doubting by presenting obvious facts as meagre hearsay. Most significantly, Bethell has highlighted, Leontes is
12

Knight, p.670

200465837

Page 10 of 14 pushed to this point of madness having been notoriously unmotivated.13 Even Othello, Shakespeares greatest play following the incitement of jealousy, is driven to his rage by the villain Iago, and needs physical proof before he acts with such assured conviction. Yet Leontes, with no founded evidence at all, manages to escalate his state of mind to the same height of lunacy; both protagonists are eager to snatch at self-convinced proofs and both degrade their women with sensual images, reducing them to little more than dirty sexual objects. This exaggerated transgression into psychosis because of a threat to the stability of the conventional gender hierarchy only seems to undermine the authority Leontes holds; Shakespeare, by presenting Leontes as a mad wreck on the edge of a breakdown, destabilises and doubts his god-given right to authority. In the discussion of female suppression by a patriarchal husband, the puzzling absence of women especially mothers in Shakespeares plays must be analysed. Neely, in her essay Incest and Issue in the Romances: The Winters Tale14 suggests practical reasons like the contemporary trend of many Renaissance women dying in childbirth and the scarcity of boy actors leaving somewhat unnecessary parts of mothers and wives impossible. However, a more likely reason is womens redundancy after marriage and childbirth in a patriarchal society. A female without either of these two clear objectives, in Shakespeares plays, becomes a figure in which insecurity and rivalry is projected; uncontrolled women become a threat to male authority. Hermione in WT, with her threatening sexuality, challenges the foundations of Leontess stable kingship; she could render his only heir a bastard or move her allegiances to the rival king, increasing Polixienes power. Order is only achieved, at the plays resolution, by the desexualisation of Hermione; her chastity is proved by her lengthy withdrawal into confinement in her transformation to a statue. Shakespeare, however, does not neatly conclude the reaffirmed patriarchal authority without some exposed flaws. The question of Leontess dead son, Mamillius, is never resolved, instead leaving the audience bleakly pondering on the casualties of a volatile, too powerful authority. The divine right of kings is suddenly
13 14

S.L.Bethell, Shakespeare and the popular dramatic tradition(London: King and Staples, 1944) Carol Thomas Neely, Incest and Issue in the Romances: The Winters Tale in Broken Nuptials in Shakespeares Plays (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993)

200465837

Page 11 of 14 shattered because of Shakespeares complex king Leontes, wielding his powers for personal reasons and leaving chaos and, most dramatically, the death of a child. Authority is only an imitation of God, just as art, in the case of Hermiones statue, is an imitation of nature. Art and authority, stemming only from human conception, is fallible, compared to the divinity of nature. Therefore, WT, as a negation of art, must also be a negation of authority, something that only claims its powerfulness, but, in reality, is as fallible as any man-made structure. Patriarchal society is similarly challenged when looking at Shakespeares father-daughter relationships. Egeus enters MND trying to force his daughter Hermia into an unwanted marriage. Yet, Shakespeares treatment of Egeus leaves the audience feeling more sympathy and affection for the young lovers. Theseus claims that a child is as you are but as a form in wax by (the father) imprinted, (1.1.53-54) therefore Shakespeare undermines Egeuss parenting by having him come with complaint against my child. (1.1.27) Furthermore, the excessive insistence in the fathers absolute authority over a child only serves to undermine its meaning. Repeated phrases like she is mine, I may dispose of her (1.1.46) and your father should be as a God, (1.1.51) in repetition, only begins to sound more and more ludicrous, especially for modern audiences. Shakespeare looks more favourably on these young lovers as they aspire to a magical unrealistic love15 by following this static, staccato-sounding scene in which bumbling elders assert their old-fashioned authority with a romantic, affectionate scene between the two Athenian lovers. Lysander: How now my love? Why is your cheek so pale? How chance the roses there do fade so fast? Hermia:Belike for want of rain, which I could well Besteem them, from the tempest of my eyes. Lysander: Ay me: for aught that I could ever read, Could I ever hear by tale or history,

15

Knight, p.69

200465837

Page 12 of 14 The course of true love never did run smooth, But either it was different in blood. Hermia:O cross! too high to be enthralld to low Lysander: Or else misgraffed, in respect of years. Hermia:O spite! too old to be engagd to young Lysander: Or else it stood upon the choice of friends. Hermia: O hell! to choose love by anothers eyes ! (1.1.134-145)

Shakespeare forms a symmetrical duet between the lovers, fraught with sibilance and romantic lamentation, similar to the structure of the pilgrim sonnet of the great tragedy Romeo and Juliet.16Similarly, they affectionately finish each others sentences, mimic one anothers language patterns and use vivid opposition to show the disharmony between their true love and Egeuss imposing restrictions. Their preoccupation with eye imagery could also be seen as a gift from Shakespeare; hinting at the visual disruption the rest of the play has to offer, the lovers have more inside knowledge and intelligence, albeit unknowingly, than the repressive father figure. Despite this, at the end of the play, a horn announces the end of the illusion and insanity and signifies their return from the woods as re-instating them into civilisation, a patriarchal, suppressive authority still reigns in the courtly world. Yet Shakespeares favourable portrayal of the young, irrational love highlights the uglier side of patriarchal repression. Authoritative strife, although most of Shakespeares comedic plots have strands of a power struggle, is resolved by the end of his play. Romantic comedies broken nuptials, for example, release and exorcise external and internal threats to the marital union,17 yet, after the chastising of a female or a restored figure of authority, the system is restored to its original functioning. Shakespeare, however, by consistently undermining the many degrees of the authority in our society, highlights their hypocrisies and leaves the audience to contemplate its fallibility and
16 17

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (London: Penguin Popular Classics,1994) Neely, p.26

200465837

Page 13 of 14 imperfections. The unresolved hypocrisies, then, serve as an ominous reminder that aspects of the authoritative restraint we are subjugated by are socially inescapable; comedy allows us to question the hierarchical order and, more poignantly, who has the real right to enforce it.

200465837

Page 14 of 14 Word count: 4,092 Bibliography:

Boas, Frank S., Shakespeare and his Predecessors (London: J.Murray, 1940) Cinthio, G.B, Hecatommithi (In Vingeia: Appresso Enea de Alaris, 1574) Dusinberre, Juliet, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996) Iyer, Pico, Tropical Classical: Essays from Several Directions (New York: Vintage, 1998) Kermode, Frank, Shakespeares Best Comedy in Shakespeares A Midsummer Nights Dream ed. by Antony Price (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983) Knight, G. Wilson, Dissension in Fairyland in Shakespeares A Midsummer Nights Dream ed. by Antony Price (London: Macmillan Press Ltd, 1983) Laroque, Francois, Shakespeares Festive World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) Marlowe, Christopher, The Jew of Malta (London: Metheun Drama, 2009) Shakespeare, William, A Midsummer Nights Dream (London: Penguin Popular Classics, 1994) Shakespeare, William, Measure for Measure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) Shakespeare, William, Merchant of Venice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) Shakespeare, William, Romeo and Juliet (London: Penguin Popular Classics,1994) Shakespeare, William, The Winters Tale (London: Arden Shakespeare, 2010) Shakespeare, William, Twelfth Night (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009) Smith, Peter J., Social Shakespeare: aspects of Renaissance dramaturgy and contemporary society (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995)

200465837