1

Kelly Burke

Dr. Stump

English 432

9 April 2014

Shakespeare and the Influence of Women

Women’s roles during the Elizabethan Era could ideally be presented with few words:

“meek and patient, pliant and duteous, and silent and uncomplaining” (Belsey 177). Their most

important duty was to procreate for the sake of lineage, and the “meaning of what it [was] to be a

woman” was structured mostly around the family unit (Belsey 171). They were not expected or

encouraged to attend to political matters, defy male figures (especially their fathers and

husbands), or partake in loud and aggressive speech. Men, on the other hand, were expected to

behave in a significantly different manner. Manliness was often associated with “heroic

violence,” with “the more civilized virtues of feeling and compassion” playing lesser roles,

especially for nobles for whom expressions of power were necessary tools to maintain their rule

(Wells 117). It was typically considered anomalous, even unnatural, when women would act in

such ways, and these trespassers tended to be stigmatized by wider society (Smith 144).

Shakespeare, however, did not conform to these strict gender roles as closely as one

might expect, blurring the lines between what was considered “masculine” and what was

considered “feminine.” Two plays that exemplify these warped gender notions are Richard III,

in which women are bold enough to confront their despotic leader about the error of his ways,

while a majority of the male characters shy away from Richard’s wrath, and Macbeth, where

2

women encourage, and even revel in, acts of destruction. These women are neither helpless nor

weak, and they do not mindlessly support their social superiors or confine themselves to the

family unit. Their words and actions have an undeniably negative effect upon men, even if they

do not initially appear to be more than facetious expressions of rage. By overlooking such vital

conflicts, the male rulers ultimately seal their bloody fates.

Admittedly, these women initially appear powerless, as their social prominence is given

to them mainly by their husbands. They are made to suffer under male tyrants who view them as

little more than objects to be exploited. For example, Lady Anne is unable to provide her father-

in-law with a proper king’s burial; as a widowed member of the losing faction, she is not taken

seriously and is thus unable to exercise any political power, even to obtain what many nobles

took for granted (1.2, 29-33). This state of vulnerability also influences her ultimate acceptance

of Richard as her husband, as she recognizes his instability and has little doubt that he would

harm her if the situation would advantage him (1.2, 43-46). Anne accurately scrutinizes his

character (“dreadful minister of hell”), as Richard later poisons her to open up an opportunity to

marry the politically superior Elizabeth, daughter of the former queen of the same name (4.4,

204-360). Queen Elizabeth and the Duchess of York are unable to stop Richard from killing

their beloved sons, and Queen Margaret is dispossessed of everything she once held dear: her

family, her crown, and her ability to roam the kingdom freely (1.3, 112).

Women are no more politically empowered in Macbeth, with only two noblewomen

making appearances throughout the entire play. Lady Macbeth possesses no direct social

influence independent of her marriage to Macbeth, even when she becomes Queen of Scotland.

Other powerful men view her primarily as hostess when they visit the castle, and while they

behave respectfully towards her, they do not afford her any special recognition (1.7, 28-31).

3

They demand to be led to Macbeth, their host, whom they reserve their praises for: “Give me

your hand./Conduct me to mine host. We love him highly,/and shall continue our graces towards

him./By your leave, hostess” (1.7, 28-31). Lady Macduff is even more vulnerable, perhaps the

most victimized woman of the entire play, as her husband’s political moves leave her alone to

watch over their two children while looking suspicious in a crime the family did not commit (4.2,

3-5). The suspected treason ultimately leads to Macbeth’s ordered assassination of the family,

the members of which are entirely unable to defend themselves or escape (4.2, 80-85).

Despite women’s lack of direct social influence, they manage to affect the political

sphere in a less visible manner: they bring about their desired changes through their husbands

and other powerful men, the magnitude of which are significant enough to alter future dynasties.

In fact, dynastic change is historically one of the only political areas women had a decent amount

of power over, as they more or less directly controlled the “transmission of patrilineage”

(Chamberlain 73). This control was asserted in a number of ways, ranging from “infidelity” to

“infanticide,” and caused a great deal of tension during the Elizabethan Era (Chamberlain 74).

Women also implicitly influenced their husbands while the latter group was in the process of

deciding who their daughter should marry, which could make or break the continuation of

another family’s line (Chamberlain 74).

It is through similar methods that Queen Elizabeth is able to save her daughter from

marriage to Richard, a union she intuitively determined would end in disaster for the weaker

party. While she initially appears to deny that Richard has any possible chance of wedding her

daughter (“… There is no other way,/Unless thou couldst put on some other shape,/And not be

Richard, that hath done all this”), she eventually agrees to allow him to court Elizabeth (“Shall I

go win my daughter to thy will?) (4.4, 271-273 and 4.4, 357). However, she is merely putting on

4

a façade, as she has witnessed firsthand how brutal Richard becomes when he has set his sights

on a particular goal or when external forces interfere with his schemes. Later on, Queen

Elizabeth promises Elizabeth’s hand to Richmond, Richard’s primary rival, without Richard’s

knowledge (5.1, 17-18). Not only does Queen Elizabeth save her daughter’s life, but effectively

makes her the mother of the next dynasty, as young Elizabeth’s future husband defeats Richard

in battle.

Margaret, to a certain degree, also influences the change of dynasty. By killing York and

Rutland, members of Richard’s faction, she inadvertently paves the way for Richard to advance

his political career (Smith 152). Richard’s success leads to the downfall of the Lancastrian

faction, signaling another change of dynasty. In an ultimate twist of irony, Margaret eventually

influences the restoration of the Lancastrian faction as well, which, when united with the House

of York through the young Elizabeth, became the new dynasty known as the House of Tudor

(Smith 145). By cursing Richard and thus singling him out as the future cause of misfortune, the

other members of the York faction grow even more distrustful of him than they already are.

Coupled with Richard’s hostilities, this fundamental malaise leads several members of his own

faction to turn against him, which ultimately cripples his war effort and influences his defeat

(4.5, 5-15). All in all, Margaret gets her way: most of her enemies are dead, and those that

remain have little interest in plaguing her.

Lady Macbeth inspires even more radical changes through her influence over her

husband, prompting the end of an older dynasty which is eventually replaced by Fleance’s more

influential one. Once she learns of the prophecy stating that her husband shall be king, she is so

determined that he should attain this position that she urges him to seize it by force, specifically

through underhanded murder: “He that’s coming/Must be provided for; and you shall put/This

5

night’s great business into my dispatch,/Which shall to all our nights and days to come/Give

solely sovereign sway and masterdom” (1.5, 64-68). While Macbeth desired the crown

independently of his wife’s influence (“Let not light see my black and deep desires”), there is a

good chance that he would not have acted as soon as he did without Lady Macbeth’s influence

(1.4, 51). He is very meticulous and questioning by nature, evidenced by his charges that Lady

Macbeth does not consider the consequences of their actions and his instillation of a spy network

intruding upon every nobleman’s house, which was put into place before the beginning of the

play (3.4, 130-131). Lady Macbeth was also the mastermind of the plan, which actually played

out smoothly; not until Macbeth had Banquo assassinated before the banquet did most people

begin to suspect him, as his erratic behavior quickly betrayed darker machinations (3.4, 74-82).

Women in both plays, however, have an even greater ability than strict political

influence through powerful male figures and dynastic succession: they are, in fact, the most

psychologically in-tune and thus the most successful at manipulating the male rulers’ thoughts

and emotions. There are two remarkable instances of this manipulation in Richard III, both

taking the form of women cursing their foes. The first to do this is Queen Margaret, who curses

Queen Elizabeth, Hastings, Rivers, Dorset, Buckingham and Richard, whom she blames for her

current sorrows (1.3, 185-211). All of these curses come to pass, most importantly those placed

on Richard, who, as the protagonist, drives a majority of the events in throughout the play. The

misfortunes she levies against him include mistaking friends for foes, and vice versa, and never

being able to sleep peacefully again (1.3, 219-224).

By cursing Richard to mistake the intentions of those he keeps close to him, Margaret is

doing more than fortune-telling: she is shrewd and has judged Richard’s character, later applying

these judgments into a vague projection that would logically occur considering his personality

6

and his position. Richard’s nature is paradoxical, as he simultaneously possesses both hubris and

paranoia (hence his rampant executions). His arrogance leads him to believe that he can

outsmart or overpower anyone in his vicinity, while his paranoia leads him to question everyone,

and he is thus liable to be a poor judge of character. Therefore, he is likely to misjudge those

around him, thus resulting in Margaret’s vague, yet appropriate, curse. Margaret’s assertions

raise Richard’s suspicions against others, which feed into his cycle of executions that ultimately

spurs on his demise. This same formula holds true for the sleeplessness portion of the curse. As

Richard is already paranoid, and has the death of countless people on his hands, it is likely that

he would experience disturbed sleep.

Queen Elizabeth and the Duchess of York later partake in cursing Richard as well, as

they have suffered the losses of sons and other loved ones at his hands. Their words are

merciless, with the Duchess of York saying she regretted ever giving birth to Richard and

dooming him to die a death as bloody as the deeds he has ordered, while Queen Elizabeth says

she would “corrupt her [daughter’s] manners, stain her beauty,/Slander myself false to Edward’s

bed,/Throw over her the veil of infamy./So she may live unscarred of bleeding slaughter,/I will

confess she was not Edward’s daughter” (4.4, 207-211). These words are spoken to save the

younger Elizabeth from Richard’s wrath. The women deal him the greatest damage, however,

by mentioning Clarence and his son Ned, Rivers, Vaughan, Gray and Hastings, all of whom

Richard has had killed. This disturbs Richard to such an extent that he orders the band to play

over their cursing, so that the public cannot discern their words (4.4, 149-151).

By mentioning these particular persons, the Duchess and Queen Elizabeth bring them to

the forefront of Richard’s mind, so it is no coincidence that their ghosts appear to him as he is in

the midst of a fitful sleep (5.5, 71-130). These disturbing visions wreak havoc on his already

7

deteriorating and sleep-deprived mind, which negatively impacts his usually fierce and precise

combat skills, leading to his death at the hands of Richmond. His body is clearly affected as

well: while he had initially planned to wake at sunrise, he does not awaken until “The early

village cock/Hath twice done salutation to the morn” (5.5, 163-164). This effect is made

especially clear through the voice of Lady Anne’s ghost: “Richard, thy wife, that wretched Anne

thy wife,/That never slept a quiet hour with thee,/Now fills thy sleep with

perturbations./Tomorrow in the battle think of me,/And fall they edgeless sword./Despair and

die” (5.5, 113-117). Even in death, women continue to assert psychological power over male

leaders.

But perhaps the epitomes of psychological manipulators are found in Macbeth, in the

forms of the witches. Shakespeare’s inspiration for these characters is found in Holinshed’s

histories, where they appear as “goddesses of destiny, or else some nymphs or fairies”

(Holinshed 163). They have been greatly modified being described as witches, which, unlike the

neutral or good parties of goddesses and fairies, are distinctly wicked. As far as powerful

women go, they are at the top of the pinnacle: not only are they independent of the human

peerage system that privileges male power, but their supreme ruler is also a queen. Unlike Lady

Macbeth and the noblewomen present in Richard III, the witches are not torn between remorse

and spite; rather, they thrive in chaos, which they generate solely for their own amusement (1.3,

1-35). As outsiders of human society, they have nothing to gain, political or otherwise, by

influencing Macbeth’s bloody reign. What makes their powers most fearsome is that they do not

even have to give Macbeth direct orders or advice to influence the action he takes. They do not

tell him that he should seize the title Thane of Cawdor and later the crown, or that murdering

Banquo would not eliminate any threats to his power. Rather, they merely tell him that he will

8

be Thane of Cawdor as well as king, and while speaking precisely, offer him no hint how such

things will come to pass (1.3, 46-48).

By presenting their prophecy in such a way, they demonstrate their depth of knowledge

of his character. They can sense the darkness within his heart, and know exactly which buttons

to press to spur him into action. This is why they address him initially, but do not speak to

Banquo until he demands they foretell his future as well (1.3, 55-59). The witches appear to

have intuitively deciphered that Banquo is not ambitious enough to advance his claim, even

when given such a heavy prophecy. Their assessments are later confirmed as correct, as Banquo

does nothing to act on the predictions he has been given, dying by the hands of assassins and

never witnessing his son founding his royal line (3.4, 17-18). The witches do not appear to be

interested in passive players, who do not contribute directly to their entertainment.

One of Shakespeare’s most interesting alterations of Holinshed’s chronicle is the addition

of the Queen of the Witches, Hecate, who is the epitome of a wicked and empowered female

force. She shows herself to be a skilled judge of character as well, which determines the visions

Macbeth later witnesses. She says of him, “the strength of [the spirit’s] illusion,/Shall draw him

on to his confusion./He shall spurn fate, scorn death, and bear/His hopes ‘bove wisdom, grace,

and fear;/And you all know security/Is mortals’ chiefest enemy” (3.5, 28-33). Hecate knows that

Macbeth is arrogant by nature, and thus knows that even though he will be warned of his greatest

foe, he will dismiss it due to nitpicking the prophecy. Macbeth tunes in on the “none of woman

born Shall harm Macbeth” portion while ignoring the warning “beware Macduff” and “Macbeth

shall never vanquished be until/Great Birnam Wood to High Dunsinane Hill/Shall come against

him” (4.1, 107-109). The witches and Hecate are able to amuse themselves by telling Macbeth

all he needs to know and then watching him fumble with the information. Even by revealing his

9

only weaknesses, they know the bloodshed will still be accomplished, and they are free to urge

Macbeth along the path he is unaware they have influenced him to start treading.

Perhaps Shakespeare was equally as perceptive as his female characters, for he saw many

things his contemporaries often overlooked. He realized that most women cannot be neatly

defined by arbitrary gender stereotypes. They are as power-hungry as men, as assertive as men,

and even as vile and manipulative as men, yet are often better at manipulating men than most

men would feel comfortable admitting. Arrogance, a stereotypically male trait, is easily bent to

the manipulator’s will. These women and their deeds could, in effect, serve as a form of

cautionary tale: be careful who you underestimate, for it could result in your demise. Indeed, the

male protagonists influenced in these plays ended up dead by violence, which could have been

avoided if they had been more in-tune with the inner workings of their female influencers. No

one is safe from destruction, especially those who deny that others, especially social inferiors,

could bring about this fate.