Redefining Renaissance ideas of Women Gender Roles in Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure”.

Ebtisam Jafar, Lifelong Learner

Shakespeare redefines the conceptual idea of gender roles for females in regards to renaissance ideas, in “Measure for Measure”. These ideas about gender seem to have played a significant role in identifying the personal identity of the heroine Isabella. Shakespeare experiments with reversing her role by allowing her to possess some masculine qualities that were unheard of in the Elizabethan period. We see this with her interactions with Angelo and her brother Claudio.

To comprehend the personas in Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure”, one must first understand the renaissance ideas on gender roles, which differed significantly for both sexes. Men, being regarded as superior, were the overpowering, domineering figure in Elizabethan society. They played the authoritative role over the female gender both domestically and globally. “Men were the verdict voice over all aspects of society” (Rackin 53).

In the early 1600’s, which was about the time “Measure for Measure” was written; women had virtually no control over their role in society. They were presumed to act submissively and passively in their homes as well as in public. They busily attended to their domestic duties such as child-rearing and house chores. “Women are those whom nature hath made to keep home and to nourish their family and children, and not to meddle with matters abroad” (Greenblatt 9). As critic Roberts points out “women were seen as closer than men to animals in the Great Chain of Being” (Roberts 25). Another attribute woman in this era had but was limited to was the opportunity to receive grammar schooling or college education. Women were compared to being physically unable to saturate the same material as men and therefore were reflected as being weak physically, morally and mentally. Women had little to be accomplished and proud of because of their role in society.

Conformity to conventional female gender roles as in that suggestive for Elizabethans hinders an individual’s self-identification and awareness. Isabella doesn’t conform to societies views that are subjected to her and therefore aids in her gaining self-distinctiveness (“Lead us not into Temptation: Seduction, Desire and the Low “ website). We see this when she interacts with Angelo, the hypocritical deputy to Duke Vincentio. Her resolute character comes through when she initially meets Angelo. In trying to proclaim her defense for her brother, she states that his majesty should reconsider his sentence for if the roles were reversed he would not want this to happen to him:

“I would to heaven I had your potency, And you were Isabel! Should it then be thus? No; I would tell what `twere to be a judge,And what a prisoner” (2.2 69). [1]

She continues her ammunition toward Angelo with comparing him to “having a giants strength but being tyrannous to use it like a giant” in Act 2, Scene 2. She tells him “Man, proud man, Dressed in a little brief authority […] Plays such fantastic tricks before high

heaven As make the angels weep…” (2.2 120). She also is bold to ask him to consider

whether he has not some guilt similar to her brother’s. Her strapping approach toward a prominent figure like Angelo is un-feminine. It is stated in the Norton Shakespeare that

women are limited “to have a voice in public debates, or even to simply speak their mind fully and openly in ordinary conversation. They have no authority in decisions. Women who asserted their views too vigorously risked being perceived as shrewish and labeled ‘scolds’” (Greenblatt 10). Shakespeare breaks this rule with Isabella therefore promoting a healthy growth for her true identity.

When Isabella’s character intercepts with Claudio’s character he encourages her corruption by enticing her to give up her chastity to Angelo to save himself:

“Sweet sister, let me live. What sin you do to save a brother’s life, Nature dispenses with the deed so far, That it becomes a virtue” (3.1 134).

Through the eyes of Claudio it is not understandable as to why his sister wouldn’t sacrifice her body to Angelo even if it meant setting him free. What Claudio can’t fathom is that this immeasurable sacrifice he begged of Isabella is not of her body but of her immortal soul in heaven.

“O, you beast! O faithless coward, O dishonest wretch, Wilt thou be made a man out of my vice? Is’t not a kind of incest to take life, From thine own sister’s shame? What should I think?” (3.1 138).

Shakespeare’s female audiences sympathize with Isabella because she is not weighing Claudio’s life against her chastity, but his non-perpetual life on earth against her immortal life. She speaks to her female audience: “More than our brother is our chastity” (2.4 185). By Isabella deciding to help Claudio, she has to put to side her secular and sacred religious beliefs, which in turn would corrupt her being afterlife.

“Better it were a brother died at onceThan that a sister, by redeeming him, Should die for ever” (2.4 107).

The question she has is that she either gives up her chastity and her prelude to an eternal afterlife as well as risk breaking the law or save the life of her beloved brother. Shakespeare resolves her nature to mimic and exemplify the actions of corrupt male characters such as Angelo and Claudio who already defied the law of fornication (although Isabella doesn’t do the bad deed herself, she aids in it). One questions her actions in interfering with Claudio’s sentence. If she is in opposition to breaching the law why doesn’t she let justice be served with Claudio? Why does she break from her set feminine role of being reserved and modest and maintaining her pureness and goodness to aid Claudio? To answer these questions one needs to review Shakespearean laws governing marriage and sexuality.

Marriage was a sacred state that bound the love of a man and woman who sought procreation. This courtship of marriage has to be arranged by friends or parents. Secret marriages were considered unlawful. After marriage a couple needed to consummate their legal rights to be betrothed. It is a Christian sin if the couple doesn’t consummate their marriage or if consummation was done prior to the religious ceremony. (“Marriage and Inheritance in Shakespeare’s Era” website). Claudio and Juliet have broken two of these conventions. Although they were married by common law, they did so secretly and also they practiced sexual acts prior to marriage. Isabella was aware of their illegal acts and by helping Claudio in the plot toward Angelo she therefore reunites and legitimizes her brother’s marriage as well as saves him. Also she wanted her own justice on Angelo for his prohibited request in asking for her celibacy. In her doing this she risks and surrenders her rights and beliefs as an ideal woman in Elizabethan society and therefore aids in her own corruption.

One could question the way Shakespeare has Isabella acting aggressively toward male figures in “Measure for Measure” and rejecting her acceptance as a female heroine. If Isabella took her stance as a pious, obscured and silent women, would Angelo, Claudio or the Duke treat her differently? Is Shakespeare relating to male figures and their upstanding role in society in this way? The answer might lie with the plays connection geared toward a male audience and English renaissance women parts being played by adolescent males. One could also answer this in Shakespeare’s world being a male dominating society and their attitudes toward women (Rackin 53).

In a period where women where viewed as lower in status to men, one could sympathize with Elizabethan women. There are some cultures that still possess the qualities of women’s inferiority over men. “Measure for Measure” is a not an exemplifying play toward renaissance values that offers a real resolution to the problem of gender. Shakespeare’s female characters take on masculine personality traits, which in turn breaks from conformity and aids in the growth of their true identity.

Work Cited:

[1] “All references to “Measure for Measure” are taken from the Greenblatt edition”