Introductory Essay
Renaissance literature is “concerned with the dissemination and imitation of classical forms” (Hattaway 2000: 3). Shakespeare’s work is at the epicentre of Renaissance criticism and study, with his work being used as a criterion to measure the greatness of his contemporaries. This essay will explore the relationship between Shakespeare’s writing and that of his contemporaries.
The primary difference between Shakespeare and his contemporaries is that Shakespeare’s work is less political. For instance, Greenblatt (1980: 253) argues that Shakespeare takes a more orthodox approach to writing about his culture. Critics, such as Smith (2018: 2), suggest that this orthodox approach makes Shakespeare’s work less important than his contemporaries. Nevertheless, this view may be caused by studying Shakespeare’s dramas as texts rather than performances, providing readers with the leisure to deconstruct and over-analyse Shakespeare’s work. Kidnie (2000 cites David 1989: 1) claims that Shakespeare’s plays were intended for the theatre and that when they are performed, the words are amplified by the staging— creating a stronger sense of realism that is not captured within texts. Hence, when Shakespeare’s dramas are studied as performances, his seemingly orthodox approach, perhaps, isn’t as conservative as critics, such as Smith (2018: 2), suggest. For instance, when reviewing a performance of one of Shakespeare’s dramas, it becomes evident that while “it is never quite true that ‘Shakespeare says’ something. It is one of his characters who coveys a political message” (Morris 1965: 295). This refutes the idea that Shakespeare’s work is not as politically engaged as his contemporaries. Arguably, Shakespeare’s orthodox approach can be regarded as a mastery of objectivity. This ability to detach the personal from the political further elevates Shakespeare’s universal appeal, because his approach does not alienate or reprimand his audience for their political positions, unlike the more heterodox approaches taken by his more radical contemporaries, such as Marlowe.
Within Renaissance literature, there is an overwhelming tendency to construct a binary opposition between women and men. Female subservience and sexual passivity are almost innate characteristics of women within both Shakespeare’s and his contemporaries’ work. Rackin (2005: 114) proposes that one should not universalise these representations of women within Renaissance literature to the real women of that period, because gender, religion and class were all interdependent. Therefore, if one takes into consideration the influence of class and religion, seemingly two-dimensional female figures, perhaps, become more complex than initially perceived. This does not necessarily apply to the representation of men and their roles within Elizabethan society. Therefore, like his contemporaries, Shakespeare quite often fails to explore the motivations of his female characters to the extent that he, perhaps, does with his male characters.
Feminist criticism appears to be central to understanding the relationship between Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Within both Shakespeare’s and his contemporaries’ work, the activities of women are “heavily mediated by male representation and the constraints of literary convention (Callaghan 2016: 2). According to Callaghan (2016: 2), it is not necessarily the way in which female figures are constructed that is essential to Shakspearian Feminism. Instead, it is the accuracy of these presentations and the extent to which these presentations contribute to, or dismantle, ideas concerning femininity and gender (Callaghan 2016: 2). Therefore, while one could demerit Shakespeare’s and his cotemporaries’ portrayal of gender and sexuality, feminist critique suggests that writers of the early modern period should not be discredited entirely for unfavourable representations of women, as long as these presentations are somewhat accurate and do not have a negative social impact (Callaghan 2016: 2). While feminist critique doses provide a somewhat useful approach, one cannot ignore the fact that it does not provide an objective criterion for determining the accuracy of female representations or determining the social impact of female portrayals within Renaissance literature. This means that it is difficult to utilise feminist criticism to compare the ways in which Shakespeare and his contemporaries portray gender.
When analysing the relationship between Shakespeare and his contemporaries, one cannot ignore the influence of genre. Bishop and Starkey (2006: 95) claim that genre refers to categories of literary composition, and that a writer’s “success or failure in any genre [should be] judged by how well [they] adhere to the standards articulated by classical theorists” like Aristotle and Ovid. When analysing Shakespeare and his contemporaries’ work, classical influences are abundant. Therefore, when evaluating the importance of genre on the relationship between Shakespeare and his contemporaries, one cannot ignore the influence of their predecessors in establishing the conventions of the genres utilised by Renaissance writers. Hence, any similarities or differences between the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries can be viewed as an attempt to either adhere to, or innovate upon, the genres established before them rather than a direct reaction to their contemporaries.
Critical Anthology
William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus
Titus Andronicus is a revenge tragedy written by William Shakespeare in the early 1590s. The tragedy details the conflict between the Romans and the Goths, with the Andronicus family at the heart of this conflict. The play conforms to the genre of a revenge tragedy, suggesting that physical vulnerability and femininity are synonymous, which ultimately culminates in rape. As Kahn (1997: 16-17) notes “the generic codes of revenge tragedy make Lavinia’s… wounds into Titus’s injuries, reconstructing him into a revenge hero with a warrant for murder”. Titus firmly believes “he that wounded [Lavinia] hath hurt me more than had he killed me dead”: Lavinia’s rape is the tragedy “that gives [Titus’s] soul the greatest spurn” (Shakespeare 2008: 3.1.91-92). Similar to other dramas, such as Ben Jonson’s Volpone, the play suggests that lust does not warrant men uninvited access to women’s bodies. However, there is an overall suggestion that Lavinia’s rape is only condemned because of the destruction it causes to the honour of her husband and family. Thus, the fact that Titus takes Lavinia’s rape as a personal tragedy highlights that Lavinia’s body does not belong to her: Lavinia has not personally been raped— her entire family has. While Titus’ actions may be viewed as self-less, it becomes evident that his actions are entirely self-serving when he murders Lavinia. One may argue that Titus’ reasoning for murdering Lavinia is because her family could not endure to “witness the sorrow that she makes” (3.1.119). Ergo, he kills Lavinia to end his own suffering rather than hers directly. The idea that women are worthless without their chastity and loyalty is mirrored through the character of Celia in Volpone.
Ben Jonson, Volpone
Volpone is a comedy play written by Ben Jonson in 1606. In the play, a wealthy, elderly man pretends to be ill to exploit those who wish to inherit his wealth. Jonson’s use of satire conforms to the genre of a comedy and sharply contrasts to the sombre tone of Titus Andronicus. Though Celia represents the ideal, chaste Renaissance woman, her pleas in court are interpreted as hysteria and are used to debase her testimony: “These are no testimonies.” (Jonson 2018: 4.6.18). This dramatically contrasts to the sympathetic attitude shared towards Lavinia in Titus Andronicus. While one may infer that Jonson, therefore, does not condemn rape in the same way that, perhaps, Shakespeare does, it is important to note that Celia is not in fact raped. Celia is rescued by Bonario who scorns Volpone for his predatory behaviour: “Forbear, foul ravisher, libidinous swine!” (3.8.267). Therefore, to some extent Jonson does in fact condemn rape. Nonetheless, while Jonson does subtly indicate that Volpone’s lust is grotesque, Volpone is not directly punished for his attempts to rape Celia: “confiscate to the hospital of the Icurabli; and since most was gotten by imposture… though art to lie in prison”. (5.12.119-123). This demonstrates Elizabethan society’s inability to protect women and their bodies until women were actually assaulted. In addition, the fact that Corvinio offers Celia’s body as a gift to Volpone to protect his honour and ensure his future financial stability highlights that female chastity is enshrined in male economy and identity—directly paralleling attitudes towards chastity in Titus Andronicus.
William Shakespeare, Venus and Adonis
Venus and Adonis is an epyllion written by William Shakespeare in 1592. Venus, the goddess of love, attempts to seduce the young Adonis, who is indifferent to her advances and wishes to hunt undisturbed. While this relationship of inequity is an expectation of Renaissance poetry, it is Venus who is consumed by lust and she takes on the active role conventionally reserved for male lovers: “Sick-thoughted Venus makes amain unto him, And like a bold-faced suitor ‘gins to woo him” (Shakespeare 2008: 5-6). Moreover, it is evident that Adonis is completely devoid of sexual desire, challenging the literary norm that males are inherently sexually oriented: “he red for shame, but frosty in desire” (36). The grotesque nature of Venus’ desires mirrors that of the male characters in both Volpone and Titus Andronicus. Williams (1983: 770) suggests that it is significant that Shakespeare portrays the grotesque under a female guise because female assertiveness was a growing concern for men in Shakespearean society. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Venus is not an ordinary woman. Her power and physical strength as a god mirrors that of a man, which warrants Venus the freedom to act upon her lust, unlike Christopher Marlowe’s Hero. Therefore, it is clear that the story of Venus and Adonis represents the threat of high-powered women to male assertiveness, rather than women as a whole. This is also true for Shakespeare’s Tamora, who has a lower-ranking lover as well as a husband. The power imbalance that characterises male and female relationships in Shakespeare’s and Jonson’s work is not evident in Marlowe’s Hero and Leander.
Christopher Marlowe, Hero and Leander
Comparable to Venus and Adonis, Christopher Marlowe’s epyllion, Hero and Leander, 1592, was heavily influenced by the Roman poet Ovid. Both of these works are indebted to classical influences and appear to subtly repackage classical ideas about gender and sexuality. The play charts Leander’s pursuit of the maiden Hero, who eventually succumbs to her lust and consummates her relationship with Leander. Though Leander occupies the conventional active male role and desperately pursues Hero, he is aware that he “cannot force [her] love” (Marlowe 2018: 414). In this way, Leander differs from the males portrayed in the works discussed above, because he is able to manage his sexual desires and wishes to gain Hero’s consent. Marlowe’s illustration of unconventional masculinity creates tension between traditional and non-traditional modes of thought, because Marlowe implies that equitable and consensual relationships are only able to emerge in non-hyper-masculine spaces. Furthermore, the employment of queer imagery and homoeroticism within Hero and Leander suggests that lust extends beyond heteronormative conventions. For instance, Marlowe does not treat Neptune’s attraction to Leander as something shameful. Instead, it is Hero who exhibits shame once she consummates her relationship with Leander: “So Heroes ruddie cheeke, Hero betrayd” (807). Similarly, Shakespeare suggests that Venus’ sexual aggression is improper: “Sick-thoughted Venus” (Shakespeare 2008: 5). Thus, both Marlowe and Shakespeare suggest that only male sexuality is acceptable in all of its forms (whether it is violent or effeminate).
References
Bishop, W. and Starkey, D. (2006) Keywords in Creative Writing. [online] available from <www.jstor.org> [11th November 2019]
Callaghan, D. (2016) A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell
Greenblatt, S. (1980) Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Hattaway, M. (2000) A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell
Jonson, B. (2018) Volpone. in The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Sixteenth Century and Early Seventeenth Century. ed. by Greenblatt, S. New York: W. W. Norton
Kahn, C. (1997) Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women. London: Routledge
Kidnie, M.J. (2000) Text, Performance, and the Editors: Staging Shakespeare’s Drama. [online] available from <www.jstor.org> [8th November 2019]
Marlowe, C. (2018) Hero and Leander. in The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Sixteenth Century and Early Seventeenth Century. ed. by Greenblatt, S. New York: W. W. Norton
Morris, C. (1965) Shakespeare’s Politics. [online] available from <www.jstor.org> [11th November 2019]
Rackin, P. (2005) Shakespeare and Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Shakespeare, W. (2008) Titus Andronicus. in The RSC Shakespeare: The Complete Works. ed. by Bate, J. and Rasmussen, E. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Shakespeare, W. (2008) Venus and Adonis. in The RSC Shakespeare: The Complete Works. ed. by Bate, J. and Rasmussen, E. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Smith, M. (2018) Breaking Boundaries: Politics and Play in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. [online] available from < https://www.taylorfrancis.com> [8th November 2019]
Williams, G. (1983) The Coming of Age of Shakespeare’s Adonis. [online] available from <www.jstor.org> [12th November 2019]
