Misogyny in William Shakespeare's Hamlet' and John Webster’s ‘The Duchess of Malfi’

R. Howard Bloch argues misogyny is “a discourse visible across a broad spectrum of poetic types”. A pervading mindset which has permeated society since time immemorial, “so persistent is the discourse of misogyny” Bloch states “that the uniformity of its terms furnishes an important link between the Middle Ages and the present”. At the same time, while he allows that there have been changes within the discourse, he maintains that this “suggests that the very tenacity of the topoi of antifeminism is significant in and of itself”. This essay looks at misogyny within the early modern period through the lens of two powerfully emotive plays, the first, ‘Hamlet’, arguably Shakespeare’s best and ‘The Duchess of Malfi’, arguably John Webster’s best. Both tell the story of a revenge tragedy, a story with a trajectory so tragic as to wonder who or if there even is a hero within the story. The tales are intertwined with misogyny throughout, be it from the playwright’s purposeful inclusion or his own pervasive misogyny. This essay, using studies by R. Howard Bloch, David Leverenz, Shihoko Hamada, and more, will seek the truth of Christina Luckyj’s assumption that “misogyny is effectively countered” in early modern literature. Beginning with Ophelia’s plight, followed by Hamlet then finishing with the Duchess, this work will argue that in actuality, due to the time period, although a playwright could be more affable to women, misogyny was so pervasive that it was not possible that the plays were written to counter misogyny.

Within Act 1 Scene 3 of ‘Hamlet’, the audience is introduced to Ophelia, who has been dating the Prince of Demark, Hamlet. Ophelia and her brother Laertes are discussing said relationship. Laertes warns his sister that he believes that her relationship with Hamlet is “sweet not lasting” (1.2.6); her brother means well with his assertions about the Prince; however, he is without any genuine care for his sister’s emotions, they do not engage in conversation, he speaks at Ophelia with a long speech. He pleads her inferiority as a naive woman claiming, “it fits your wisdom so far to believe it” (1.2.25), when he speaks of any declaration of love in which Hamlet may have bestowed upon her. His misogyny is evident, as the play lends itself to the couple having been together for some time before the play begins, thus giving the relationship more credence than her brother allows. Ophelia leans into the patriarchal and familial expectations of her by agreeing to heed her brother’s advice. Therefore, Ophelia follows the expected patterns of a woman oppressed by patriarchal norms and is not circumnavigating them.

Furthermore, her father Polonius treats Ophelia as his possession, and he also believes Hamlet not to be of best intentions for Ophelia. However, although he agrees with Laertes that Ophelia is a “green girl” (1.2.101), he poses a different stance to her brother’s assertions. Polonius believes that Hamlet wishes to take her virginity and attempts to talk her out of her love for him, thus introducing familial devotion as Ophelia agrees to no longer see Hamlet; she succumbs to her oppression as she states, “I shall obey, my lord” (1.2.136). Even as “Polonius is deliberately unconcerned with what his daughter feels”, much as her brother is, Ophelia assumes the role of the dutiful sister and daughter and agrees to call off her romance. Polonius takes his patriarchal oppression further when he insists on listening when Ophelia returns the presents Hamlet gifted to her during their relationship. This further intrusion by her father shows, again, his neglect of Ophelia’s emotions, as she readily agrees to speak with a man, she had not long told him, she had “been so affrighted” (2.1.76).

Moreover, Ophelia begins her own descent into madness, as her family possesses and oppresses her feelings, and the man she loves declares he did not ever love her. Further, he alludes to her being a whore as she should “get thee to a nunnery” (3.1.122), which has a duality, more so than the meaning of a place of the Christian faith, this terminology also stood for brothels. Furthermore, Hamlet also uses Ophelia to rant on his hatred for women as a whole, furthering the patriarchal misogyny of the early modern period. He claims how all women are liars and not to be trusted with painted faces. Consequently, Ophelia’s oppression pushes her further and further into madness until suicide, and this is the cost to Ophelia as she is entirely compliant with those around her.

In Act 2, Scene 1, Ophelia, further obeying her father, recounts how Hamlet came to her in a disheveled state, giving Polonius rise to believe that Hamlet’s descent into madness is due to Ophelia having ended their relationship. However, it is argued by Shihoko Hamada that later within this scene, Hamlet pretends to acquire a ‘fake madness’ and therefore, he uses this as a way to keep his revenge plan hidden. Hamlet behaving in this way and how he has spoken to Ophelia and about women gives credence to the argument that Hamlet is himself a purveyor of patriarchal norms, a future king who hates women. However, Hamlet himself is a victim of the patriarchal society in which they reside. He sees deception at every turn from the opposite sex; he hates women, but with reason as the women in his life continue to deceive him, much as men do so to women.

Moreover, Hamlet is wrapped up in patriarchal ideals of how a man should act upon the knowledge of his father’s murder, however as the play shows; this goes against his nature hence his trouble with seeking revenge. His verbose language belies him, his poetic nature cheats him, and he fears the unknown. Hamlet feels he is not a brave man and knows he is not ready to send another man to his death. He claims that he “must be cruel” (3.4.167), knowing his words and actions are at odds with his soul. He wishes to embody the masculine expectations of the revenge he seeks to provide; he wishes to be strong and courageous and get the deed done, yet his anxieties have him avoiding the inevitable as often as he can. It is only when Claudius jumps up at the play that his destiny is sealed as Claudius shouts “give me some light” (3.2.254) thus Hamlet is a victim of patriarchal norms and misogyny, just the other side of which he is expected to uphold the virtues of it, while his self does not align with the expectations. Evidence of this self can be seen when he asks after his mother when she takes ill at the joust “how is the Queen” (5.2.262); here, Hamlet shows his true self.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

Therefore ‘pervasive misogyny’ is not ‘effectively countered’ in ‘Hamlet’, as both Ophelia and Hamlet embody patriarchal norms.

However, the story can be countered by that of the Duchess in ‘The Duchess of Malfi’. A woman who promises her brothers she will not remarry as a widow yet does so. A very different character, it would seem to that of Ophelia. The Duchess displays her agency when talking with her brothers about marriage. She proclaims, “Will you hear me?” (1.1.302), when her brothers are dissuading her from marriage, she states, “I shall never marry” (1.1.303). However, a game to her, she winks and does indeed not only marry but proposes to Antonio, thus incensing her brother Ferdinand, who wishes for her to remain a chaste widow and angers the Cardinal who calls for the same. However, “the early modem family as a dynastic unit does not fully account for the explicit sexual tension in this encounter of the Aragonian siblings” ergo both of her brothers having the same aim but different motives. The Cardinal is straightforward in that he wants as he says, “Shall our blood, The royal blood of Aragon and Castile, Be thus attainted?” (2.5.21-3), arguing how the Duchess will ruin the family’s bloodline, with blood a metaphor for pride and lineage, he is also led by greed. “Ferdinand is more complicated. Ferdinand seems to have an incestuous obsession with the Duchess. Therefore, he is obsessed with her and her sexual endeavors. He is incapable of imagining the Duchess in a happy and loving relationship “her in the shameful act of sin” (2.5.41) and only sees her as a vessel for sex “Haply with some strong thighed bargeman, Or one o’th’ wood-yard, that can quoit the sledge” (2.5.43-4), because that is what she is to him, a stark difference to the mother figure she has become in others’ eyes. He is pious and extreme in his morality surrounding sex, yet he is obsessed with his sister engaging in it. He wants her naught but crying over her dead husband’s tomb forever in black and mourning him basically “cased up, like a holy relic” (3.2.142), not as a person, but as a shrine.

Contrary to what her brothers believe of her once married to Antonio, she does claim that they can continue in chastity as her brothers’ wish “We’ll only lie, and talk together, and plot T’appease my humorous kindred; and if you please, Like the old tale, in ‘Alexander and Lodovic’, Lay a naked sword between us, keep us chaste” (1.1.499-502). Decrying her brothers’ suspicion that her children were born out of lust. However, the couple appears to live in a happy companionship rather than burdened by an all-consuming lustful passion expected of women during the early modern period. These proclamations by her brothers that she a lustful, immoral woman are synonymous with misogynistic hatred of women at the time, so it seems while the Duchess does have her agency, she does so within the sphere of continued misogyny as is fit for the time. Here is where the stark difference between the two twins is clearest the difference between good and evil. Between patriarchy and woman, the Duchess still, even through her brother’s torment, cared enough to ask, “I fear you are not well after your travel” (4.1.52), and although the Duchess is under the patriarchal sphere, she does not steer away from her true self.

Further to the misogynistic hate of her brother Ferdinand the Duchess, is killed by Bosola upon his command. However, as she dies, it is not as he wishes. She dies with dignity and poise. “I am the Duchess of Malfi still”, she claims (4.2.138); he does not manage even with his ghastly games to destroy her as he wishes. Her countenance is helped by her having lost everything. If she has nothing left to live for, why should she fear death? The madness of the patriarchy surrounds her, yet she keeps calm even as she is surrounded by mad men, wax corpses of her dead children and family who wish her dead. Conversely, through this act, she does become the uncorrupted memorial figure which cannot ever be besmirched again as Ferdinand wished, and thus he removes her agency as her oppressor, yet again.

While powerful, Ferdinand is morally corrupt, and thus he falls deeper and deeper into his madness throughout the play as his sister continually defies him. He wishes to kill his sister simply for not abiding by his commands which he emphasizes thus “whore’s blood” (2.5.49) “that shall quench [his] wild-fire” (2.5.48) only fire can assuage the infection in her blood, the infection which caused her defiance. Ferdinand cannot forgive her, nor is he willing to. The only way to resolve this is for him specifically to kill her. Nevertheless, when Bosola kills his sister and children, he goes completely mad. He is completely lost as he claims he will “hunt the badger by owl-light: “Tis a deed of darkness” (4.2.336-7). The brothers’ however, when they die, do not do so in dignity like the Duchess, they instead plead for their life, and Bosola declares to the Cardinal, “Now it seems thy greatness was only outward, For thou fall’st faster of thyself than calamity Can drive thee” (5.5.52-54). Consequently, Ferdinand has been consumed by his hatred of the Duchess; just as his sexual need for her consumes him, he is not countering pervasive misogyny.

Moreover, even the perfect Antonio is not without his patriarchal ideals. Even as perfect as he seems, Antonio lives under the guise of patriarchal norms. This is evidenced as he refers to single women as a “fruitless bay-tree”, a “pale empty reed” and “frozen into marble” (3.2.26-29) contrasting that with married women are “olive pomegranate, mulberry” (3.2.30) fruitful trees that nourish nature, confirming patriarchal ideas that single women are a certain way and married women another. Thus, the play cannot be said to circumnavigate patriarchal norms when the good characters display those very thoughts.

To conclude, although Luckyj is right to ask the question of misogyny in early modern literature, her affirmation that “pervasive misogyny is effectively countered by dramatic strategies also employed by contemporary defenses of women” is incorrect. While some characters, such as the Duchess, have a modicum of agency, the misogyny of the time was so ubiquitous that ‘The Duchess of Malfi’ nor ‘Hamlet’ do not offer a critique of misogyny. The Duchess creates her agency, but this is snatched away from her by her own brother; he is so displeased to his incestuous oppressive ends to see her happy that he insists she must die for nothing other than getting married and having a family. Moreover, it is the family in ‘Hamlet’ that keeps him oppressed patriarchally; even as he claims to hate women, he is stuck in the same oppression they are. Claudius treats him like a child; as a prince, he cannot choose his own wife, and the weighted expectations of masculinity weigh heavy on him. He knows that he is expected to avenge his father’s murder; he knows societally that is what is right; he also knows that this goes against his very nature, as evidenced within this essay and his soliloquies. While he is rude and cruel to Ophelia, he does so under his guise of madness, his guide of being the patriarchal warrior. Once that veneer slips, when he finds that Ophelia is dead, he is undone, and his mask slips as he declares he loves more than her own brother. Ophelia is the pinnacle of the oppressed patriarchal woman, even down to her suicide. She follows her families wishes and thus ends up descending into madness as further misogynistic expectations of her push her. Polonius controls her life, down to whom she can and cannot relate, and claims that Hamlet’s love is only proffered for her virginity. Similarly, to her father, her brother Laertes warns her away from Hamlet, claiming that she does not see what is true because she is but a mere naive woman. Therefore, this essay has demonstrated that early modern revenge tragedy did not counter misogyny, the stories from the time could not have, as misogyny was more insidious than it is today, and women still live under patriarchal control now.

Bibliography

1. Belsey, Catherine, ‘The Subject of Tragedy’ (London: Methuen, 1985).
2. Bevington, David M, Lars Engle, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Eric Rasmussen, ''The Duchess of Malfi' By John Webster in English Renaissance Drama' (New York: W.W. Norton, 2003), pp. 1755-1830.
3. Bloch, R. Howard, ‘Medieval Misogyny’, Representations, 20 (1987), 1-24.
4. Dawson, Anthony B, ‘Hamlet’ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995).
5. Foakes, Reginald Anthony, ‘Shakespeare and Violence’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
6. Haber, Judith, ‘'My Body Bestow Upon My Women’: The Space of The Feminine in ‘The Duchess of Malfi’', Renaissance Drama, 28 (1997), 133-159.
7. Hansen, Adam, and Paul Frazer, ‘The White Devil’ (London: Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2016), p. 158.
8. Harvey, Tamara, ‘Feminist Theory in Seventeenth-Century America’, Early American Literature, 44 (2009), 411-416.
9. Holderness, Graham, ‘The Shakespeare Myth’ (Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1991).
10. Howard, Jean E., ‘Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 39 (1988), 418-440.
11. Hufton, Olwen, ‘Women in History. Early Modern Europe’, Past and Present, 101 (1983), 125-141.
12. Jankowski, Theodora A., 'Defining Confining the Duchess: Negotiating the Female Body in John Webster's ‘The Duchess of Malfi’: Author(S)', Studies in Philology, 87 (1990), 221-245.
13. Kreps, Barbara Irene, 'The Paradox of Women: The Legal Position of Early Modern Wives and Thomas Dekker's The Honest Whore', ELH, 69 (2002), 83-102.
14. Leech, Clifford, and Elizabeth M. Brennan, ‘John Webster. The Duchess of Malfi’, The Modern Language Review, 61 (1966), 106-124.
15. Leverenz, David, ‘The Woman in Hamlet: An Interpersonal View’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 4 (1978), 291-308.
16. Long, Zackariah C., ‘The Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet: Infernal Memory in English Renaissance Revenge Tragedy’, English Literary Renaissance, 44 (2014), 153-192.
17. Luckyj, Christina, ‘New Directions: Boy Prince and Venetian Courtesan - Political Critique in The White Devil’, in ‘The White Devil: A Critical Reader’ (London: Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare, 2021), p. 158.
18. Mullaney, Steven, 'Mourning and Misogyny: Hamlet, The Revenger's Tragedy, And the Final Progress of Elizabeth I, 1600-1607', Shakespeare Quarterly, 45 (1994), 139-161.
19. Sen, Taraknath, 'Hamlet's Treatment of Ophelia in The Nunnery Scene', The Modern Language Review, 35 (1940), 145-152.
20. Shakespeare, William, G. R Hibbard, and Stanley W Wells, ‘Hamlet’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
21. Steen, Sara Jayne, ‘The Crime of Marriage: Arbella Stuart and The Duchess of Malfi’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 22 (1991), 61-76.
22. Tricomi, Albert H., 'The Severed Hand in Webster's Duchess of Malfi', SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, 44 (2004), 347-358.
23. Whigham, Frank, ‘Sexual and Social Mobility in The Duchess of Malfi’, PMLAPublications of The Modern Language Association of America, 100 (1985), 167-186.