July, 2011 Subjugated Ingnues: Miranda and Ophelia as Subjects of Control and Domination By Joshua Hobold Throughout history,

women have been subjected to oppression in many different cultures and societies. They have been used (and abused) in ways that would be politically abhorrent today in most civilized societies. It is no secret that the human rights movement is in full force today and equal treatment of all people has become the new frontier in many cultures. However, it could be argued that many of the plays of William Shakespeare fell into the mold of patriarchal control and domination of women a mold which was strongly intact in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, despite the fact that Queen Elizabeth, a woman, sat on the throne from 1558 until her death in 1603. The most overt example of female oppression does not even appear in the stage directions of Shakespeares plays; it is a known fact. That is, of course, women were not allowed to appear onstage during the Golden Age of Elizabethan England. Young men were trained to perform the roles of such Shakespearean ingnues as Miranda from The Tempest and Ophelia from Hamlet. Interestingly enough, Miranda and Ophelia can be considered two sides of the same coin. 1 Both women are nearly the same age (i.e. they are typically played to be younger than twenty years old), and Miranda and Ophelia are both studied in terms of how they are dominated by their fathers, Prospero and Polonius, respectively. Anna Jameson noted in her book, Shakespeares Heroines, that in Miranda and Ophelia, Shakespeare had created two women in whom the feminine

Though it can be argued that Ophelias role in Hamlet is much more superfluous than Mirandas consequential role in The Tempest, they are both nevertheless intriguingly similar in terms of how they were raised and how they act relative to their fathers.

Hobold character appears resolved into its very elementary principles as modest, grace, tenderness (134). They are both simple female characters who live up to certain standards. The difference between the two characters lies in their fates: Miranda is the comic Ophelia, and Ophelia is the tragic Miranda. This sparks questions, though, about the shared similarities of Miranda and Ophelia. Can they be effectively studied comparatively? Is there enough evidence to assert that both Miranda and Ophelia are indeed controlled and dominated by their fathers? I think so. Indeed, I believe that using the theoretical frameworks of Michel Foucault in terms of domination and control as well as colonial theory, despite the fact

that both critical modes were developed centuries after Shakespeare authored texts, could prove to be a resourceful analysis of The Tempest and Hamlet. In fact, I assert that the control and domination that was used to subjugate Miranda and Ophelia only perpetuated the male superiority complex and the patriarchal structure of society which still resonates in the minds of people across cultures today. In order to fully prove my contention, I will first critically analyze Miranda from The Tempest. Using the foundations of Michel Foucault as a start, I will discuss the ways in which Miranda is controlled and dominated by her father. I will then look at how Prospero actually colonizes his daughter through the lens of colonial theory; and then, I will carry out the same analysis of Ophelia from Hamlet. Finally, I hope to prove that Miranda and Ophelia are essentially the same characters who deal with strikingly similar subjection from their fathers. Miranda, of The Tempest, is quite the ingnue. She has never left the island in which her father, Prospero, has raised her. Also, prior to meeting Ferdinand, her love

Hobold interest, she had never been attracted to another man. Those two given circumstances alone could explain the vulnerability of Miranda, but it is Prospero who necessitates further vulnerability by controlling his daughter and her every action. In fact, Miranda even proclaims, I do not know / One of my sex, no womans face remember, / Save from my glass, mine own, when she stresses her life-long isolation and lack of female companionship (III.i.48-50). She is indeed aware of her loneliness, and she is foreshadowing future exploits from Prospero. When considering whether Miranda

would/should know how to react to her father based off of reactions from other women, it is important to note that Miranda has neither a sister nor a mother in her life. The latter is apparent because in the beginning of the play, Miranda inquires to Prospero, Sir, are not you my father? His response and the only reference to Mirandas mother is Thy mother was a piece of virtue, and / She said thou wast my daughter (I.ii.56-7). Miranda has no woman with whom to empathize; with whom to relate, in fact. Therefore, she does not completely know how to act as a woman in the patriarchal structure in which she resides. As Ann Thompson points out, Miranda demonstrates that she has fully internalized the patriarchal assumption that a womans main function is to provide a legitimate succession when asked to comment on the wickedness of Prosperos brother[, Antonio] (169). Indeed, Miranda explains, I should sin / To think but nobly of my grandmother: / Good wombs have borne bad sons (I.ii.117-19). Miranda does not know everything about being a woman (and respects the life her grandmother led), but she knows that she must succeed her father one day because he has no male heirs. However, this puts her at a level of vulnerability because, to Prospero, her succession is one of her

Hobold only obligations. Consequently, in Prosperos view, his duty is to discipline and control Miranda so that she can one day fulfill her role as his successor. Miranda is not the only character in The Tempest without a mother and sister, though. Her lover, Ferdinand, shares limited female presence in his life, too. Alonso, Ferdinands father, even stresses that Ferdinands sister, Claribel, is so far from Italy removed / I neer again shall see her (II.i.108-9). As a play, The Tempest lacks female characters,2 and Prospero uses this to his advantage when dominating the actions of Miranda. An example of this can be seen when Prospero fights to keep Miranda chaste, which may give her a mystical power as she swears to Ferdinand, By my modesty, /

The jewel in my dower I am your wife if you will marry me; / If not, Ill die your maid (III.i.53-4, 83-4). Later, Prospero takes control of Ferdinand by warning him against breaking her virgin-knot before / All sanctimonious ceremonies (IV.i.15-6). Although Miranda is love-struck when she encounters Ferdinand for the first time, there is resistance from Prospero who uses his intimidating words of caution as a scare tactic for Ferdinand. Prospero even goes on to threaten Ferdinand with harsh consequences: No sweet aspersion shall the heavens let fall To make this contract grow; but barren hate, Sour-eyed disdain, and discords shall bestrew The union of your bed with weeds so loathly That you shall hate it both. Therefore take heed, As Hymens lamps shall light you. (IV.i.18-23) His language is both foul and aggressive toward Ferdinand. He is using his own desire to control and dominate to prove that he is detests (at first) the idea of his daughter and Ferdinand being together. Perhaps Prospero has internalized that he must control
2

I am taking into consideration the ambiguity of Ariels gender, but even if s/he were to be considered (or, at least performed) a male, then there would still only be two female characters in the play. Of course, the Dramatis Personae from the First Folio suggests that Iris, Ceres, Juno and the Nymphs are all female characters that are to be impersonated by Ariel and other spirits (Thompson 168).

Hobold Mirandas sexuality before he can pass her off to the likings of Ferdinand (Thompson 173). His speeches can even be more horrifying, such as when he claims that he has the power to resurrect the dead: Graves at my command / Have waked their sleepers, oped, and let em forth (V.i.48-9). Coquettishly enough, though, it is Mirandas flirtation that brings Ferdinand to exclaim that Miranda quickens whats dead (III.i.6). But how can Prospero be so concerned with controlling Miranda and the other people around him

(namely, his slave, Caliban)? David Sundelson may be onto something when he suggests in his essay, So rare a wonderd father: Prosperos Tempest, that Prospero has a case of paternal narcissism: the prevailing sense that there is no worthiness like a fathers, no accomplishment or power, and that Prospero is the father par excellence (34). In other words, Prospero thinks of himself as an outstanding father who has worked very diligently to provide a good life for his daughter, and Miranda is therefore obligated to submit herself to the control and domination of her father. I find it interesting that the context of The Tempest aligns itself with the circumstances of when it was performed at the Jacobean court in 1613. Specifically, during the wedding festivities of King James daughter, Elizabeth, and her husband, Frederick the Elector Palatine (Thompson 175). The sixteen-year-old princess shares similar traits with Miranda: beautiful, chaste, and most of all, obedient to her powerful father, King James. Perhaps Shakespeare wrote The Tempest as a commentary on the attitudes of colonization in the English Renaissance. Although this suggestion may seem suspect to criticism and debate, I wonder if Shakespeare purposely created Prospero as a character who colonized the people around him namely, Miranda and Caliban. In their essay, Nymphs and Reapers Heavily Vanish: The Discursive Con-texts of The

Hobold

Tempest, Francis Barker and Peter Hulme argue that the European obsession to discover and colonize new lands in the seventeenth century identified one of the main reasons for Shakespeare to write The Tempest (192). It is completely justified to look at Caliban as being the archetype of the exploited Other in the Third World. Likewise, it is reasonable to argue that Miranda is also exploited and treated as the Other by Prospero. His fixation on controlling and dominating Caliban correlates with his incessant need to do the same to his daughter. Of course, the fact that Prospero is typically performed as a white male patriarch and colonizer furthers the notion that he is considered to be the object of colonial discourse. No wonder Miranda is subjugated in the context of The Tempest! Her father must uphold the supremacy of the white male colonizer, especially after he is usurped and must escape to the enchanted island in Northern Africa where the play takes place. Prospero may say that he only wants what is best for his daughter, but it is apparent that Miranda is treated differently than the other characters in The Tempest. The same could be said for Ophelia in Hamlet that is, that she is treated differently than the other characters in the play. But, as Jameson inquires, What shall be said of her? For eloquence is mute before her! (257). Ophelia, like Miranda, suffers harsh cruelty from her father, Polonius (and in some interpretations, from Hamlet). Perhaps it is Hamlet himself who provides the best description of Polonius when he says: Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell. I took thee for thy better. Take thy fortune. Thou findst to be too busy is some danger This counsellor [sic] Is now most still, most secret, and most grave, Who was in life a foolish prating knave. (III.iv.30-3, 187-9) It is Polonius who made the effort to spy on everyone around him, deceiving the royals in the process. And it is Polonius who was criticized by Hamlet as only being good at

Hobold committing acts of espionage, which was the ironic causation of his death: he is only quiet now that he is dead. Indeed, it is Polonius who wickedly plots to spy on his own son, Laertes, with such lines as By indirections find directions out (II.i.65). And it is Polonius who uses tactics of control and domination to subject his daughter, Ophelia. In his essay, Tragic Justice and the House of Polonius, Myron Taylor suggests that

Polonius fits the description of a perennial spy and is the Elizabethan representation of the Machiavellian villain, placing political expediency and dishonestly above morality and ethics (275). However, his espionage directly contradicts the text itself. At one point in the play, when Polonius is giving advice to Laertes, he advises him to Give thy thoughts no tongue, / Nor any unproportioned thought his act (I.iii.59-60). It seems that this statement is actually the (un)ethical principle of espionage: Keep your thoughts to yourself, and never reveal what you are thinking. In any case, Polonius function as an old, ineffectual (but devious) spy is to serve not only Claudius with spying on Hamlet and Gertrude, but also on his own son and daughter. As Taylor puts it, the only function within the walls of Elsinore is to spy, which is precisely why something is rotten in the state of Denmark (276). As a spy, Polonius also plots against his enemies. An example of this can be seen when he coerces Ophelia into reading a prayer book, so that she essentially becomes the actress in his plot against Hamlet just before the To be or not to be speech: Ophelia, walk you here.Gracious, so please you, We will bestow ourselves.Read on this book, That show of such an exercise may colour Your loneliness. We are oft to blame in this: Tis too much proved that with devotions visage And pious action we do sugar oer The devil himself. (III.i.45-51)

Hobold It is Polonius who lures his daughter by appealing to her isolation and instructing her to perform a task that will defy even the devil. He deceives Ophelia so that she will convey a particular message (that of virginal status and devoutness) to Hamlet. It can even be

argued that near the beginning of the play, Polonius subjugates his daughter by forcefully demanding information from her: What ist, Ophelia, he hath said to you? (I.iii.88). Polonius goes out of his way to infringe on the privacy of her confidential conversation with her brother, Laertes, especially because it also had to do with Hamlet. He completely disrespects Ophelia and uses her vulnerability to his advantage. She never even sees through her father, and she follows along on the short leash which Polonius keeps her. She also permits herself to be used by Polonius without the slightest idea that his actions are unjust and cruel. Indeed, Ophelia is completely blind to the evilness that Polonius brings with him, and he fully uses that against her. Of course, it may seem more incredulous to attempt to synthesize colonial theory with the text of Hamlet, but I should attempt to be pliant with the task. There are instances where Polonius attempts to colonize Ophelia in the same sense that Prospero did with Miranda. Taylor cites critic Bernard Grebanier when discussing Polonius: he is more nefarious than his white hairs indicate (274). Polonius is a wicked white-skinned elder who is living in the latter years of his life. He has everything he needs to utilize his own version of royal power: credibility and the confidence of Claudius, tactical use of espionage, and the insecurity of Ophelia. Though he cannot legally colonize states, he can colonize people with his deceitfulness and dishonesty. He has the power of his rhetoric to sway other courtiers, and he uses that to his full advantage. Like a treacherous villain or wizard, Polonius psychologically colonizes those around him so that they obey his

Hobold

every command and follow in his evil footsteps. Some might even argue that his strategic psychological techniques are even more efficacious than the physical advances of domination and control that Prospero uses. The uses of control and domination in The Tempest and in Hamlet by Prospero and Polonius, respectively, seemingly had an impact on the society in which the two plays were written. Of course, as noted above, England (though ruled by a woman until 1603), was already well-established as a patriarchal, male-dominated society. It must be said, though, that most of the Western cultures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries followed suit with the Ancient Greeks in terms of societys patriarchal structure. However, I wonder if Shakespeares themes of male domination and superiority reinforced the concept and ideology of female subjection? It has been said before that theatre is a reflection of the society in which it is produced. Therefore, Shakespeares plays reinforced Elizabethan and Jacobean values, beliefs and attitudes. However, I also think that Shakespeare (whether conscious of it or not) perpetuated narrow-minded thinking by contemporary standards, of course in terms of how women were to be portrayed in society. With such strong and forceful characters like Prospero and Polonius contrasted with such weak and vulnerable characters like Miranda and Ophelia, it seems apparent that men had the upper hand in English society. Some skeptics may simply assert that Shakespeare knew he was writing for male actors, so he preferred for the male characters to carry the weight of the action of the plays. They may also suggest that the male superiority complex was challenged roughly sixty-five years after The Tempest was written when women were allowed onstage during the Restoration for the first time in

Hobold 10 English history.3 However, these valuable points still do not reflect the reality of life in England which Shakespeare portrayed through his plays. Though women were allowed onstage, they like all actors during the late Renaissance were disregarded for their artistic natures, and they were known as the outcasts of society. Women during Shakespeares time were not even allowed to write (let alone publish) in the capacity that Shakespeare did. Virginia Woolf discusses this at length in her essay, A Room of Ones Own, when she suggests that Shakespeares sister never received the opportunities that Shakespeare received in terms of formal education. Likewise, women were reduced to care-taking and household chores during the late Renaissance and Restoration periods. Men, on the other hand, were expected to provide for their families and become legitimate citizens in their shires. Therefore, I find it extremely plausible that women were the objects of subjection in a phallocentric society such as England. This mindset still resonates today even with the advent of Feminism and Gender Studies. If one objective of twentieth century Feminism is to work to destabilize the notion of white male superiority, especially in scholarship, then I think that male dominance is still a relevant issue today despite the fact that contemporary feminists are working roughly four hundred years after the cultural impact of Shakespeares plays. To borrow a phrase from Linda Loman in Arthur Millers Death of a Salesman, Attention must be paid to the women of Shakespeare who suffered the subjugation that was actually prevalent in the society which Miranda and Ophelia were first presented; likewise, Attention must be paid to those feminists who work to undermine the long tradition of male dominance and control which has been seen in Western culture throughout history. If it were not for
3

E.g. William Wycherleys The Country Wife, written in 1675, was one of the first plays produced in England to incorporate female actors playing female roles.

Hobold 11 those women, then I would have never attempted to examine the domineering habits of Prospero and Polonius toward Miranda and Ophelia. As dramatic characters, Miranda and Ophelia are not very interesting, which is a fault of Shakespeare. They do not have the emotional or psychological subtext that is typically associated with Prospero, Caliban, Polonius or Hamlet. However, it is worth considering how Miranda and Ophelia could be different if they were not first presented in a patriarchal society obsessed with subjugating and domineering over women. Perhaps they would have had the courage to stand up for themselves if they were not women; perhaps they would have been able to defy their fathers if they were not women; and, at the very least, perhaps they would have been given as many lines as their fathers and lovers if they were not women. Indeed, I feel that Miranda and Ophelia have been displaced from their rightful home in dramatic literature. They have been shoved aside for years so that scholars could focus on the male Shakespearean characters. Perhaps they have even been forgotten. However, Miranda and Ophelia share a correlation that will forever bond them in eternal sisterhood: they face subjugation from their fathers which not only speaks volumes about Shakespeare, but also the patriarchal society in which they were written.

Hobold 12 Works Cited Barker, Francis and Peter Hulme. Nymphs and Reapers Heavily Vanish: The Discursive Con-texts of The Tempest. Alternative Shakespeares. Ed. John Drakakis. (London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 191-205. Jameson, Anna Brownell. Shakespeares Heroines. London: George Bell & Sons, 1897 reprint. 134. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. The Norton Shakespeare. Eds. Stephen Greenblatt, et al. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997. 1668-1759. ---. The Tempest. The Norton Shakespeare. Eds. Stephen Greenblatt, et al. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1997. 3055-3107. Sundelson, David. So rare a wonderd father: Prosperos Tempest. Representing Shakespeare: New Psychoanalytic Essays. Eds. Murray M. Schwartz and Coppelia Kahn. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980. 33-53. Taylor, Myron. Tragic Justice and the House of Polonius. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 8.2: Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1968). 273-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/view/449659 Thompson, Ann. Miranda, Wheres Your Sister?: Reading Shakespeares The Tempest. Shakespeare and Gender: A History. Eds. Deborah Barker and Ivo Kamps. London: Verso, 1995. 168-77.

Hobold 13 Works Consulted Barbour, Kathryn. Flout em and Scout em and Scout em and Flout em: Prosperos Power and Punishments in The Tempest. Shakespearean Power and Punishment. Ed. Gillian Murray Kendall. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1998. 159-72. Coursen, H.R. Must There No More Be Done?: Images of Ophelia. Shakespearean Performance as Interpretation. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1992. 85102. ---. The Tempest on Television. Shakespearean Performance as Interpretation. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1992. 227-33. Leitch, Vincent B., Ed. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.