Paper Topic and Secondary Resources

For the paper I focused on gender transference in The Merchant of Venice. In particular, I focused on Portia and Jessica and how they are able to successfully subvert their gender roles through the intervention of Bassanio and Lorenzo. I analyzed this through the use of the casket as symbol for the womb and their cross-dressing as means of escape. In contrast are the characters of Antonio and Shylock, who are not able to subvert their traditional roles.

Sources I used:
Abate, Corinne S. “’Nerissa Teaches Me What to Believe’: Portia’s Wifely Empowerment in The Merchant of Venice.” The Merchant of Venice: New Critical Essays. Ed. John W. Mahon and Ellen Macleod Mahon. New York: Routledge, 2002. 283-304. Print.

Adelman, Janet. “Her Father’s Blood: Race, Conversion, and Nation in The Merchant of Venice.” Representations 81 (2003): 4-30. JSTOR. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Adelman, Janet. Blood Relations: Christian and Jew in The Merchant of Venice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Print.

Metzger, Mary Janell. “‘Now by My Hood, a Gentle and No Jew’: Jessica, The Merchant of Venice, and the Discourse of Early Modern English Identity.” PMLA 113.1 (1998): 52-63. JSTOR. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Oldrieve, Susan. “Marginalized Voices in The Merchant of Venice.” Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 5.1 (1993): 87-105. JSTOR. Web. 10 Nov. 2009.

Conclusions

When I began the semester, I didn't know very much about themes over Shakespeare's body of work as a whole. I wasn't a huge fan of the plays which I had read, and it still takes a while for me to make sense of Elizabethan prose sometimes. What I really found interesting though was how this era has shaped our approach to gender identity even now. While certainly people during the Middle Ages weren't very enlightened when it came to sex and gender, the hefty labeling that started during this time helped lead to our society's current hysteria about subjects like gay marriage and transgendered people. Although it seems he often feeds into his culture's need for clear definitions and resolutions (like the partnering at the end of Twelfth Night or the return to Belmont in Merchant of Venice), Shakespeare seems willing to play with gender roles in a way that signals he was aware of how gender was being constructed in his society. He does much the same thing with racial and religious constructs in Merchant of Venice as well (and I presume other works, although I'm not that widely read and I wasn't paying as much attention to these issues in the other works we looked at). The fact that he was willing to subversively address this issues made me call into question my ideas about the time period. Doing research on hermaphrodites and transvestites made me realize that these aren't new issues just coming into the forefront in the twentieth century and now, but rather they've been a matter of intrigue since the Early Modern Era and before. I think particularly in regards to gender issues that the Victorian Era acted as a sort of buffer in conversation. Interesting that such a time of conservative values and rigid definition of roles should once more occur during the time of an English female monarch. What I mean to say though is that it seems like some of the issues that we're seeing in Shakespeare now have really always been there, it's just we weren't able as a society to talk about them until shifting away once more from rigid mindsets.

Reduced Shakespeare Company - Titus Andronicus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhiv70hBZ08

This video reinforced the absurdity of the violence in Titus for me by staging it as a cooking show (similar to the final scene of the movie). "Good evening, gore-mets!" The Emeril-style "Bam!" reinforcement of the acts of violence one after another is fairly effective at illustrating the impact of the events of the work on the reader.

Titus Andronicus

I was fairly disturbed by Lavinia's story in Titus Andronicus, but the play was fairly absurd so I could get past that. What bothers me more (and this returns to earlier concerns with Rape of Lucrece) is the stylized, artistic representation of something so incredibly brutal. This seems to have improved over time. I guess what bothers me most is that I can still be captivated by the artistic beauty of these scenes and the skill it took to achieve it, even though the subject is disgusting. A victim of a crime like this, if encountered in real life immediately after the event, would be (I imagine) an image that you'd want to erase from your mind forever. I found three different images of Lavinia post-rape:
1) This is the oldest one I found. Here there's no clear detail of the fact that she is missing her hands and tongue, but the artist did take the time to fully detail her breasts and the beautiful billowing cloth around her.
2) Japanese stage production. The emotion of the actress is stark and haunting. Perhaps these are the ribbons we discussed in class.
3) From the movie Titus. I was horrified watching this, and felt nauseated, but afterwards all I could dwell on was the incredible statement of the branches/stump. Which just made me feel sick again.

Primary Source 5

While perhaps sensible advice not to trust a whore, this ballad does not clearly distinguish that this was a woman paid for sex, so we return to the idea of "whore of the mouth." Indeed, it is the man who ends up in trouble with creditors at the end, in debt for this woman, rather than she being in trouble with the law. Of particular interest is the verse:

For if you still will follow whores,
they will devoure you all:
Your quoine, your states, your health and friends,
Then turne you out of doore

"Devoure" conjures up ideas of the devouring womb, vagina dentata imagery which we have been concerned with this semester. For all that they lacked agency in society, men had a lot of fear of the power of women. The mysteries of the feminine body, which occupied that odd limbo where they could potentially transform at any time (from maid to woman to mother to crone, or even to man in the case of hermaphrodites), were not accessible for men, who stayed fairly static throughout life after puberty.

Portia and Shylock - Thomas Sully

While this falls outside the scope of primary texts, as it wasn't completed until 1835, I thought it interesting that this image ignores Portia's cross-dressing in the courtroom (which would have been her only interaction with Shylock). While women actors would have been common by this era, it was a major element of the actual text of the play. It's likely just a stylistic choice on the part of the painter, as I suppose it could be argued that Portia is rather androgynous here, but it reflects changing roles for women. In some ways, this depiction of Portia places her in a weaker position. She appears cowed under Shylock's accusing finger, with a blush of embarrassment in her cheeks, and looks up at him through her lashes. He makes for an imposing figure, and while the potential danger he posed to Antonio certainly made him seem intimidating in the play, he held little actual power in the courtroom as a Jew.

Primary Source 4

Click on the picture to see the full woodcut.

Much of the poor treatment of Jews during the Early Modern Era (and even currently) was focused on the idea of their guilt by association in Christ's crucifixion. Never mind that it was (according to Christian mythology) a necessary sacrifice created by God to save sinners from the stain of their sin. At any rate, one interesting point in this woodcut is the depiction of circumcision in the lower left corner. In addition to their portrayal as shrunken and hunched evildoers, it connects through juxtaposition the myth of Jewish male menstruation to the blood debt which they owe for the killing of Jesus. Mary Metzger, in her article "'Now by My Hood, a Gentle and No Jew': Jessica, The Merchant of Venice, and the Discourse of Early Modern English Identity," points out that Jewish men, unlike Jewish women, were physically marked as different even if they were fair like Jessica. Even if they were to be accepted as converts, they would carry the mark on their body of difference, making it that much more difficult to integrate into society.

Primary Source 3

Sumptuary laws - Statutes of Apparel given by Elizabeth I

http://elizabethan.org/sumptuary/who-wears-what.html

In thinking about rules for clothing during the era, as part of my research touches on cross-dressing in Merchant of Venice, I found that there were specific laws governing what specifically a person could wear even if they were in the correct gendered clothing. A modernized-spelling version of one of the sumptuary statutes can be found at the link. Although sumptuary laws were rarely very effective, the idea was to restrict certain fabrics or jewels to only the highest ranking members of royalty. I could not find any decrees against cross-dress, perhaps because it was already fairly socially taboo. It was interesting that there seemed as many restrictions on men's dress (perhaps more when taking swords, scabbards, horse harnesses, etc. into account) than there were for women. Dress was a primary way of indicating status outside of your primary social arena, so even for those wealthy merchants or lower nobility that could afford it, it was forbidden to pretend to a rank one could never hold (short of marriage).

Side-note: Elizabeth I refers to her "princely clemency" towards her subjects - playing on gender roles again.

Primary Source 2

The first image here is of the coronation of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon. The second is the coronation portrait of Elizabeth I. I was drawn to Elizabeth I during my research as an embodiment of the idea of transference of gender roles during the era. What I found interesting here is that she is presenting herself in very similar clothing and style to her male predecessors. The dress which does mark her specifically as feminine is as tamed as possible, with the armor-like corset shielding any distinguishing female aspects. It was a conscious decision to legitimize her claim on the throne. I found this quote from her speaking to her council prior to coronation:
"My lords, the law of nature moves me to sorrow for my sister; the burden that is fallen upon me makes me amazed, and yet, considering I am God's creature, ordained to obey His appointment, I will thereto yield, desiring from the bottom of my heart that I may have assistance of His grace to be the minister of His heavenly will in this office now committed to me. And as I am but one body naturally considered, though by His permission a body politic to govern, so shall I desire you all...to be assistant to me, that I with my ruling and you with your service may make a good account to Almighty God and leave some comfort to our posterity on earth. I mean to direct all my actions by good advice and counsel."
It makes clear her distinction between her nature (feminine, physical) and her spirit (political, and therefore masculine). While blurring lines of gender distinction, she takes care to mark it as God's will, therefore challenging anyone who would question her role.