Evaluate the extent to which these comedies interrogate the identity and

place of women in the early modern world.

Through the analysis of three early modern plays, Volpone by Ben Jonson, A Mad World

My Masters by Thomas Middleton and Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare, I

will show how women were portrayed on the stage, and how this corresponded with

women’s place in society at the time. First we must address the issues of socio-political

context. The most important issue is the lack of women on-stage during the period - all

the female roles were played by adolescent boys whose voices had not broken. In

Measure for Measure, Isabella, Mariana and Juliet would have been played by boys, and

Mistress Overdone played by a youth in his later teens;

‘As in Greece, there were no women on the Elizabethan stage. Boys, specially

selected for their slight, graceful build and light voices, were apprenticed to older

actors.. .’ (Hartnoll, 2001, p80-81).

It was, quite simply, not seen fit to place a woman on the stage - they were

expected to conform to the socially-defined ideals; demure, meek, chaste, and most

importantly, silent. Given that women were thought of as ‘incomplete men’ (based

mainly on Aristotle’s teachings), perhaps there was also a general consensus among

players that a woman would not have the wit or intelligence to entertain and act as well as

a man could.

The age of consent in this period was ’12 for girls and 14 for boys’ (Hopkins, L

1998, p1). However, it is important to remember that there was (at least by the moral

guidelines of society) no sex outside marriage. Whenever sexual relations outside of

marriage resulted in bastardy, the result for those involved was social ostracization, and

usually punishment meted out by the local authorities. Thomas Becon, a preacher at

Canterbury Cathedral, writes in 1564;

...a bastard is strictly prohibited both by human laws and constitutions of wise

men to be the heir of temporal lands and goods. For they have no lawful heir

which by neglecting and despising matrimony for the wanton and enticing lust of

the flesh, unlawfully company together. (Aughterson, 1995, p111)

Indeed it was this preoccupation with ‘rightful heirs’ that dictated the very

treatment of women. Keeping women pure till marriage, and constant throughout their

married life, meant that males could be certain of their bloodline. All inheritance passed

down through men only; a woman had only what her husband or father would allow her.

The practise of dowries meant that the ‘marriage market’ was a very literal one; a good

dowry meant a good husband, and the security of economic stability. Restricted, then, by

economic factors, women also faced social and religious confines, although how well

they adhered to them is unknown, as women of the period had no ‘voice’. There are many

harsh sermons from puritans of the day, and strict ‘conduct books’ still surviving, but this

in turn begs the question; Were these in place because they taught women the codes of

society, or were they so rigorous because there were many women who did not conform?

The shift away from Catholicism, and into Protestantism, did not free women

per se. It rather switched the reins of power into another set of hands. Instead of

confiding in a priest, the head of her church, she now turned to her husband, the head of

her private sphere; it was he who would school her in the bible and guide her morally.

Whereas in the Catholic Church, there was the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the

extreme (by modern western society’s standards, at least) ideologies of Puritanism taught

that this was idolatry and sin; women were intrinsically evil, carry Eve’s original sin,

cursed with menses and the pain of childbirth as punishment for the fall of man.

Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare (1604) has a broad spectrum of

female characters; Isabella, chaste and pure, yet articulate and passionate, Julietta,

carrying a child out of wedlock due to a contractual error (perhaps the archetypal ‘fallen

woman’), Francisca, a nun who has taken her vows, and therefore cannot converse with

men, Mariana, who has been abandoned by Angelo because she has lost her dowry -an

example of marriage as an economic institution , and Mistress Overdone, a character,

who, as a brothel owner and procuress, has far more economic and social mobility (and

indeed power) than any of the other female characters. She is the only character in the

play in a position of power about a man (her tapster, Pompey), yet she confines to one

aspect of gender constraint, in that she gives maternal protection to Kate Keepdown’s

bastard child (a modern reading of this could suggest to a contemporary audience that she

has more emotional range than Isabella herself, who is often dismissed as being too

‘cold’ by today’s critics). Mistress Overdone aside, in the world of Measure for Measure,

women are effectively powerless because the only power they supposedly possess—

sexual—is defined and limited by men. Men, on the other hand, are seen to possess the

power to govern, accumulate wealth, and set moral standards.

Isabella’s first line in the play is a question; ‘And have you nuns no further

privileges?’ (I, IV, I) This would seem to go against the constructed female ideal of a

woman who is silent and meek, and does not question ‘her lot’;

As it becometh her to keep home, so it becometh her to keep silence, and always

speak the best of her head. (Aughterson, 2001, p83)

Indeed throughout the play, Isabella is written as a strong-minded, articulate

woman, who constantly challenges male authority; namely her brother, Claudio ( in act

III, scene I), and Angelo. It is a male figure (Lucio in act II, scene II) who places female

‘traits’ upon her, by encouraging her to kneel in front of Angelo and play the role of

hysterical female;

Give’t not o’er so; to him again, entreat him,

Kneel down before him, hang upon his gown,

You are too cold

(II,II,44-46)

This is, perhaps, unwitting confirmation that gender is a social and cultural construct, and

not innate. When Isabella exits (II,II,167), Angelo reveals his attraction to her - he is

disgusted with himself ;

Shall we desire to raze the sanctuary

And pitch our evils there? O, fie, fie, fie!

What dost thou, or what art thou, Angelo?

(II,II,175-177)

Angelo has what, by modern psycho-analytic terms, would be classed as a fear of

women; he has been indoctrinated by puritan rhetoric to the point of feeling repulsion at

natural, physical desires towards women. There is also an element of fear on Angelo’s

part; he feels insecure in his masculinity in the presence of a woman such as Isabella, one

who matches his wit and intelligence. In a contemporary society, it would be termed a

‘meeting of minds’. But in a society where men and women did not mix to a great extent,

let alone debate together, a society where men were warned about the ‘wickedness and

wantonness of women’, it is viewed with distrust and alarm.

But, if women are, as the puritan’s assured their congregation, so capable of trickery, then

men are equally so; Isabella and Mariana hatch the bed-plot with the Duke’s aid, and the

Duke is at this point displaying double-trickery - he is, at this point, disguised as the

Friar, and, cruelly, he does not reveal that Claudio is still alive until the very end of the

play. His proposals to Isabella (V, I, lines 493-496 and 538-542) do not need to be

answered by her; he is at the very top of the hierarchy, the ruler of the state and in the

utmost position of patriarchal power. Society constrained a woman to obey and keep

silent, and a marriage to a powerful noble would seem the preferable choice to a life of

little comfort in a convent. Even if a woman of the period was aghast at such a proposal,

would she dare refuse?

In Thomas Middleton’s A Mad World, My Masters (1605), women are not noble

debaters and victims of circumstance; they are tricksters, adulterers and whores. However

unpleasant these connotations are, in light of the play as a whole, women receive an

ambiguous, even favorable treatment. The male characters are liars, thieves, social-

climbers, pompous buffoons and religious hypocrites. Middleton does not single out

women; he caricatures a society where everyone, from the lowly to the most noble, is

corrupt, deceitful and utterly ruthless.

The character of the Courtesan, is written, unarguably, as the heroine of the

play – she is even ‘rewarded’ with a marriage at the plays close (which doubles as a

punishment for Follywit). Now the Courtesan no-longer has to prostitute herself for a

dowry, having acquired a husband who will eventually be wealthy, once he has inherited

from Sir Bounteous Progress. The Courtesan’s mother acts as her daughter’s pimp;

paradoxically they sell her body, so that she may become ‘respectable’. Throughout the

play, the Courtesan tricks and outwits the other characters. She does, however, help

another woman, Mistress Harebrain, deceive her husband and conduct an affair with

Penitent Brothel. This play seems to suggest that many women did not accept the

prescribed gender roles, and engaged in adultery or pre-marital sex, and also that woman

‘played-up’ to these gender ideals, to ‘dupe’ men. The Courtesan plays upon these

constructions in public, where everyone believes her to be a chaste and virtuous lady, of a

reasonably high social standing. When her suitors, Inesse and Possibility visit to attempt

to woo her, the Courtesan’s mother urges them not to offend her daughter’s ‘delicate

sensibilities’;

…avoid all profane talk, wanton compliments, undecent phrases, and lascivious

courtings (which I know my daughter will sooner die than endure)

(I, I, 178-181)

Penitent Brothel begins as an adulterer, but has a crisis of conscience in act IV,

scene I, after an encounter with a ‘succubus’, and is overcome with the same ‘fear of

women’ displayed by Angelo in Measure for Measure; ‘To dote on weakness, slime,

corruption, woman!’ (IV,I,18). Penitent Brothel, once he repents, becomes a (admittedly

archetypal and comic) Puritan figure, who represents the real Puritans of London, who

issued continuous sermons about the wickedness of women in the streets outside the

theatre.

Another character, used for comic effect, but having resonance with the

audience, is Harebrain, a man who jealously seeks to keep his wife from men, in a

desperate attempt to prevent being cuckolded. \the only company he allows her to have is

that of Mistress Gullman. This method of retaining a pure bloodline (and reputation) by

effectively ‘locking-up’ wives was a popular one in conduct books and sermons;

But there are four reasons why the woman is to go abroad. First, to come to holy

meetings according to the duty of godliness. Second, to visit such as stand in

need, as the duty of love and charity doth require. The third for employment and

provision in household affairs committed to her charge. And lastly, with her

husband, when he shall require her. (Aughterson, 1995, p81)

In Ben Jonson’s Volpone (1606), similarly, we are shown a grotesque world where greed

and corruption govern all. The only innocent character in the play is Celia, who is a

prisoner to her jealous (yet avaricious) husband, Corvino. Shut in her bed chamber, she

provokes the wrath of her husband by throwing a handkerchief down to a mountebank

(Volpone in disguise, hoping to seduce her). Celia is not strong-willed and articulate like

Isabella, nor is she cunning and savvy like the Courtesan. She has no real dimension as a

character, standing only as an archetypal ‘victim’ character, so pure and innocent that she

lacks any believability. This tells us that not only do women lack a voice of their own, on

the stage, or in any area of society, they are considered unworthy of a true, realistic voice

by many playwrights. Within the city comedy of Volpone, there is no implicit need for a

strong female character, or female characters at all. The female characters in Volpone

(Celia and Lady Would-Be) are only small sub-plots. Far from attacking Jonson with

contemporary quasi-feminist views, I merely wish to illustrate how the world of Volpone,

with its treasures and gold, set in the banking city, Venice,( as a portrayal of economic

and material concerns and gain) is so far removed from the modest, domestic sphere of

women, that the two barely meet, even in the fantasy of a dramatist’s mind. In a period

where women could not own or inherit property, or work, they are alienated against a

backdrop of immense economic growth and possibilities, and what could be seen as the

birth of Capitalism.

Volpone’s attempted rape of Celia is shocking, whether from a modern or early

modern stance. But the behavior of her husband towards her, and towards Volpone’s

advances of her, is perhaps more shocking still. A comic figure, it nonetheless would

have resonance with an early modern audience, as a moral lesson about the correct

treatment of a wife. Even the conduct books were against the physical punishment of

wives; ‘Let there be none so grievous fault to compel you to beat your wives.’

(Aughterson, 1995, p24).

Bibliography

Primary texts:

Jamieson, M (ed) (2004), Volpone and other plays. London: Penguin

Middleton, T (1998), A Mad World, My Masters. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wells, S (ed) (1998), Measure for Measure. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Secondary Texts:

Aughterson, K (1995), Renaissance Woman: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge

Braunmuller,A and Hattaway, M (eds) (1997), The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Coyle, M and Peck, J (2002), Literary Terms and Criticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Hartnoll, P (2001), The Theatre: A Concise History. London: Thames & Hudson

Hopkins, L (1998) The Shakespearean Marriage: Merry Wives and Heavy Husbands. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Masten, J (1997), Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Rutter, C et al (1991), Clamorous Voices. London: The Women’s Press

Zimmerman, S (ed) (1992), Erotic Politics: Desire on the Renaissance Stage. London: Routledge