The Woman’s Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare ed. by Carolyn Lenz, Gayle Greene, Carol Neely (review)

280 Comparative Drama The Woman’s Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare, ed. Carolyn Lenz, Gayle Greene, and Carol Neely. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980. Pp. x+348. $17.50. Feminist criticism, defined here as “a matter of perspective,” uses a variety of approaches to “restore female identity to the text of the plays.” The least controversial essays focus on “the woman’s part” in individual plays in order to “liberate the heroines from stereotypes” and to examine “women’s relation to each other.” Thus John Bean rescues Kate the Shrew from revisionists and anti-revisionists alike, showing that in comparison with other taming stories Shakespeare’s Shrew upholds mutual marital obligations in the humanist tradition. Gayle Greene “exonerates” a Cressida whose “self” is determined by the value men place on her. (I would quarrel with the “exonerate,” but accept the basic thesis.) Rebecca Smith discovers Gertrude to be a stereotype of the compliant woman rather than of the sexual one usually performed. Joan Klein maintains that Lady Macbeth fits the stereotype of the weak woman, envying men for what she takes to be the major characteristic of manliness—cruelty. Finally, Irene Dash shows that eighteenth century performances of The Winter’s Tale focus on Perdita because the strong women, Paulina and Hermione, were unsympathetic to that age. The three essays which examine women’s relation with each other provide similar insights. Carole McKewin’s discussion of scenes between women notes their distinctive qualities and their frequent delineation of “the possibilities and limits of women’s action.” Carol Neely restores the importance of Emilia and Bianca to the total scheme of Othello (though she surely goes too far in saying that Emilia is “dramatically and symbolically the play’s fulcrum”). Madonne Miner studies the women in Richard III, discovering that they progress from being at odds with each other to bonding together for comfort and strength. Most of these critics analyze what the women say rather than what the men say about them, thus providing a useful corrective to criticism by and about men. Those essays with a wider scope—those seeking to uncover the effects of patriarchy and genre— are the most exciting but also the most problematical. Coppelia Kahn’s “Coming of Age in Verona” makes good use of psychology in analyzing the patriarchal world of Romeo and Juliet (the five young men are nicely distinguished on this basis). In an essay on the distrust of women in Much Ado, Janice Hays herself some­ times wonders if such elaborate psychoanalysis is appropriate, yet her analysis does, amazingly enough, fit Claudio. Catherine Stimpson’s analysis of Shakespeare’s portrayal of rape is accurate in its praise of Shakespeare for knowing that rape is an act of aggression and its assess­ ment that Shakespeare does not question the patriarchal structure behind the act (readers may differ in their estimate of patriarchy’s role). Clara Park’s witty essay on “How a Girl Can be Smart and Still Popular” seems to overlook the fact that in addition to being witty yet acceptant of male sovereignty, Rosalind, Beatrice, Portia, and Viola are the “seers” of their plays. More troubling is Charles Frye’s endeavor to find Shake­ speare’s final thoughts on women in Henry VIII, The Two Noble Kins­ Reviews 281 men, and Don Quixote; the figure he seeks exists in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but the main current of the Shakespearean canon sug­ gests that “earthlier happy is the rose distilled.” Of the four essays not yet discussed, one uses deconstruction, one uses metadrama, and two use political approaches. Madelon Gohlke’s far-reaching essay offers standard overall interpretations, good insights on metaphor, and a meditation on patriarchal versus feminine discourse. Marianne Novy’s account of the heroines as actors and audience is perceptive, but shows the limits of the approach; the gentleman’s account of Cordelia reacting to Kent’s letter reveals her as more than audience/ listener—she is like “a better way.” Paul Berggren’s “The Woman’s Part: Female Sexuality as Power in Shakespeare’s Plays” and Lorie Leininger’s “The Miranda Trap” show the virtues and the dangers of revisionist approaches respectively. The Berggren...