'Women of Will' argues that to know Shakespeare, you must know his women

Tina Packer delves into the psychological and social roles Shakespeare's female characters play and their impact on others.

Women of Will: Following the Feminine in Shakespeare’s Plays By Tina Packer Knopf Doubleday 336 pp.

Tina Packer does not need to be told to “lean in.”  At 76, she has founded one of the largest Shakespeare festivals in the country (Shakespeare & Company in Lenox, Massachusetts), directed most of Shakespeare’s plays, and written and starred in the one-woman-show "Women of Will," which she travels around the country performing. 

Now she has translated that performance into the book, Women of Will: The Feminine in Shakespeare’s Plays, which delves into the psychological and social roles his women characters play and their impact on others.

Shakespeare’s portrayal of women is not just one aspect of his work for Packer, but key to understanding the development of his world view, shedding light on his perception of the church, imperial expansion, the concept of honor, how we grieve, and our relationship to speech and language.  To look at Shakespeare’s women is to see the whole of the man and his world.

"Women of Will" covers a lot of terrain, spanning from early comedies to later “romances,” and Packer emphasizes that Shakespeare’s perception of women evolved immensely during that time.  The youth who penned "The Taming of the Shrew" and "The Comedy of Errors" was not the same who created adventurous and vocal heroines like Viola of "Twelfth Night" or Rosalind of "As You Like It." 

I’m no Renaissance scholar, but I’ve seen my share of Shakespeare – growing up near the Shakespeare Theatre of New Jersey with a father who was a Shakespeare aficionado meant I got to see Elizabeth McGovern and Edward Herrmann in "Twelfth Night" – and frankly, I found it liberating to be told that, yes, "The Taming of the Shrew" is as soul-crushingly misogynistic as it always seems on stage and no, Shakespeare didn’t intend it as a social commentary.  He was just young.

Yet Packer also identifies certain ideals in the relationships between men and women, and this is the crux of her book.  Love is both a spiritual and sexual union for Shakespeare; the two are not at odds as the Puritans (or some contemporary religions) might see it.  Shakespeare’s vision of love exists as an antidote to war, she suggests – and not just to war, but the root of war, which is the drive men feel for “honor.”

Love must also be reflected in parity. Packer observes that women’s voices function as a kind of litmus test in the plays, not just for the male characters, but for the world they inhabit. The repression or disregard of women’s voices signals a sick society. "Othello," she claims provocatively, is more about gender than race. When Benedick listens to Beatrice’s defense of Hero in "Much Ado About Nothing," we know he’s alright.

Packer’s approach is at once humanistic and grounded in the historical context of Elizabethan England, where the question of whether women had souls was still being debated. Her critiques of contemporary cultural may be predictable, but they are still astute and useful in opening up the plays. Analyzing "Antony & Cleopatra," Packer highlights what Alexandria stood for as a center of multiracialism, learning, and trade – all lost in its defeat by Rome. This multicultural, cosmopolitan society is what Cleopatra embodied, she suggests, rather than a stereotypical femme fatale who seduced Antony into surrender, as Cleopatra has so often been cast. Like the Roman empire, America will collapse, too, Packer asserts, but just as the structures and culture of Rome remain, so, too, will our “church” – the corporation, the altar at which we worship.

Of "Measure for Measure," she writes – thinking, perhaps, of fundamentalism – “Shakespeare really understood the relationship between repressed desire and physical violence – whether it was embedded in the law of the land or stood outside the law.”

Packer’s book falters slightly only in her reliance on the concept of “feminine” from Carol Gilligan’s 1982 book "In a Different Voice." Using this term to bundle certain qualities implies that women are a biologically determined monolith – we are all innately gentler, more nurturing, etc. That’s clearly not Packer’s intent, but it’s a minor weakness, making some sections feel dated.

The strengths of the book far outweigh this quibble, however.  For in Shakespeare’s elevation of love above power or ambition, Packer shows the radical departure he took from the dominant values espoused by men of his day and the way certain ideas transcend time and geography. I found myself reminded of the exiled Iraqi poet, Dunya Mikhail, who has spoken of love as a response to a war-torn world – an aesthetic, a value, and a practice.  Shakespeare would have enjoyed her poetry.

Elizabeth Toohey is an assistant professor of English at Queensborough Community College, CUNY, and a regular Monitor contributor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to 'Women of Will' argues that to know Shakespeare, you must know his women
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today