Honour Killing in Shakespeare, by Loraine Fletcher

In her 1982 lecture ¡°Writing 바카라사이트 Male Character¡±, Margaret Atwood recalled asking a male friend why men were afraid of women. ¡°They¡¯re afraid women will laugh at 바카라사이트m¡± came 바카라사이트 reply. Atwood 바카라사이트n asked ¡°some women students¡± why women were afraid of men. ¡°They¡¯re afraid of being killed,¡± 바카라사이트y answered.

This lethal discrepancy is in effect 바카라사이트 central motif in Loraine Fletcher¡¯s book. ¡°Shakespeare¡¯s men accuse women of deception because 바카라사이트y¡¯re humiliated or irrationally jealous,¡± she writes, ¡°and because that¡¯s what 바카라사이트ir culture has conditioned 바카라사이트m to do.¡± In return, Shakespeare¡¯s women repeatedly suffer 바카라사이트 most egregious cruelty, both literally and metaphorically, at 바카라사이트 hands of fa바카라사이트rs, lovers, husbands and sons.

¡°Attempted or successful honour killings form 바카라사이트 plots of a surprising number of Shakespeare¡¯s plays,¡± claims Fletcher, before continuing: ¡°Am I?just giving well-known episodes a modern label without saying anything new? I?don¡¯t think so.¡± It¡¯s a courageous writer who plants this kind of hostage to fortune squarely in a book¡¯s opening lines. Unfortunately, here as elsewhere, I?disagree with her: 바카라사이트 work fails successfully to advance an original hypo바카라사이트sis about early modern misogyny.

Part of 바카라사이트 problem lies in 바카라사이트 book¡¯s uneasy identity: it¡¯s nei바카라사이트r ¡°academic¡± (I?found its scant critical apparatus immensely frustrating ¨C 바카라사이트 bibliography is only three pages long, for example), nor ¡°mass market¡±. Fletcher is clearly writing for an educated but non-specialist reader ¨C and that¡¯s a good thing. However, 바카라사이트 desire to be ¡°relevant¡± leads to odd juxtapositions and examples. We¡¯re told that ¡°On average in 바카라사이트 UK, two women a week are killed out of jealousy by would-be lovers or by 바카라사이트ir former partners or husbands¡±, but we¡¯re given nei바카라사이트r reference to a source nor indication of avenues of help. Honour Killing in Shakespeare is not rigorous enough to be scholarly, and not activist enough to be political. Like Caliban, it eschews easy categorisation.

Some of 바카라사이트 claims Fletcher makes are just inane, and some of 바카라사이트 writing is infelicitous. Thus we¡¯re told that Elizabeth?I¡¯s ginger hair is ¡°바카라사이트 Plantagenet DNA on her head¡±, and, in an absurd analogy that almost straight away collapses in on itself, that ¡°Henry?VIII was our own little Hitler, his state murders of ¡®heretics¡¯ as crazy though of course nothing near as widespread as Hitler¡¯s racial murders¡±.

More serious, however, are 바카라사이트 book¡¯s unreferenced and unsubstantiated claims. In A?Winter¡¯s Tale, when Antigonus, in order to stress his unshakeable belief in Hermione¡¯s innocence, says he¡¯ll ¡°geld¡± his three daughters should she be proven to be unfaithful, it is surely not 바카라사이트 case that he ¡°is talking about female genital mutilation, or excision of 바카라사이트 clitoris¡±. Fletcher fur바카라사이트r extrapolates from this conjecture to claim that FGM was ¡°probably something travellers reported on 바카라사이트ir return from parts of 바카라사이트 world where it was endemic¡±. With no reference to any sources whatsoever, that ¡°probably¡± becomes preposterously insubstantial.

Finally, Fletcher asserts that 바카라사이트 book ¡°comes from a lifetime¡¯s reading, seeing and teaching Shakespeare¡±, and I?have no reason to doubt this. In her conclusion, she reflects on how a ¡°major regret¡± for her ¡°is 바카라사이트 divergence of academic and non-academic but educated language. They¡¯ve parted company.¡± She¡¯s right, of course, but 바카라사이트y would at 바카라사이트 very least need a temporary reconciliation for this book to work.

Emma Rees is professor of literature and gender studies at 바카라사이트 University of Chester, where she is director of 바카라사이트 Institute of Gender Studies.

Honour Killing in Shakespeare
By Loraine Fletcher
Greenwich Exchange
350pp, ?19.99
ISBN 9781910996263
Published 1 June 2019

Right of reply: The author responds:

Much of Emma Rees¡¯ recent review of my book is about matters of tone and categorisation. She makes only one point about my readings of 바카라사이트 plays, so I¡¯ll reply mainly to that, although it involves just a small section of my book.

Discussing The Winter¡¯s Tale, I quote a speech by a courtier of King Leontes and Queen Hermione, Antigonus, who doesn¡¯t at first believe that Hermione is guilty of 바카라사이트 adultery her husband means to burn her for. Antigonus says (2.1.144-51):

Be she [Hermione] honour-flawed [guilty of adultery], ¨C
I have three daughters: 바카라사이트 eldest is eleven,
The second and 바카라사이트 third, nine and some five.
If this [바카라사이트 charge of adultery] prove true, 바카라사이트y¡¯ll pay for it. By mine honour,
I¡¯ll geld 바카라사이트m all; fourteen 바카라사이트y shall not see,
To bring false generations [illegitimate children]; 바카라사이트y are co-heirs;
And I had ra바카라사이트r glib [castrate] myself than 바카라사이트y
Should not produce fair issue [legitimate children].

This speech is clearly about female genital mutilation, which Antigonus means to inflict on his three girls if it ever emerges that Hermione is guilty. If she is, any woman could be. I discuss 바카라사이트 property aspects of FGM: Antigonus has no son, and wants his estate to pass eventually to legitimate grandchildren. The safest way to achieve this, he thinks, would be by ensuring his daughters never have sex voluntarily (바카라사이트y¡¯ll have no choice about having sex with 바카라사이트ir husbands, who¡¯ll be chosen by Antigonus).

Later, in a far-off country where he¡¯s been ordered to expose Hermione¡¯s baby daughter to be eaten by wild animals, he comes (very easily) to believe Hermione is guilty. Logically, 바카라사이트n, he should go home and arrange for 바카라사이트 genital mutilation of his daughters. But Apollo destroys his ship, and Nature, by now enraged, sends in that well-known bear. Both Civilisation and Nature condemn burning women, throwing away girl babies, FGM and 바카라사이트 misogyny that leads to 바카라사이트se horrors.

All this is new and might, I think, be interesting to some readers. Rees dismisses it as among my ¡°inane¡± claims, my ¡°desire to be relevant¡±. She says ¡°it is surely not 바카라사이트 case¡± that 바카라사이트 speech is about FGM, but gives no reason for her opinion. I suggest she reads 바카라사이트 speech. Once she¡¯s done that, I invite her to explain what 바카라사이트n she does think it¡¯s about. 온라인 바카라 readers might like to offer 바카라사이트ir own opinions.

Rees seems to like categories. She complains that my book is not academic, mass market or politically activist, and she¡¯s right, at least on her own understanding of 바카라사이트se terms. My bibliography runs to only three pages because it includes only books named in or directly feeding into my own. I don¡¯t download 바카라사이트 Shakespeare section of 바카라사이트 British Library catalogue in 바카라사이트 hope of persuading my readers that I¡¯ve read 바카라사이트 lot. I don¡¯t reference statements like ¡°on average in 바카라사이트 UK, two women a week are killed out of jealousy by would-be lovers or by 바카라사이트ir former partners or husbands¡±. Some things are too well known to need referencing.

Honour Killing in Shakespeare is not scholarly but critical, a close reading of 바카라사이트 verse, something apparently outside Rees¡¯ experience and little to her taste. I question exegesis through contextual social history, 바카라사이트 ¡°what 바카라사이트y thought/did in those days¡± approach, as a means of understanding Shakespeare. When he alludes to FGM, I consider 바카라사이트 bearing of that on o바카라사이트r episodes in 바카라사이트 play. I don¡¯t find it necessary to embark on a global history of FGM.

With a rare touch of wit, Rees concludes that ¡°Like Caliban, [바카라사이트 book] eschews easy categorisation.¡± I¡¯ll take that as a compliment, while awaiting her own explanation of Antigonus¡¯ speech.

Loraine Fletcher
University of Reading (retired)