Despite being written and set around three hundred and fifty years apart, both William Shakespeare’s ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ and Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Edible Woman’ are regarded, to varying degrees of popularity, as being landmark texts for the Feminist movement. Atwood herself has noted that ‘there was no woman’s movement in sight when [she] composed the book’. Both authors make profound use of female characters that interact with the institution of marriage, to explore the potential for female social reflexivity in each period. It could be argued that the differences seen between female characters in ‘The Edible Woman’ and ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ could be due, not to varying individual attitudes towards their patriarchal domination, but to the variation in realistic autonomy that each woman has to reject these values. This disjunction between what is desired and what is achieved can be analyzed from a psychoanalytic perspective to examine the effect that it has on the self and psyche.
Two such characters which make for an interesting comparison between the two texts are Marian McAlpin, the protagonist of Atwood’s ‘The Edible Woman’, and Beatrice, of Shakespeare’s ‘Much Ado About Nothing’. First performed in 1612, audiences of ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ immediately responded warmly to Beatrice, finding her a likable and humorous character; yet despite her witty, outspoken nature being received well, up until 1967 women could be legally persecuted as a ‘scold’ or ‘shrew’ for being too opinionated in the company of men. This implies that had Beatrice existed in society, outside the world of Shakespearean literature, she would not have been met with the same level of freedom and positive regard as she receives in the play. Part of what makes Beatrice such a formidable, revolutionary character is her apparent total dismissal of traditional female and societal expectations. She declares before her uncle ‘Just, if he send me no husband, for the blessing I am at him upon my knees every morning and evening’. In this way, Beatrice rejects the ideas of feminine honor that were perpetuated throughout Elizabethan society, as well as family honor. Yet through doing this, Beatrice ensures that she can retain the most autonomy possible, in the absence of further male control over her. Furthermore, Beatrice can be seen to appropriate male language styles, as seen through Benedick’s comment ‘she speaks poniards, and every word stabs’ to Benedick, her speech has taken on a violent and phallic nature. Despite her conscious defiance and contempt for traditional gender roles, Beatrice isn’t bettering the lives of women, she is only mirroring the cynical attitudes towards love and marriage found in men as a mechanism to prevent exploitation of her perceived weakness- emotion. Furthermore, this level of defense is only effective in her current company and, as already explored, would not have had the same effect in wider society, where female submission to the world of marriage was paramount. Therefore, she has just internalized and projected another aspect of traditional masculine views. She uses traditionally masculine behaviors to protect against people perceiving her as femininely weak and passive.
Ideas contrasting those presented by Shakespeare, regarding the role and desired escapism of women at the time, can be found in ‘The Edible Woman’. Atwood uses her protagonist Marian to show the process of coming to terms with one’s position in society, the concept of social reflexivity, and the effects that such a process has on the self. At the outset of the novel, Marian describes herself as ‘stolid… magnanimous… efficient’, adjectives used deliberately by Atwood to present Marian’s ideal self as the archetypical aspiring housewife, despite such a sophisticated lexical choice indicating that she is well-educated. Yet as the narrative progresses, she is shown to ‘feel [like she is] subject to rules [she] has no interest in and no part in making’, eventually identifying herself with an innocent rabbit that Peter describes how he gruesomely hunted. Following this, Marian runs away and takes on the role of prey (‘no longer a game…it was threatening’ ); leading to her inability to eat anything that she believes to have been hunted and taken advantage of. Here, it is possible to interpret a separation between Marian’s conscious acceptance of patriarchal values, and her subconscious repulsion at such ideas. This progressive narrative appears to explore Marian transitioning from demur and submissive to rebellious against her patriarchal restraints- as epitomized by Peter. In the absence of taking any actions to live independently of men and outside the restrictive controls of 1960s Canada, her body has provided an ultimatum- she frees either herself from her perceived predation, or she dies by her hand. As argued by Emma Parker, ‘her not eating is a physical expression of her powerlessness and at the same time, a protest against that powerlessness’. This level of self-inflicted, restrictive control as a ‘protest’ in response to the widespread entrapment of women is a response that cannot be achieved by Beatrice in ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, due to the highly repressive nature of Elizabethan society, in which any violation of social code would be met with dire consequences, such as Hero’s disownment. Perhaps this suggests that while gender equality has not been fully achieved, it has certainly improved considerably between the early 17th and mid-20th centuries. Through Beatrice’s failure and complete inability to escape her societal restraints, M.D. Friedman notes that ‘the marriage between Benedick and Beatrice silences her’; her autonomy in society will only continue to decrease. This is likely due to the presence of laws surrounding the vocal freedom of women in the presence of their husbands, as mentioned previously. Due to the condemnation of divorce in Catholicism, Beatrice is tied to Benedick for life- essentially signing away her freedom. Beatrice’s decision to marry can be interpreted in various ways, whether it be due to the promise of Benedick providing a richer and more autonomous life for her, or whether her ‘motivations’ have a much darker face, such as familial and societal pressure to wed. Hence why it is so important that Marian breaks off her engagement to her domineering fiancé, as seen through the switch from first to third person narrative; from a psychoanalytical perspective this is representative of Marian’s depersonalization and mental strain as she loses all conscious self-jurisdiction.
Between these two characters, 21st-century readers and audiences can see how female attitudes toward their lifestyle have evolved, as in the Feminist meta-narrative there is a tendency to diminish the stories of women who were unable to revolt, despite having grievances with their treatment.
Through the character of Hero in ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, Shakespeare creates an epitomized representation of a demure and desired female in Elizabethan society and uses this to demonstrate the paradoxical nature of gender codes. Hero has been perfectly crafted to encapsulate the core components of female honor, including virginity, respect for male authority, and having a calm disposition. One of her first lines in the play is ‘you walk softly and look sweetly and say nothing’, which could be seen as a clear comment from Shakespeare on the heavily misogynistic socialization that Elizabethan girls received. Carol Cook notes that ‘Hero becomes, in effect, a sign to be read and interpreted by others’, as evidenced structurally by Hero having a mere 44 lines, in comparison to Beatrice’s 106 lines, and Leonato’s 120. The hero becomes so vocally absent in the play that it’s unsurprising she appears to be without a personality of her own, simply defined by her relationships with other people. Yet the ‘read[ings] and interpret[ations]’ that other characters give of Hero remain the driving force of the play itself. In saying ‘Leonato’s Hero, your Hero, every man’s Hero’, Don John points to the generic nature of her character, and to the fact that Hero is almost used by Shakespeare as a vessel for portraying female honor. In Act 4, Scene 1 ‘[Hero faints]’ in response to the relentless accusations and insults being directed at her surrounding her rumored infidelity; this provides a visual demonstration of the contrast between Hero’s vocal absence and immense metaphorical presence in the play as a whole. When unable to eloquently defend herself, like Beatrice or the male characters would, she is left only with the option of using and removing her physical presence to be understood.
The appellation of ‘Hero’ itself is deeply ironic, as she lacks the power and autonomy to save anyone in the play- least of all herself. This technique is in direct contrast to Atwood’s use of ‘Marian’, connoting the damsel-in-distress ‘Maid Marian’ figure, who can protect herself to some extent. Though Shakespeare attempts to keep Hero at the center of the audience’s attention, through the foil dynamic between her and Beatrice, ultimately she does fade into the background of the play, despite the driving narrative being centered around her. Such irony continues throughout the play, such as the notion that it is not the brash, outspoken, and unconventional Beatrice who is the cause of male anxieties, it’s instead the docile Hero. Despite demanding submission and aiding to creation of a society in which women’s dispositions are molded by men, it is this very vulnerability that causes a paradoxical fear in them. They fear being cuckolded and the betrayal of trust, this is shown at Hero and Claudio’s wedding, when, despite being the very definition of a loyal woman, Hero is disowned and villainised by her father and fiancé Claudio. This demonstrates the tragic relationship between acceptance and defiance of female gender codes. Regardless of whether women choose to accept or reject the societal requirement to be demure and passive, the outcome is always the same in Shakespeare’s ‘Much Ado About Nothing’- women fall victim to the accusations and insecurities of men.