Calphurnia and Portia: Rome’s Unwanted Women

Okay, back to business.  No more paranormal for a while and back to research!

julius-caesar-portia-woundJulius Caesar is a play that is suspended between the realms of history and tragedy.  The play is maledominated, with only two women roles: Calphurnia, Caesar’s wife, and Portia, Brutus’ wife.  The lack of female presence is noticed in comparison to other Shakespeare plays where female roles are favorable, such as Twelfth Night, As You Like It, and The Merry Wives of Windsor.  David Mann discusses in Shakespeare’s Women, “Why should one play, say As You Like It, seem so sensitive to the minutiae of a woman’s feelings, and yet another, say Julius Caesar, be so cursory in its treatment?  The answer surely is that it depends entirely on the focus of the play, which, with the exception of a small group of romantic comedies, is generally on the male characters, and always reflects the male point of view”  (Mann 23).  Shakespeare created the absence of a strong female role in order to prove the tragic flaw of an ambitious, male dominated world in terms of Julius Caesar.

It is important to analyze the actions and choices that are made by these men in their world. Gail Kern Paster elaborates in the essay, “In the Spirit of Men There Is No Blood: Blood as Trope of Gender in Julius Caesar,” “The conspirators can only remake themselves, it would seem, by regendering Caesar; they can throw off the appearance of womanishness by displacing their own sense of gender-indeterminacy onto the body of their adversary and renegotiating the differences between themselves and Caesar in diacritical terms of the bodily canons” (290).    This quote touches on a common insecurity among the men of the Senate. They are envious and fearful of Caesar’s growing power.  In relation to the weak female roles of the play, the men themselves do not want to appear weak and feminine because then they will be overpowered. There is also the fear of being overruled by emotions and not being able to think rationally because of these emotions.  As Cassius states:

Let it be who it is: for Romans now
Have thews and limbs like to their ancestors;
But, woe the while! our fathers’ minds are dead,
And we are govern’d with our mothers‘ spirits;
Our yoke and sufferance show us womanish.I, ii, 79-83. Emphasis Added.

This is also proven when Caesar is being attacked over his inability to impregnateScreen shot 2013-01-21 at 4.11.35 PM Calphurnia and even requests Antony to brush by her to make her more fertile, “Forget not, in your speed, Antonius, /To touch Calphurnia; for our elders say, /The barren, touched in this holy chase, /Shake off their sterile curse. (I, ii, 10-13).  Paster also explains an interesting point that the more Caesar grows, the conspirators (or the Senate) shrink.  They must assassinate Caesar in order to secure their own masculinity.

When analyzing Caesar and Brutus and their own personal downfalls, one must look at their wives and their relationships with them.  These two ladies serve as a point of reasons and foundations for their husbands even though their warnings are not heeded.  Also, this play conveys an interesting point of view into a world without a female presence.  Or to be put more plainly, a civilization without women.  In this play, it seems that the two marriages are related into more of a partnership, as shown in the strength of these two women.  Calphurnia is so alarmed by her dream that she strongly urges Caesar to stay at home.  She is outspoken and clearly has a personality and self-made identity.  She warns Caesar and tells him to not go to the Senate. Her statement, “You shall not stir out of your house today”  (II, ii, 13) is written as a direct order and not a request.  Instead, Caesar listens to Decius’ alternate interpretation of her dream, which leads to his downfall.  Juliet Dusinberre elaborates in her book, Shakespeare and the Nature of Women, “Shakespeare’s women dream and see visions in vain, surviving to suffer the devastation they predict.  Decius interprets Calphurnia’s dream to flatter Caesar, and sketches the scorn which would attend his hearkening to his wife’s fears…” (Dusinberre 281).

To Caesar, he doesn’t heed Calphurnia’s warnings and nightmares because they are subjective.  Based on her womanly role and femininity, she is working primarily from emotions.  Instead, he believes in Decius’ interpretation and chooses to not lie to the Senate or the people regarding the condition of his health. He is murdered due to this choice.  But another reason why Caesar considers Decius’ interpretation of the dream is because it flatters his own personal confidence.  If he [Caesar] followed Calphurnia’s orders and lied to the Senate and stayed home, Caesar would have seen this as him not following through with his appointed role.  Decius’ interpretation was not only more persuasive, but also encouraged Caesar to continue to the Senate and walk into his own death sentence.

Similar to Calphurnia, Portia is determined to make sure her voice is heard and understood.  Portia goes a step further as she expects Brutus to be completely honest with her.  She desires a partnership with her husband and wants to be involved in his life.  Not only do these two share a partnership, but also Portia considers herself to be an extension of Brutus himself.  But he ignores her at first, thinking that she could not handle the real truth of his life and work. But Portia is extremely intelligent and has the ability to use language to aid her to get what she desires:

BRUTUS:  You are my true and honourable wife,
As dear to me as are the ruddy drops
That visit my sad heart

PORTIA:  If this were true, then should I know this secret.
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman that Lord Brutus took to wife:
I grant I am a woman; but withal
A woman well-reputed, Cato’s daughter.
Think you I am no stronger than my sex,
Being so father’d and so husbanded?
Tell me your counsels, I will not disclose ’em:
I have made strong proof of my constancy,
Giving myself a voluntary wound
Here, in the thigh: can I bear that with patience.
And not my husband’s secrets? II, i, 287-301

BrutusPortia challenges Brutus’ love for her.  If Brutus sees Portia as a comfort from his troubles, then he should be able to tell her of the conspiracy.  But he doesn’t and Portia uses logic and reason to explain her position as the wife of Brutus.  Portia’s voluntary wound is a representation of her strength and endurance as a woman in a man’s world.  Paster explains the voluntary wound as, “Portia calls attention to this bodily site not to remind Brutus of her femaleness, her lack of the phallus, but rather to offer the wound as substitute phallus” (294).  She purposely inflicted pain and injury onto herself in order to prove a physical strength that was masculine and the physical cut would serve as that proof, just as a male sexual part is proof of “manliness”.  She considers herself to be nearly like a man from her strong father who raised her, to Brutus, her husband.

Portia intentionally wounds herself to prove that she is just as strong as a man. Paster discusses that, “Later in the same scene, Portia’s self-wounding and voluntary self-display corroborate the same significance of bodily intactness as an ideological format of gender. Portia stakes her claim to knowledge of the conspiracy by seeking to efface the physical difference that separates her from her husband, difference that Brutus himself is intent upon marking”  (292).   This means that Portia’s desire to know about the conspiracy is so strong, that she intentionally wounded herself to rid herself of any signs of being a woman.  She is attempting to mutilate herself in order to be physically just like a man.

The actual action of this self-wound is significant because she is attempting to prove a point to her husband.  Paster goes on to explain that, “But Portia, unable by talking to prove her ability to keep still, turns to self-mutilation.  The gesture seems intended to imitate in little the suicides that Roman patriarchy valorized as the supreme expression of personal autonomy”  (293).  But Portia desires more than just to know about the conspiracy, she desires an equal partnership with her husband.  If she can prove that she can physically handle pain and to literally carve herself into a man, it will grant her that partnership.  Unfortunately, only so much can be done physically when her emotional state does not change genders.

Her emotional and mental state remains feminine.  Similarly, Brutus himself Portiademonstrates a flawed understanding of human emotion. Honor Matthews explains in Character and Symbol in Shakespeare’s Plays, “Both before and after the assassination he suffers sleeplessness typical of a troubled conscience […] Nevertheless, he strives to be honest with himself and others; he is idealistic, a loving husband an adored master.  Indeed Brutus’ true ‘sin’ is never wrongful self-assertion.” (Matthews 43).  This statement is interesting because it puts Brutus in more of a heroic position rather than a troubled conspirator who doesn’t know how to handle loss or failure.  This is supported by Antony’s speech in the end of the play where he regards Brutus as the only assassin who killed Caesar with Rome’s best interest at hear, “ This was the noblest Roman of them all;/ All the conspirators save only he/Did that they did in envy of great Caesar…” (V, v, 76-78).

There is an interesting point to consider in the scene where Brutus finds out about the suicide of his wife.  The news is delivered twice and both times Brutus is emotionally distant and unattached to the event. And Cassius is more affected by Portia’s death than Brutus himself.  Portia’s suicide, however, is not a sign of weakness.  David Mann explains that, “The values of the Roman matron are held up for admiration in many of the plays and are closely related to the willingness of such to commit suicide to maintain their reputations” (Mann 138).  This is supported by Brutus’s suicide after he has begun to lose the war.  Could this mean that Portia ultimately failed in attempting to be her husband’s partner and equal?  But the absence of Portia supplements a catalyst for his spiraling downfall into his own death.

Thomas Clayton explains in his text, Should Brutus Never Taste of Portia’s Death but Once, “The latter part of the play shows him characteristically and nobly enduring the consequences of his earlier folly even as he compounds it” (Clayton 244).  Brutus’ slow deterioration is due to his actions.  His initial motivation for taking part in the assassination of Caesar involved a patriotic act but soon realized the consequences both mentally and physically.  As seen in his unaffected reaction to Portia’s suicide, Brutus does not have a good handle on his own emotions.  Dunsinberre explains that, “Nevertheless, commanding his own emotions, Brutus underestimates the way in which other men are swayed by theirs.  Brutus may have more integrity than Antony but he is obtuse about passions which Antony understands”  (Dusinberre 290).

78941_juliuscaesar_mdBrutus’s disconnection from stable human emotions is his tragic flaw.  As those around him are reacting [healthily] to the events around them, Brutus does not comprehend which emotion to use.  Could it be that he emotionally shut down as soon as Caesar was killed?  Or did he disable his emotions to thwart the efforts of Portia’s insistence of knowing her husband’s secrets?  Clayton goes on to say, “There is no mistakening Brutus’s dissembling, and yet it does not register as discreditable, because of the mood and level of exchange, the residual effect of Brutus’s grief manifested to Cassius when Brutus told him of Portia’s death, and Brutus’s evident – it is more apparent – sincerity” (Clayton 251).

There are only two small roles for women in the play.  Calphurnia only makes a brief appearance and sternly tells her husband to stay home because of her vivid (and prophetic) dream.  Caesar simply puts Calphurnia’s concerns aside and instead listens to Decius’ alternate interpretation of the dream because it was more appealing and positive.  Listening to Calphurnia would have resulted in moral repercussions in his role as a leader and his reputation.  But not listening to Calphurnia resulted in his assassination by the Senate.

Meanwhile, Portia attempts to prove her role as an equal to Brutus.  Her desires to know the conspiracy of the Senate are much more than the pursuit of knowledge.  It is an attempt to become the extension of her husband and to have that partnership that her emotional state hungers for.  Even though she is attempting to prove her worthiness by physically mutilating herself into becoming a man, her emotional state remains as a woman.  Her suicide is resulted from Antony and Octavius’s rise to power and realizing that the Senate’s conspiracy plan has ultimately become a failure.  Even though she commits suicide first, Brutus is not too far behind her. Both husband and wife demonstrate an emotional disability and to preserve their honors, they commit suicide.

Shakespeare wrote Julius Caesar as a way to convey the absence of a strong female role in a male dominated world and the consequences of ambition.  Calphurnia demonstrates strength in her when she demands that Caesar lie to the Senate and stay home with her to ensure his safety.  But the attempt is counter-argued by a stronger male presence in her life.  This ignorance on Caesar’s part leads to his death.  Portia desires an equal relationship with her husband, and while she can handle the physical pain and demands of a man, she cannot handle the emotional demands of being a man.  Even though she may self-mutilate a phallus onto herself, she cannot change on the inside.  Both women are neglected and ignored.  They are unwanted women.  No matter what actions they may have performed or words they may have spoken, they did not have the power to change the story or fate of their husbands.

 Bibliography

Clayton, Thomas. “‘Should Brutus Never Taste of Portia’s Death but Once?’ Text and Performance in Julius Caesar.” Studies in English Literature (Rice) 23.2 (1983): 237. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 Apr. 2010.

Dunsinberre, Juliet.  Shakespeare and the Nature of Women.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press. 1996. Print.

Mann, David.  Shakespeare’s Women.  New York: Cambridge University Press. 2008. Print.

Marshall, Cynthia. “Portia’s Wound, Calphurnia’s Dream: Reading Character in Julius Caesar.” English Literary Renaissance 24.2 (1994): 471-87. Print.

Matthews, Honor.  Character and Symbol in Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1962.  Print.

Paster, Gail Kern. “”In the Spirit of Men There Is No Blood”: Blood as Trope of Gender in Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40.3 (1989): 284. Print.

Rebhorn, Wayne A. “The Crisis of the Aristocracy in Julius Caesar.” Renaissance Quarterly 43.1 (1990): 75-111. JSTOR. Web. 6 Apr. 2010. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2861793>

Shakespeare, William. Riverside Shakespeare. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Print.

Smith, Warren D. “The Duplicate Revelation of Portia’s Death.” Shakespeare Quarterly 4.2 (1953): 153-61. Print.

My Thoughts on Julie Taymor’s The Tempest

I got a late Christmas gift.  After missing out on seeing Julie Taymor’s The Tempest due to an extremely limited theatrical release, a dear friend of mine gifted the DVD for me for Christmas.  The anticipation of seeing this film has been building for well over a year now.  I enjoy film adaptations of Shakespeare because there are so many possibilities for the text to change and come alive on the screen.  And now with the latest technology breakthroughs of visual effects, the possibilities are endless.  When I first got wind of the Taymor’s film adaptation, I was excited.  When I found out that Prospero, typically a strong male role, would be changed to Proserpa, a female role, I was thrilled.  And then, when I got confirmation that Helen Mirren would be playing Prospera, I was ecstatic.  I had been in a performance of The Tempest where Prospero was played by a woman and therefore, always open to the idea.  I realize that there are many qualms regarding this, but what I advise is that one should remain open to the change.  Love it or hate it, but always give it a chance.  You may be surprised at what you may end up liking it and perhaps even fascinated at the newfound ideas and messages it may convey.

Shakespeare is a topic that I care about intensely.  I don’t watch adaptations just once.  My private process, as nerdy and presumptuous as it may come across, includes watching the film once with no play in hand and a very basic understanding of the idea and concept behind the film.  Then, I’ll take note of my initial reactions and questions, and with that in mind, I will look up any articles or documentaries discussing the process in further details (how, what, why, when).  Then, I will consult the original script if there’s any dramatic changes that stand out.  Then I will watch the film again with the play in hand, and making more detailed notes.  Hey, I figure if I ever do an adaptation of Shakespeare and I need to cut something, it’s not a bad idea to see what others have done.  Then I will watch the film with commentary, take notes again.  And finally, I will watch the film after all the extra little details and knowledge in hand and just enjoy the film and reap the benefits of all that extra research I’ve done.  I know.  I’m a nerd.  And believe it or not, what I do just skims the surface.  I could go into the background of certain acting styles and processes, design elements, etc.  By the way, this blog will be filled with many spoilers.  If you read something and I…spoiled…it for you, read at your own risk.

I completed my first viewing with mostly positive reactions.  The set of the film was a beautiful combination of nature and man-made imagery.  Miranda ran through about four different types of ground (rock, grass, sand, dirt).  It was stunning.  Now, the first thing that stood out to me was the editing of the text.  Of course, with Mirren playing Prospera, the changes are necessary, (ie. Lord to Mum, he to she).  But “Master” stays just that….Master.  Mistress wouldn’t be an appropriate change anyway, even though the syllable would keep the line consistent and the gender change would imply that the line has to change.  Taymor took an extra step and embellished the back story to be more appropriate and I applaud her for making the back story better fit the context of her adaptation.  Prospera was married to the Duke of Milan and she studied the sciences and the art of magic.  When her husband died, he left his dukedom to his wife, and Antonio accused her of witchcraft.  Hence to Prospera beign disposed of.  Gonzalo’s aide remains consistent.  This change to the back story adds another layer to The Tempest.  Not to mention that this presents a threat to her gender and not just her as a human being.  Throughout the film, Mirren is in pants, and it isn’t until she faces Antonio, Sebastian, Alonso, and Gonzalo, is she back in a dress and remains in that dress.  Also another notable change was the cut of Iris, Ceres and Juno.  That is alright though.  It was never one of my favorite scenes.  Not to mention the rearranging of dialogue had me raise an eyebrow a tad.  Finally, the cut of Prospera’s final speech almost had me in outrage and the feeling of being robbed.  However, I needed to calm down because in this film adaptation, I can understand why Taymor didn’t have Mirren deliver the speech.  It wouldn’t have fit, in my humble opinion.  As I watch the books float in the water during the final credits, I began to notice that the singer was singing the final speech.  Taymor found a way to sneak it in.  Interesting.  This is not the only time a speech was turned into a song.  Ferdinand’s speech was turned into a song, appropriately called, “O Mistress Mine”.

There were several actors who stood out to me.  Helen Mirren was fantastic as she always is.  I wish I could say more, but I enjoyed her Prospera and the underlying rage she kept inside and the softening of her character in the end.  It was brilliant.  The next actor that stood out to me was Ariel, played by Ben Wishaw.  It was a brand new and thoughtful perspective of Ariel that I had never seen before.  Ariel is often played playful with a side of anguish for his (or her) freedom.  Wishaw took on a tormented Ariel, with stunning visual effects.  Taymor was inspired by Brian Oglesbee, who is a photographer who worked on a water series and she brought him in to help with the film.  The dialogue between Ariel and Prospera through the water is visually fantastic.  There was a beautiful moment between Prospera and Ariel where Taymore let Ariel become physically manifested in act V, scene I.

And finally, Djimon Hounsou.  Where do I even begin?  His performance of Caliban moved me to tears.  I’ve never sympathized much for Caliban and I’ve never really enjoyed certain performances where Caliban’s humanity was taken away and replace by a stereotypical monster.  The Caliban in my mind was very much human, with human emotions.  Hounsou brought my dream Caliban to life.  If nothing else gets you to see this film, watch it for Hounsou.  I suppose I should address Russell Brand’s performance as Trinculo.  He was great, and the role suits him.  Alan Cumming was…well…Alan Cumming.  I admire Cumming’s work and I always enjoy him on screen.

Overall, I recommend this film to pretty much anyone.  The delivery of the dialogue is especially well done and easy to understand (in my opinion though).  I believe open-minded Shakespeare buffs will enjoy this film, while the purist Shakespeare buffs won’t enjoy it quite as much, I hope I’m wrong.  It’s an interesting adaption well-worth watching and enjoying.  The Tempest was Shakespeare’s final masterpiece and in a way, this play sums up all of his works and bids farewell to his audience with Prospero’s final speech.  Elements of Taymor’s previous 1986 stage production (which used some fantastic puppetry) lived on in this film and she has wonderful ideas.   I believe this film was not only well done, but it did this play justice.

Trailer:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyGl2uIQ-Q]

Actor, Playwright, Director, Researcher…Superhero

Well, not really.  I just seem to have a lot of my plate but for no reason.  It is self-inflicted.

You know you’re a nerd when you go to the library and you have to refill the meter twice and pray that you don’t get a ticket for going over the 1-hour parking limit.  I checked out some books for the group project for the introduction to the paranormal class I took from Ryan Buell.  I’m also going to be taking his demonology course in October, so I checked out some books to help myself prepare for the next few months.

I also went to Borders and found some really interesting books on Shakespeare.  Ironically, I came up with my own research topic for Shakespeare-related materials and I got the idea while working on my group project for Ryan’s class.  I’ve decided that I’m going to read Will’s text and see how many times ghosts appear and take note of anything paranormal in his plays.  I’m a bit excited, so I’m going to go ahead and get started on it…I’m not sure if it would be a good dissertation topic, but then again I’ll never know.

Speaking of dissertation…

I’m trying to decide whether the PhD or the MFA route is right for me at this moment.  Technically, I can go for both at different times of my life.  But I found an MFA program that fits me where I am right now.  The application process is a lot of work, but I think it’s manageable.  It’s at Goddard College and it’s a low-residence MFA program so that you can focus on your own creative work and mold your own program.

Anyway, I’m off to the library again.  Adios!