Virginia Woolf, “Shakespeare’s Sister,” Jacobus, Essay Example

In Niccolo Machiavelli, work entitled ‘The Prince’, he advises the young Prince of Florence to follow his advice regarding how he should rule his dominion. He talks of the acquisition and rule of the land by military action and ruthless political measures. [There are four ways a new Prince can acquire principality: by one’s own arms, by the arms of others, by evil means and by civil means].  (Machiavelli).  Of all of these, the young Prince was advised that military conquest was the most enduring method.

The emphasis is placed upon the Medici family of that time who managed a great dynasty, not through warfare but through banking and efficient trade and commerce. They were a princely family and became one of the most powerful and affluent families in 12^th Century Florence. Women tried to make an impact during this period but were largely unsuccessful in a male dominated society. One exception was that of Catherine d’ Medici, born of the Medici family in 1519 who went on to become the Queen of France.

Virginia Woolf would have viewed the Medici era as not dissimilar to that of Shakespearean times where women were viewed as being merely chattels or possessions of men. What she found deplorable is that women prior to the eighteenth century were given very little credit or mention in society. Woolf acknowledged that men viewed women as mere assets that they had the right to beat and possess; they were viewed with little intelligence and not suitable for the more important roles in society. She acknowledged that women had low self-esteem and given little credibility [ I thought of that old gentlemen, who is dead now, but was a bishop, I think, who declared that it was impossible for any woman, past or present, or to come, to have the genius of Shakespeare] (Woolf)

Woolf also focused on religious points and the Bishop stating that Cats cannot go to heaven because they have no souls. She makes the point that the Bishop had no basis in fact for the statement i.e. he had not visited heaven so how could he pre-determine that Cats could not go there.  Equally, this applies to women in so far as he could not make a judgement that some woman in the future would not achieve the literary genius of Shakespeare.  Woolf’s logic is sound but perhaps she is dealing more with a bigoted man who is accustomed to using stereotypes and whilst this may be a true portrayal of attitudes at the time, it is always dangerous to generalise, as there may have been many who did not share these viewpoints.

Woolf also has a lot of self-reflection and examines her own role as a lecturer at Cambridge University and the rights of women in their struggle for independence and recognition.  Woolf was classified as a modernist in her thinking and she viewed Cambridge University as a Victorian establishment that still followed prudish behavioural ways in their view towards women students. She also maintained that women were restricted from writing careers because of poverty and this remained the domain of only the more affluent rich. This was true of Machiavelli’s time and it was only the more affluent families where women were able to generate any sort of recognition. Woolf created the fictional character of Judith Shakespeare and illustrated how it would be impossible for a woman to rise to such fame because of the constraints and restrictions placed upon women during this time period. She particularly focused upon the pity of denying women a sound education and how precarious the lives of women were during this time.

It was Alice Walker who criticised Woolf for the exclusion of women of colour and how the plight of Phillis Wheatley did not fit into her models of a ‘Room of one’s own’.  Phillis was a slave girl of considerable intellect who was denied even basic rights and prevented from developing her talents. The criticism was aimed at the limitations of Woolfs work and despite her forthright speech; she considered her own academic position before relating all of her views, the concept of holding back because of political and social pressures.

Alice Paul was one of the leading campaigners who fought for women’s suffrage and historian’s credit her for significant accomplishments in this field.  The struggle for women’s rights in America began in the 1820s, with the writings of Fanny Wright.  Wright also advocated for the abolition of slavery.  Her views had little support at the time, and it was not until 1848 that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott held a women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, where the matters surfaced again.

Woolf also touches on the taboo subject of Lesbianism in the fictional character of Mary Carmichael. [Chloe like Olivia, Do not start. Do not blush. Let us admit in the privacy of our own society that these things sometimes happen] (Woolf). Woolf felt at ease talking to her students on this subject matter, mainly due to the sanctuary of the college and the ability to talk freely on these important discussions. These topics were eluded to in the times of Shakespeare but rarely debated or talked about in the open and the subject was reviled by the Church, a powerful political lobby at that time.

Within the general claims to male dominance in social theory, three challenges have emerged (i) the criticism against that of female knowledge and its’ inability to demonstrate adequate work that illustrates scientific or unbiased knowledge. This resulted in feminists coming under scrutiny in order to demonstrate abilities to rationalise knowledge, perform verification, subjectivity and freedom from political bias.  The danger here is one of stereotyping and simply branding women as one gender that provides a uniform result.  The third challenge intertwines that of knowledge and gender whereby in essence women are taken for granted. Since 1993 this has caused feminists to re-evaluate the position and rewrite much of the subject matter.

Works Cited

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. 1984. 7 7 2011 <http://www.bookrags.com/notes/pri/SUM.html>.

Woolf, Virginia. Shakespeare’s Sister. New York : Perfection Learning, 2000.