Shakespeares Sister by Virginia Woolf - Essay Example

 “Shakespeare’s Sister” by Virginia Woolf Shakespeare’s Sister is an essay written by a famous novelist and essayist of the 19th and 20th century, Virginia Woolf. Woolf wrote this essay in a background of worsened discrimination against women and at a time when women were still considered inferior. She attempts to address the problem by giving the audience a number of arguments about the woman position during the Shakespearean times and trying to bring out the cause-effect relationship of these arguments. To achieve this, Woolf uses a fictional Judith, who she takes to be a talented sister to Shakespeare, the famous playwright. It is, therefore, the story of how badly women, even those who had a talent were treated during these days. The arguments presented by Woolf are meant to depict that if Shakespeare had a sister with a talent similar to his, she would have lived in an entirely different world from that of Shakespeare. This paper aims at exploring two of Woolf’s arguments and developing a cause-effect relationship to them. The paper will also integrate further literature evidence to support the analysis of the arguments. In her point of view, Woolf argues that women position in the society was prejudiced, and they lacked the importance that their male counterparts, including brothers had. The woman was not allowed to make important decisions even concerning her life. For instance, besides being denied a chance for education, a woman was supposed to get married as early as even 13 years and to have children. The woman was not allowed even to make a choice for a husband, and the parents thus arranged the marriages without any consent from the girl. Further, in marriage the woman was considered the property of the man and owned nothing. In her argument, the main cause of this prejudice was the material poverty of the woman in history. Money is considered as the primary element that prevented the woman in history to have her “own room”. She, therefore, depicts from this explanation that intellectual and social freedom is dependent upon the ability to acquire material possession. In the 19th century, when Woolf wrote her essay, the woman’s gender roles and marital status were the main determinants of her standing in the society. The society at the time still demanded ultimate submission of the woman to the husband, and they were denied the power to make any decision. These ‘injustices’ were happening in the light of the notion that a woman was man’s property. It was, therefore, improper for a property to have any power over even itself. This perspective is comparable to the concept of conspicuous consumption in history, depicted by Christine Page in 1992 (Page, 82-87). This paper traces the worldwide desire to acquire conspicuously and retain property to the historic acquisition of wives, slaves and trophies that determined a man’s status in the society. The paper establishes that traditionally, women were not only disallowed to own property but were themselves men’s property and could not have equal rights. In a different text, an author Smith Bonnie explores the women’s history from a global perspective. Throughout the text, the argument is that women were regarded in almost all societies as inferior to men. The issue of women owning property could not be acceptable in any society, not until in the twelfth century when the English common law which was an adoption of Anglo-Saxon and Norman traditional laws was created (Smith, p. 134). This law allowed women to own property but only in marriage where the husband and wife were considered as a single entity. Widows and spinsters were also allowed to own property but in special circumstances. These circumstances. For the widows, the property was registered under the name of the late husband and therefore it was not entirely hers. For spinsters, only those with possible royal blood were allowed to own property and even then, there were limits depending on the social status of the woman (Smith, p. 73). These two readings fully integrates with Woolf’s claim that the cause of the prejudice and disregard for women over the years was based on their lack of material possession. Being possessed by the husbands themselves prevented their intellectual advancement. An interesting turn of argument is presented at the end of the essay. After exploring the situation of a woman from the eyes of the fictitious sister to Shakespeare, Woolf appears to disapprove and question her own analysis. She has spent time exploring the literature and history to identify the truth about the woman and her position in the society. Throughout the essay, she has presented and supported claims that the woman was ignored and considered inferior to the man in almost all respects. For instance, a woman could not go out into theatres or own property. Even with a talent, as Judith had, she could not leave the house to playwright or even act in a play. She was a confined being. Besides having supported the earlier claims convincingly, Woolf makes an argument that truth as well as history is subjective. This can be taken to imply that although her analysis is focused on seeking the “essential oil of truth”, there is a likelihood that no truth exist. The subjectivity of truth as recorded in history is based, from her perspective, on the claim that a highly controversial subject such as the position of women is vulnerable to fictitious evidences. In fact, the whole essay is based on a fictitious situation in which case as she says has more truth than facts. She claims that in any search for the reality one should realise that reality has never been objective, rather it is dependent on the circumstances and situations in which a person’s life revolves. An analysis of this argument takes us back to the women history as documented in Smith’s book. The nature of the relationship between men and women throughout history has been that interdependence. In many societies, the truth about the value of a woman could only be expressed by the husband. In as much as across the various societies explored in this text, the status of women in the general population was subordinate to that of a man. Smith recognises that the relation of the woman with the children caring and housekeeping duties in most societies was not to indicate submission to the man; who was associated with complex and more defined duties such as finding food for the family and taking care of the family. In this view, the separation of duties is rather out of convenience and for complementary purpose (Smith, p. 234). The lack of objectivity in the truth about women position and their bargaining power can also be seen in Page’s text. Although the text specifically focuses on the acquisition of wealth and property, it depicts that the thirst for property acquisition and protection is an overall concept that has not even traditionally excluded even the women. This means that the truth about the ownership of property, as well as the other claims, depends on situations and is hence subjective. The causal-effect relationship brought out in Woolf’s essay is expressive of the woman of the 19th century and before. The arguments developed are well articulated and supported by most of the historical literature available on women position in the ancient times. Even today, the status of women in the society is still controversial. So many historical evidences of prejudice and subordination exist. It takes serious analysis to realise the subjectivity of the truth in the history and make arguments as has been made by Woolf in this essay. Works cited Smith, Bonnie G. Women's History in Global Perspective: Volume 2. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2005. Print. Christine, Page. "A History of Conspicuous Consumption", in SV - Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism, eds: Association for Consumer Research, 1992. Print. Read More