The present paper is focused on the figures of the Dark Lady of the sonnets and Hermia from A Midsummer Night‟s Dream as modes of writing against the Petrarchian ideal. The former is the most explicit of Shakespeare‘s suite of “dark ladies” (which includes Anne, Kate, Hero, Phoebe, Cleopatra, and Rosaline), while the latter is arguably his least individualised character, yet one that has benefitted from more public attention than most thanks to the generous circulation, continuous adaptation and re-contextualisation of the text. Two useful concepts for the discussion I propose are what Mikhail Bakhtin terms “re-accentuation” and “heteroglossia” as these texts allow different voices to dispute the place and worth of a dark-skinned woman, yet it is precisely by creating a space to voice them all that it creates a possibility to shake up the aesthetic, as well as the literary canon. The ontological status of the Dark Lady and Hermia is also of interest, so that a linguistic and stylistic analysis is carried out in order to highlight how conflicting ideologies attempt to appropriate their image, namely the hegemonic versus the inclusive understandings of what James Hughes calls the “personhood-based theory”. The revolutionary aspect brought to the table by Shakespeare is his choice for a transition from the hegemonic perspective to one which judges the two “dark ladies” on their own terms.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Alexander Catherine and Stanley Wells (ed.). Shakespeare and Race. Cambridge University Press 2000. Print.
Back Les and Solomos John (ed.). Theories of Race and Racism. London: Routledge 2001. Print.
Belsey Catherine. “Disrupting sexual difference: meaning and gender in the comedies” in Alternative Shakespeares. Edited by John Drakakis 2nd edition London: Routledge 2002. 169-194. Print.
Bloom Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human New York: Riverhead Trade1999. Print.
Buber Martin. I and Thou Hong Kong: Hesperides Press 2008. Print.
Callaghan Dympna. “Introduction” in A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. by Dympna Callaghan 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell 2016 1-19. Print.
Cook Judith. Women in Shakespeare. 2nd edition Virgin 1990. Print.
de Grazia Margareta (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press 2006. Print.
Douglas Mary. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo London: Routledge 2001. Print.
Eco Umberto. Inventing the Enemy and other occasional writings. Translated from Italian by Richard Dixon Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2012. Print.
Elsom John (ed.). Is Shakespeare Still Our Contempoary?. 2nd reprinting London: Routledge 1992. Print.
Evans Malcom. “Deconstructing Shakespeare‘s comedies” in Alternative Shakespeares. Edited by John Drakakis 2nd edition London: Routledge 2002 69-97. Print.
Fleming Juliet. “The Ladies‘ Shakespeare” in A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. by Dympna Callaghan 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell 2016 21-39. Print.
Graham Elaine. Representations of the Post/human: Monsters Aliens and Others in Popular Culture Manchester University Press 2002. Print.
Howard Jean and Marion O‘Connor (ed.). Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology. London: Methuen 1987. Print.
Hubler Edward. The Sense of Shakespeare‟s Sonnets Santa Barbara:Greenwood Press 1976. Print.
Hughes James. Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future Boulder: Westview Press 2004. Print.
Hughes Ted. Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being. London: Faber and Faber 1993. Print.
Kavanagh James. “Shakespeare in ideology” in Alternative Shakespeares. Edited by John Drakakis 2nd edition London: Routledge 2002 146-169. Print.
Legatt Alexander (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Comedy. Cambridge University Press 2006. Print.
Lewis C. S. The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition Oxford: Clarendon Press 1937. Print.
Loomba Anita and Martin Orkin (ed.). Post-colonial Shakespeares. London: Routledge 1998. Print.
Loomba Ania. “The Great Indian Vanishing Trick - Colonialism Property and the Family in A Midsummer Night‟s Dream” in A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. by Dympna Callaghan 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell 2016 181-206. Print.
Newman Karen. “ ‗And wash the Ethiop white‘: femininity and the monstrous in Othello” in Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology. Ed. by Jean Howard and Marion O‘Connor London: Methuen 1987 143-163. Print.
Rackin Phyllis.”Misogyny is everywhere” in A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. by Dympna Callaghan 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell 2016 60-75. Print.
Rose Jacqueline. “Sexuality in the reading of Shakespeare: Hamlet and Measure for Measure” in Alternative Shakespeares. Edited by John Drakakis 2nd edition London: Routledge 2002 97-121. Print.
Said Edward. Orientalism New York: Pantheon Books 1978. Print.
Serpieri Alessandro. “Reading the signs: towards a semiotics of Shakespearean drama” translated byKeir Elam in Alternative Shakespeares. ed. by John Drakakis 2nd edition London: Routledge 2002. Print.
Shakespeare William. A Midsummer Night‟s Dream. Edited by Harold F. Brooks 2nd revised edition “The Arden Shakespeare” London: Methuen&Co. Ltd 1979. Print.
Shakespeare William. The Sonnets. Edited by G. Blakemore Evans with an introduction by Anthony Hecht Cambridge University Press 1996. Print.
Spivak Gayatri Chakravorty. In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics London: Routledge 2006. Print.
Stanton Kay. “Made to write ‘whore‘ upon? Male and Female Use of the Word ‘Whore‘ in Shakespeare‘s Canon” in A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. by Dympna Callaghan 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell 2016 98- 121. Print.
Vickers Brian (ed.). Shakespeare. The Critical Heritage. Volume 5 (1765-1794) London: Routledge&Kegan Paul 1979. Print.