Dysmorphia

Dysmorphia (pronounced dis-mor-fiah)

(1) In clinical anatomy, characterized by anatomical malformation.

(2) In general medicine, having or exhibiting an anatomical malformation.

(3) In psychology and psychiatry, the perception of anatomical malformation; any of various psychological disorders whose sufferers believe that their body is wrong or inadequate, such as anorexia, bulimia, and muscle dysmorphia (bigorexia).

(4) As Dismorphia astyocha, a butterfly in the family Pieridae, found in both Argentina & Brazil.

From Ancient Greek δυσμορφίᾱ (dusmorphíā) (misshapenness, ugliness), the construct being δυσ- (dus-) (hard, difficult, bad) + μορφή (morphḗ) (shape, form) + -ίᾱ (-íā).  The prefix dys- was from the New Latin dys-, from Ancient Greek δυσ- (dus-), (hard, difficult, bad”) and was used to convey the idea of being difficult, impaired, abnormal, or bad.  Morph was a back-formation from morpheme & morphism, attested since the 1950s, from the Ancient Greek μορφή (morphḗ) (shape, form) and related to the German Morph, from Morphem (although dating only from the 1940s).  It’s probably now most familiar in (1) formal grammar & linguistics as a physical form representing some morpheme in language (it exists as a recurrent distinctive sound or sequence of sounds), (2) in linguistics as an allomorph (one of a set of realizations that a morpheme can have in different contexts) and (3) in digital image processing where shapes are changed from one form to another with the use of specialized software, a popular type being that which wholly or (especially) partially blends two images.  The plural is dysmorphias and, in clinical use, the synonym is dysmorphosis.

The word dysmorphia first appeared in the Histories of the Greek historian Herodotus (circa 484–circa 425 BC) when he referred to the myth of the “ugliest girl in Sparta”.  Herodotus, even in his lifetime, was criticized for making an insufficient distinction between legend and historical fact but the veracity of much of his work, subject to forensic analysis by modern archeologists and archivists, has been established.  The story of the “ugliest girl in Sparta” however, Herodotus acknowledges as “a magical myth” in which a baby girl, born in Sparta, was terribly disfigured (which he described as dysmorphia (meaning “misshapenness” or “ugliness”).  Fortunately, she was from a well-connected family and her nanny suggested taking her to the shrine of Helen of Troy on hilltop of Therapne, and there pray for a cure.  There the nurse sat with the baby and while praying before the agalma (a carved image of Helen), from nowhere a apparition of Helen appeared and smiling, laid her hand upon the child’s head.  As the years passed, the disfigured infant would grow to become the most beautiful girl in the kingdom.

Body Dysmorphic Disorder

Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a mental disorder.  It’s defined as an individual’s obsession with the idea that some aspect of their appearance is severely flawed and warrants exceptional measures to hide or rectify the offending part(s).  In BDD's delusional variant, the flaw is imagined and if some minor imperfection exists, its importance is severely exaggerated.  Sufferers find the symptoms of BDD pervasive and intrusive, symptoms including excessive attention to the perceived defect, social avoidance, camouflaging with cosmetics or apparel, the seeking of verbal reassurances, avoiding mirrors, repetitively changing clothes or restricting eating.

Italian physician Enrico Morselli (1852-1929) in 1886 reported a disorder he termed dysmorphophobia, a term still sometimes used in European literature to describe BDD.  Use spiked in academic literature in the 1950s although it wasn’t until 1980, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recognized the condition in the third edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III).  The APA classified it as a distinct somatoform condition (characterized by symptoms suggesting a physical disorder but for which there are no demonstrable organic findings or known physiological mechanisms) and in 1987 replaced dysmorphophobia with body dysmorphic disorder as the preferred descriptor.

With the 1994 publication of DSM-IV, the APA noted BDD was a preoccupation with an imagined or trivial defect in appearance, one causing social or occupational dysfunction, and not better explained as another disorder such as anorexia nervosa but in DSM-5 (2013), it was reclassified as an obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorder, adding diagnostic criteria including repetitive behaviors and intrusive thoughts.  Although the World Health Organization's (WHO) current International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10 (1994)) described BDD as just another hypochondriacal disorder, the revised ICD-11 (2019) aligned for all functional purposes with the DSM-5.

The DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for BDD requires the following:

(1) A preoccupation with appearance: The individual must be preoccupied with one or more nonexistent or slight defects or flaws in their physical appearance and “Preoccupation” is usually defined as thinking about the perceived defects for (in aggregate) at least an hour a day.  A distressing or impairing preoccupation with real and obvious flaws in appearance (anything easily noticeable such as obesity) is not diagnosed as BDD, being instead classified with “Other Specified Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders.”

(2) Repetitive behaviors: Repetitive and compulsive behaviors must manifest in response to the concern with appearance.  These compulsions can be behavioral and thus observed by others (such as either excessively standing before or avoid a looking-glass, frequent grooming, skin picking, reassurance seeking or repeatedly changing clothes.  Other BDD compulsions include mental acts, the most often diagnosed being an individual frequently comparing their appearance with that of other people.  The DSM-5 included the note for clinicians cautioning that subjects meeting all diagnostic criteria for BDD except this one are not diagnosed with BDD; they are diagnosed with “Other Specified Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorder.”

(3) Clinical significance: The preoccupation must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important aspects of functioning.  This criterion was included to differentiate the disorder BDD, which requires treatment, from more normal appearance concerns that typically do not need to be treated with medication or therapy.  This has been one of the more controversial revisions because of concerns it may exclude from helpful treatment some who have developed better coping mechanisms while still suffering from the underlying condition.

(4) Differentiation from an eating disorder: If the appearance preoccupations focus on being too fat or weighing too much, it may be that the appropriate diagnosis is an eating disorder and this applies especially if the subject’s only concern with their appearance focuses on excessive weight; provided the diagnostic criteria for an eating disorder are otherwise met, that should be the diagnosis, not BDD.  If not, BDD can be diagnosed, as concerns with fat or weight in a person of normal weight can be a symptom of BDD and it’s not uncommon for subjects to have both an eating disorder and BDD.

There are specifiers to BDD and following diagnosis, the subject should be sub-classified using the two (DSM-5) BDD specifiers:

(1) Muscle dysmorphia: Muscle dysmorphia is the (predominately male) concern that the build of their body is too small or insufficiently muscular, something which not untypically manifests with preoccupations with other body areas; the muscle dysmorphia specifier should still be used in such cases.  Studies have shown that among those diagnosed with BDD, those with muscle dysmorphia suffer the highest rates of suicidality and substance use disorders, as well as poorer quality of life.  Accordingly, the DSM-5 notes their treatment regimes may require some modification.

(2) Insight specifier: This specifier indicates the degree (not directly frequency although this is a factor in the analysis) of a subject’s insight regarding their BDD beliefs (eg “I look ugly”; “I look deformed”), an expression of how convinced the subject is that their beliefs about the appearance of the disliked body parts is true.  The DSM-5 levels of insight are (2a) with good or fair insight, (2b) with poor insight and (3), with absent insight/delusional beliefs (which are to be diagnosed as BDD, not as a psychotic disorder.

BDD has often been misdiagnosed, most often as one of the following disorders:

(1) Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: If preoccupations and repetitive behaviors focus on appearance (including symmetry concerns), BDD should be diagnosed rather than OCD.

(2) Social anxiety disorder (social phobia): If social anxiety and social avoidance are due to embarrassment and shame about perceived appearance flaws, and diagnostic criteria for BDD are met, BDD should be diagnosed rather than social anxiety disorder (social phobia).

(3) Major depressive disorder: Unlike major depressive disorder, BDD is characterized by prominent preoccupation and excessive repetitive behaviors. BDD should be diagnosed in individuals with depression if diagnostic criteria for BDD are met.

(4) Trichotillomania (hair-pulling disorder): When hair tweezing, plucking, pulling, or other types of hair removal is intended to improve perceived defects in the appearance of body or facial hair, BDD should be diagnosed rather than trichotillomania (hair-pulling disorder).

(5) Excoriation (skin-picking disorder): When skin picking is intended to improve perceived defects in the appearance of one’s skin, BDD should be diagnosed rather than excoriation (skin-picking disorder).

(6) Agoraphobia: Avoidance of situations because of fears that others will see a person’s perceived appearance defects should count toward a diagnosis of BDD rather than agoraphobia.

(7) Generalized anxiety disorder: Unlike generalized anxiety disorder, anxiety and worry in BDD focus on perceived appearance flaws.

(8) Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: BDD-related psychotic symptoms (ie delusional beliefs about appearance defects or BDD-related delusions of reference) reflect the presence of BDD rather than a psychotic disorder.

(9) Olfactory reference syndrome: Preoccupation with emitting a foul or unpleasant body odor is a symptom of olfactory reference syndrome, not BDD (although these two disorders have many similar characteristics).

(10) Eating disorder: If a normal-weight person is excessively concerned about being fat or their weight, meets other diagnostic criteria for BDD, and does not meet diagnostic criteria for an eating disorder, then BDD should be diagnosed.

(11) Dysmorphic concern: This is not a DSM diagnosis, but it is sometimes confused with BDD.  It focuses on appearance concerns but also includes concerns about body odor and non-appearance related somatic concerns, which are not BDD symptoms.

One aspect of the condition BDD is that it’s not uncommon for subjects to be reticent in revealing their concerns or BDD symptoms to a clinician because of embarrassment or being negatively judged as vain or too concerned with trivial matters.  Case notes do suggest there is a pattern of subjects hinting at their issues and clinicians should thus be encouraged to respond by explicitly asking about BDD symptoms.

Although the brand-name is, strangely, no longer used, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Chubbettes was a fashion-house supplying “slenderizing designs… designed to make girls 6 to 16 look slimmer” and therefore become “as happy and self-assured as her slimmer schoolmates”.  With a target market including those with eating disorders or BDD as well as the naturally chubby, Chubbettes helpfully offered with its fashion catalog a free booklet, Pounds and Personality.  Intended for parents of a chubby girl and written by Dr Gladys Andrews of New York University’s School of Education, it was packed with helpful hints about “understanding her problems, talent development, shyness, tactless remarks & the “game” of dieting etc."  Chubettes’ clothing range was said to be “available, coast to coast at stores that care”; the parent company was L Gidding & Co Inc, 520 Eighth Avenue, New York City.

Times certainly have changed and with them the perception of body shapes.  Parents who would now regard young ladies of the type pictured in the Chubbette advertisements as being chubby might now be suspected of having Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP).  In the mind of the girl herself, a similar perception wouldn't necessarily alone be enough for a diagnosis of BDD but might be considered in the context of other behaviors.  

Crooked Hillary Clinton, the Hamptons, August 2021.

Paradoxically, although in the early twenty-first century there’s a larger than ever market for what Chubbettes once served as a niche, the brand is long gone and a revival seems unlikely.  Many factors including more sedentary lifestyles and a higher consumption of processed food, the sugar content of which has risen alarmingly, means demand for more accommodating clothing will likely continue to increase but many manufacturers have stepped into the Chubbette void and customers enjoy a wide choice.

Blazon

Blazon (pronounced bley-zuhn)

(1) In heraldry, an escutcheon or coat of arms or a banner depicting a coat of arms.

(2) In heraldry, a description (verbal or written or in an image) of a coat of arms.

(3) In heraldry, a formalized language for describing a coat of arms (the heraldic description of armorial bearings).

(4) An ostentatious display, verbal or otherwise.

(5) A description or recording (especially of the good qualities of a person or thing).

(6) In literature, verses which dwelt upon and described various parts of a woman's body (usually in admiration). 

(7) Conspicuously or publicly to set forth; display; proclaim.

(8) To adorn or embellish, especially brilliantly or showily.

(9) To depict (heraldic arms or the like) in proper form and color.

(10) To describe a coat of arms.

1275-1300: From the late thirteenth century Middle English blazon (armorial bearings, coat of arms), from the twelfth century Old French blason (shield, blazon (also “collar bone”).  Of the words in the Romance languages (the Spanish blason, Italian blasone, Portuguese brasao & Provençal blezo, the first two are said to be French loan-words and the origins of all remain uncertain.  According to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), the suggestion by nineteenth century French etymologists of connections with Germanic words related to English blaze is dubious because of the sense disparities.  The verb blazon (to depict or paint (armorial bearings) dates from the mid sixteenth century and was either (or both) from the noun or the French blasonner (from the French noun).  In English, it had earlier in the 1500s been used to mean “descriptively to set forth; descriptively” especially (by at least the 1530s) specifically “to vaunt or boast” and in that sense it was probably at least influenced by the English blaze.  Blazon & blazoning are nouns & verbs, blazoner, blazonry & blazonment are nouns and blazoned & blazonable are adjectives; the noun plural is blazons.

A coat of arms, possibly of dubious provenance. 

The now more familiar verb emblazon (inscribe conspicuously) seems first to have been used around the 1590s in the sense of “extol” and the still common related forms (emblazoning; emblazoned) emerged almost simultaneously.  The construct of emblazon was en- +‎ blazon (from the Old French blason (in its primary sense of “shield”).  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- (en-, in-), from the Old French en- (also an-), from the Latin in- (in, into).  It was also an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin & Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- was due to confluence with Frankish intensive prefix an- which was related to the Old English intensive prefix -on.  It formed a transitive verb whose meaning is to make the attached adjective (1) in, into, (2) on, onto or (3) covered.  It was used also to denote “caused” or as an intensifier.  The prefix em- was (and still is) used before certain consonants, notably the labials “b” & “p”.

Google ngram: It shouldn’t be surprising there seems to have been a decline in the use of “blazon” while “emblazoned” has by comparison, in recent decades, flourished.  That would reflect matters of heraldry declining in significance, their appearance in printed materials correspondingly reduced in volume.  However, because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

Self referential emblazoning: Lindsay Lohan's selfie of her modeling a sweater by Ashish, her visage emblazoned in sequins, London, November 2014.

Impressionistically though this assumption is, few would doubt “blazon” is now rare while “emblazoned” is far from uncommon.  While “emblazon” began with the meaning “that which the emblazoner does” (ie (1) to adorn with prominent, (2) to inscribe upon and (3) to draw a coat of arms) it evolved by the mid-nineteenth century with the familiar modern sense of “having left in the mind a vivid impression” (often in the form “emblazoned on one’s memory”).  In English, there’s nothing unusual in a derived or modified form of a word becoming common than its original root, even to the point the where the original is rendered rare, unfamiliar or even obsolete, a phenomenon due to changes in usage patterns, altered conventions in pronunciation or shifts in meaning that make the derived form more practical or culturally resonant.  That’s just how English evolves.

Other examples include (1) ruthless vs. ruth (ruth (pity; compassion) was once a common noun in Middle English but has long been extinct while ruthless, there being many who demand the description, remains popular), (2) unkempt vs kempt (kempt (neatly kept) would have been listed as extinct were it not for it finding a niche as a literary and poetic form and has also been used humorously or ironically), (3) disheveled vs sheveled (sheveled was from the Old French chevelé (having hair) and was part of mainstream vocabulary as late as the eighteenth century but, except in jocular use, is effectively non-existent in modern English) and (4) redolent vs dolent (redolent (evocative of; fragrant) was from dolent (sorrowful), from the Latin dolere (to feel pain)); redolent both outlived and enjoyed a meaning-shift from its root.

Etymologists think of these as part of the linguistic fossil record, noting there’s no single reason for the phenomenon beyond what survives being better adapted to cultural or conversational needs.  In that, these examples differ from the playful fork of back-formation which has produced (1) combobulate (a back-formation from discombobulate (to confuse or disconcert; to throw into a state of confusion) which was a humorous mock-Latin creation in mid-nineteenth century US English) (2) couth (a nineteenth century back-formation from uncouth and used as a humorous form meaning “refined”), (3) gruntled (a twentieth century back-formation meaning “happy or contented; satisfied”, the source being disgruntled (unhappy; malcontented) and most sources indicate it first appeared in print in 1926 but the most celebrated example comes from PG Wodehouse (1881–1975) who in The Code of the Woosters (1938) penned: “He spoke with a certain what-is-it in his voice, and I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled.”  Long a linguistic joke, some now take gruntled seriously but for the OED remains thus far unmoved and (4) ept (a back-formation from inept (not proficient; incompetent or not competent (there is a functional difference between those two)) which was from the Middle French inepte, from the Latin ineptus).

Literary use

In literary use, “blazon” was a technical term used by the Petrarchists (devotes of Francis Petrarch (1304-1374), a scholar & poet of the early Italian Renaissance renowned for his love poems & sonnets and regarded also as one of the earliest humanists).  Blazon in this context (a subset of what literary theorists call “catalogue verse”) was adopted because, like the structured and defined elements of heraldic symbolism, Petrarch’s poems contained what might be thought an “inventory” of verses which dwelt upon and detailed the various parts of a woman's body; a sort of catalogue of her physical attributes.  Petrarch’s approach wasn’t new because as a convention in lyric poetry it was well-known by the mid thirteenth century, most critics crediting the tradition to the writings of Geoffrey of Vinsauf, a figure about whom little is although it’s believed he was born in Normandy.  In England the Elizabethan sonneteers honed the technique as a devotional device, often, in imaginative ways, describing the bits of their mistresses they found most pleasing, a classic example a fragment from Amoretti and Epithalamion (1595), a wedding day ode by the English poet Edmund Spenser (circa 1552-1599) to his bride (Elizabeth Boyle) in 1594:

Her goodly eyes like sapphires shining bright.
Her forehead ivory white,
Her cheeks like apples which the sun hath rudded,
Her lips like cherries charming men to bite,
Her breast like to a bowl of cream uncrudded,
Her paps like lilies budded,
Her snowy neck like to a marble tower,
And all her body like a palace fair.

Two bowls of cream uncrudded.

So objectification of the female form is nothing new and the poets saw little wrong with plagiarism, most of the imagery summoned salvaged from the works of Antiquity by elegiac Roman and Alexandrian Greek poets.  Most relied for their effect on brevity, almost always a single, punchy line and none seem ever to attempt the scale of the “epic simile”.  As can be imagined, the novelty of the revival didn’t last and the lines soon were treated by readers (some of whom were fellow poets) as clichés to be parodied (a class which came to be called “contrablazon”), the London-based courtier Sir Philip Sidney (1554–1586) borrowing from the Italian poet Francesco Berni (1497–1535) the trick of using terms in the style of Petrarch but “mixing them up”, thus creating an early form of body dysmorphia: Mopsa's forehead being “jacinth-like”, cheeks of “opal”, twinkling eyes “bedeckt with pearl” and lips of “sapphire blue”.

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) however saw other possibilities in the blazon and in Sonnet 130 (1609) turned the idea on its head, listing the imperfections in her body parts and characteristics yet concluding, despite all that, he anyway adored her like no other (here rendered in a more accessible English):

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground.
   And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
   As any she belied with false compare.

Muliebrity

Muliebrity (pronounced myoo-lee-eb-ri-tee)

(1) The condition of being a woman.

(2) Femininity; womanly nature or qualities.

(3) Effeminacy, softness

(4) In physiology, the state of puberty in the human female (rare).

1585–1595: From the Late Latin muliēbritās (womanhood) from muliēbris (womanly) from mulier (woman).  The original meaning in the 1590s was "womanhood, state of puberty in a woman", this corresponding to virility in men.  The Latin source mulier (a woman) has for centuries been held to be comparative to the stem of mollis (soft, weak) to which there have long been phonetic objections, but no alternative theory has been offered.  This was the source also in the oldest known customary and common law texts of the sense of mulier being "a woman; a wife" and, as an adjective, "born in wedlock."  Related was muliebral (of or pertaining to a woman) and muliebrious (effeminate), both documented from the 1650s.  The later mulierosity (an excessive fondness for women) is perhaps a more attractive term than those many would prefer.  In pre-modern medicine, in early anatomy and medical texts, the pudenda muliebria was euphemistic for "vagina"; in later use in physiology it came to refer simply to the state of puberty in a female.  In early literary use it had the sense of “the state of attainment of womanhood following maidenhood” but well before the twentieth century had come instead to be a general expression of youthful feminine beauty.  The –ity suffix was borrowed from the French -ité, from the Middle French -ité, from the Old French –ete & -eteit (-ity), from the Latin -itātem, from -itās, from the primitive Indo-European suffix –it.  It was cognate with the Gothic –iþa (-th), the Old High German -ida (-th) and the Old English -þo, -þu & -þ (-th).  It was used to form nouns from adjectives (especially abstract nouns), thus most often associated with nouns referring to the state, property, or quality of conforming to the adjective's description.  Muliebrity is a noun and muliebral & muliebrile are adjectives, the noun plural is muliebrities.  Muliebrity long ago shifted in meaning from its late sixteenth century origins and is now probably most seen (or un-seen) in the diary entries of young ladies who read Wuthering Heights at a young age and never quite recovered.

Shakespeare on difficult women

There is in William Shakespeare (1564–1616), much to be found, one modern critic said even to have claimed him as “the noblest women’s rightist of them all”.  There may be something in this and Shakespeare created some memorably defiant women who asserted themselves in ways we don’t, erroneously or not, associate with the social mores of his age but, while some flourish, not all go unpunished for their transgressive behavior, although some didn’t need to be that difficult to be punished; few who try to map proto-feminism onto Shakespeare mention Katherine (The Taming of the Shrew; circa 1590) who apparently suffered her fate just for being a funny, fierce man-hater.  Seemingly, at least sometimes in Shakespeare, the more muliebrious the better.

Olivia Hussey (b 1951) as Juliet in Franco Zeffirelli's (1923-2019) film of Romeo and Juliet (1968).

He certainly didn’t stick to the defined role-models of his time, Helena (All's Well That Ends Well; circa 1600), although she spends most of her time moping about in anguish at the indifference of a man she wants, was a talented doctor who delicately repairs the king's anal fistula.  So, in Shakespeare, there’s sometimes ambivalence.  Juliet (Romeo & Juliet; circa 1595) got equal billing with Romeo and while they’re both equally vital to the plot, Juliet, while head over heels in love, at least remains a bit more grounded than the poetic Romeo, a bit of an emo who likes talking about the moon.  Romantic she may be but it’s Juliet to whom the bard gave the long soliloquy about how much she lusts for sex with her lover-to-be and there’s no sense she’s demonized for having normal womanly, human longings.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947).

Lady Macbeth (The Tragedie of Macbeth; 1606) draws actresses like few other characters of the stage; Shakespeare’s most fierce female, it’s not hard to see the attraction.  Lady Macbeth is childless, probably less a statement of proto-feminism or a rejection of societal expectations than the bard constructing her as one noted more for manipulation than muliebrity and just so the audience gets it, there’s her monologue (Act 1, scene 5) imploring the spirits to “Stop up the access and passage to remorse” (gender dysmorphia and commitment issues) and “Come to my woman’s breasts, and take my milk for gall” (less succorance; more bile).  Without these womanly distractions, Lady Macbeth knows she’ll have the strength herself to murder King Duncan even if her husband does not.  Though it is Macbeth who murders Duncan, it was the wife who put the blade in his hand and in the end, Shakespeare punishes her too.

Imogen Stubbs (b 1961) as Viola in Trevor Nunn's (b 1940) film of Twelfth Night (1996).

Although both survive a shipwreck, Viola (Twelfth Night; circa 1601) and her twin brother Sebastian each believe the other dead and, once ashore, everyone thinks she is her brother and her brother is her.  Making the best of a bad situation Viola, in an act of feminist temerity, anticipates changes in the nature of female workforce participation (which won’t be seen for centuries) by, rather than enduring the misery of domestic servitude, dresses as a boy and goes to work for the Duke of Orsino (with whom she falls in love).  That’s where it gets complicated because the duke sends Viola to court the Countess Olivia on his behalf but Olivia falls for Viola and, with the twin Sebastian having shown up, a flood of mistaken identity ensues, and, after a few shenanigans, Sebastian and Olivia wed.  Viola then reveals she really is a girl and marries the duke.  If Shakespeare hadn’t had something else in mind, he might have called Twelfth Night, All’s well that ends well.

Lindsay Lohan as Elizabeth Taylor (1932-2011) as Cleopatra in Lloyd Kramer's (b 1947) made-for-TV Liz & Dick (2012).

Although Cleopatra (The Tragedie of Anthonie, and Cleopatra; circa 1607) was another of Shakespeare’s women who ended up dead, while she lived she was quite something, a woman with her own bank account who ruled a nation.  Complex, strong and vulnerable, she’s another one actresses like to play, her tragedy in death offering a bit more scope that Portia’s triumph in victory.  Cleopatra explored Mediterranean sexual realpolitik too, toying with an Antony who is just one of the many men she outsmarts; no stereotypes of subservience there.  Still, things do end badly for her, even if in her noble death she denies Caesar Octavius one more triumph, his primacy assured is by the play’s extraordinary death-toll and, with no political foes left standing, he sails for Rome to be crowned Emperor.

Katharine Hepburn (1907-2003) as Portia in American Shakespeare Theatre's production of The Merchant of Venice (1957).

Portia (The Merchant of Venice; circa 1597) seems at first an improbable feminist model, the first scene one in which the heiress watches potential suitors sit the tests devised by her father to find one worthy of her hand in marriage.  But the patriarchy is no match for Portia who twists the tests to ensure the winner is her preferred beau, one who would never otherwise have attracted her father’s approval; Portia is smart and tough.  She undermines gender-stereotyping and the patriarchy beyond the family too, cross-dressing to appear in court at a time when women weren’t permitted to be counsel.  For feminist anti-Semites too there’s a strong role-model, Portia’s legal sophistry rescuing good Christian Antonio from the grim fate demanded by the Jewish money-lender.

Elisabeth Bergner (1897-1986) as Rosalind in Paul Czinner's (1890-1972) film of As You Like It (1936).

After being exiled, strong-willed Rosalind (As You Like It ;circa 1599) adopts the disguises of the male shepherd Ganymede and goes to live in the Arcadian forest of Ardenne.  There, inter alia, she becomes a sort of life-coach, focused on teaching men to be more progressive in their attitudes towards women; not exactly making them metrosexuals but certainly less late-medieval.  It works for her too for the previously uncouth Orlando learns better how to woo her and they wed in the happy group marriage at play’s end and in being taught by Rosalind to get in touch with his female side, Orlando takes part is what is probably Shakespeare’s most overt deconstruction of gender roles.  There is however an undercurrent of class awareness in the allocation of happiness.  Of the four couples, it’s the peasant pair, Phoebe & Silvius, who end up married even though his love for her remains surely unrequited; Shakespeare may have felt his clever women of the better classes deserved happiness more than peasant shepherdesses.  Structurally it’s interesting too for in As You Like It, it’s Rosalind who delivers the play’s epilogue, a thing Shakespeare traditionally reserved for a man and that may be Rosalind’s most post-modern transgression.