Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew

[aelita101]

Hello,

I just finished reading The Taming of the Shrew by Shakespeare.
And I found myself facing a dilemma when I thought about my essay topic:
"State whether you think the play is driven more by the theme of equality or inequality"

Personally I think it is driven more by inequality; Petruchio taming Kate, and Tranio's relationship with his master Lucentio.


I would love to hear some of your opinions.

Thank you.

[Cristina]

Yea well in a way I agree because there is so much inequality in the play/ use of power to inforce Kate's inequality, but I don't really think that that's driving the play. To me the play is the search for equality within the romantic relationships. At the end when Kate offers her hands to bost her husband into the carrage and he takes her hand in his I kind of think that that's the resolution of the driving force so since equality has been reached the play ends. Since both of them kind of try to make the other into their b*tch to begin with, at the end when they decided that that kind of abusive relationship isn't what they want they find equality and we know that their relationship will last. At least that's more than can be said about the other relationships... but i dunno the sexism in the play is kind hard to ignore.

[mono]

Indeed, aelita, definitely inequality.
Especially nearer to the conclusion of the play, when each wife appears tested in her obedience and respect for her husband. Even as a male, myself, it surprised me, but one must consider the, sometimes, darker humor of Shakespeare, and his era of living. Even the title suggests an odd form of belittling; Shakespeare does not refer to an actual shrew, but the word, shrew, comes from the Old English for an unpleasant spouse, hence the 'taming' of the 'shrew.'

[Cristina]

but an argument could be made for Petruchio as the shrew since he is pretty much a bum in the beggining and while he tries to tame Kate into submission he ultimately becomes a decent spouce in not allowing her to be submissive even once she is willing to be.

I think shakespeare's going through a faze in this book because latter ones like A Winter's Tale glorify wifes who take the reins in the relationship (Paulina- her husband says he lets her take the reins when she wants to and she rarely stears them poorly... so through the cooperation of men and women they can get to happy endings)

[CrazyGeekGirl]

As a feminist, I hated this play AT FIRST. But in my English class, we had to reinterpret the final speech and there are so many possible ways to interpret the whole thing. Shakespeare didn't leave us stage directions. It might be that the play is meant to glorify Petruchio's taming of Katherine. It might be that it is meant that he does tame her but that this is tragic. (Remember, we don't even know if the induction had an ending.) She might be completely sincere in the end. She might be outrightly sarcastic. She might sound sincere but truly be doing it only to gain control.

Or they might come to an understanding that they are both outside of their society, and so they will treat each other as equals while putting on a show for the others.

(btw, Christina, there is a line, Grumio's, I believe, in which Petruchio is refered to as a shrew)

So, in my favorite interpretation, it's about equality. In a lot, it's inequality.

btw, did any of you see the Elizabeth Taylor movie? Ew! I personally hated her interpretation (or Zeferelli's suppose, though I <3 his R&J) of the entire part. I thought she played Katherine as a maniac with no motivation. Her ending, in a lot of ways, fit her Katherine.

I have heard arguments everywhere from 'Shakespeare is incredibly sexist' to 'Shakespeare is a feminist.' It's a really interesting thing to debate.

And, interesting point-- 'shrew' means a nasty person (usu. woman), but 'shrewd' which is very close, and we know how much Shakespeare liked wordplay, means clever. The question becomes whether this was the usage at that time.

[gpanagak]

There is more to this play than meets the eye, you see, Uncle Willy, was not what you would call normal (just like most great minds) in any event one cannot accuse Willy to be sexist since there are rumors of his bi-sexuality and there is that sonnet about the ever “lust-able” young man that moved him so.

I will agree with CrazyGeekGirl about the multiple meanings of Katherine’s supposed submission to Petruchio’s will. The thing about literature is that we can each put our minds to use and pick our own meanings for many things.
However, one has to take into account the established morale values at the time the play was written (if we do not, we will be compelled to accuse Homer’s Achilles of terrible atrocities and we would have to label literature’s greatest warrior as a barbarian)
So, at the time of the play, a wife had a duty to submit to her husbands will, (just to pick on Crazy I have to say that I see nothing wrong with that) and thus a writer cannot bring forth a whole new set of values in his writing. He may alter them a bit, he may hide some sarcasm about the standing values, but he cannot very well reject them as a whole and built a new set. So to start with, Willy is forced (by popular demand and/or his culture) to describe the perfect wife as submissive and anything less than that a shrew, he does, however, amplify her character to a level that even all of us (in 2006) would have no problem calling her a lot worse than a shrew! In doing so, he has already freed his self from any need to accept or renounce those standing values (a policy that he always loved)

Now to the point Crazy made, Petruchio did go into a lot of trouble to turn Katherine’s head, Katherine was forced to at least act submissive and in the end she was rewarded with her husbands love (mind you it was an arranged wedding and as such, love had no place there). In truth, the two of them are a team in the end; it’s them against the world, they both won the bet, not just Petruchio and we never did see if Katherine was forced act submissive to her husband in their household.
In my opinion, Uncle Willy wants to tell us that if we find ourselves in a team, we better start acting like team-mates and work for the good of the team. Sometimes the good of the team demands some pride sacrifice.

As for feminism and what it really did to the world, well, I better not speak my mind, for it will raise a lot of fighting and it will take a very long time before I can even start to describe my position.

[CrazyGeekGirl]

Good points.

I would say, though, being (possibly) bisexual doesn't necessarily make him un-sexist. It just increases the probability that he would be more willing to view opressed people as wrongfully opressed. We could of course discuss forever not only his feelings on women but also on blacks and Jews.

About creating and presenting a new set of values... I don't know. It is certainly an interesting question. It sort of makes me think of George Orwell's 1984. In other words, how do you, and can you, say something if the language for it doesn't exist yet? Of course, that could even be used as an argument for using the existing language sarcastically... sooo many possibilities.

Oh, good point about it being an arranged marriage.

On feminism, just wanted to point out that the definition is believing in the equality of men and women. A lot of people who have called themselves feminists have been sexist. But this is tangental to the discussion, so I for one am willing to shake hands and move on.

[gpanagak]

First of all, let me apologize for answering so late, it’s just that things are getting crazier by the minute in the office.

Secondly, to take any bad blood their might be between as, no, I do not consider my self a feminist, but for reasons a lot different than thinking myself as somehow superior to women, so if an apology is required, I do gladly offer it and accept the hand-shake

In my mind, Willy is a man of principle and passion; his feelings for women, people of other color or religion are not clear as you already pointed out. I do tent to think he is on a journey trying to find his own beliefs, I consider him as a turning point in literature and as such, not perfect, but on a good way. That might have been the reason that I love his work so much, I started reading him when I too was on that turning point.
Since your comment about the Jews is probably about the Merchant, allow me to step off topic for just a second, you might say that the Merchant of Venice was an anti-Jewish book, but I (want to) believe that it was a very polite blow in the stomach of those who did think of Jews as less than Christians. A blow that was written in code, allowing him to speak his mind without ever being labeled as a Jew-lover, the same goes for almost every political choice he wrote about, he always has an alibi for his writings. That might easily label him as a coward, but not a racist.


Yes, there are too many possibilities. In fact, the possibilities are so many, that it would make this sort of debate useless, but is it not fun to see how others reacted to the same action? To see if you and someone in the other side of the world, have interpreted the same think differently or likewise? I, for one, am truly excited to be able to talk about these things with someone that is a product of a different culture than my own.

So, getting back on topic, I think that apart from a nice little comedy, the Shrew is a political play calling the world to turn its eye on the injustice done to half the population, to let the see a household, which is happy and make them think that they too can have that (remember that his marriage was not one that everybody lived happily ever after). He might even be correcting his own self and pointing at his mistakes.


Closing my rather long post, allow me to borrow and change the words he put in Mark Antony's mouth: “Here was a Shakespeare! When comes such another?”

[eddd]

Just got back from an excellent performance at the Watermill by Edward Hall's Propellor company of TTOTS. Since it's an all-male production, it seems to sharpen some of the male/female issues that bubble beneath the play.

It's odd watching the play with 21st century values in your head; I was automatically reinterpreting it all. I found myself wanting to believe that it was tongue-in-cheek, or sardonic, or downright subversive. But I think that was because I was letting my respect for Shakespeare as a brilliant observer and writer interfere with an honest analysis of the play. I wanted to believe he was saying anything other than the obvious... I suppose I was trying to turn him into an early Oscar Wilde, a man who could say the opposite of what he believed and thereby get his point across below your guard.

But no - I think WS probably did believe that a wife's natural place was in service to her husband. TTOTS isn't an extended dark satire. It's 90% straight comedy & drama. But perhaps it's the remaining 10% that matters in this context. Yes, Kate was an awful woman. Yes, legally and socially her 'place' was in subservience to her husband; and yes, most people of her time would have said that her true happiness lay in that subservience. BUT ---- in any generation, I think most of the audience would have been left with the uncomfortable question: is such a full and humiliated subservience what they really want? Indeed, was it what Petruchio would have truly wanted - to have a wife with no self-respect, no independent spirit, no bite? By exaggerating the male solution (ie total dominance), Shakespeare I think effectively engenders that uneasiness which I believe he's likely to have also intended.

For whatever WS's cultural trappings, it's clear from his other plays that he delights in the even matching of spirit between woman and man. He's a romantic. And in all other plays he clearly repudiates bullying and oppression. So although he will probably have believed that Kate's happiness depended on accepting her husband as the 'head' of the marriage, I don't think he's pushing this as a moral message; instead he takes the interesting extreme situation of a shrew vs a determined suitor and follows it through to the results that occur if you apply the current values of his age in a blunt manner. It makes you laugh; it makes you think. He seemed to like to make us do both at once.

I loved his 'proof' to the other two recently married men that they weren't really absolute heads of their households; no doubt every married man in the audience in every century has nodded wryly and acknowledged that that was true for him, too. And most of them would I think have added silently "I don't really want to be the absolute boss, not like that..." I'd guess that Shakespeare knew that was how they'd react.

eddd

[CrazyGeekGirl]

you might say that the Merchant of Venice was an anti-Jewish book, but I (want to) believe that it was a very polite blow in the stomach of those who did think of Jews as less than Christians. A blow that was written in code, allowing him to speak his mind without ever being labeled as a Jew-lover, the same goes for almost every political choice he wrote about, he always has an alibi for his writings. That might easily label him as a coward, but not a racist.

Yes, there are too many possibilities. In fact, the possibilities are so many, that it would make this sort of debate useless, but is it not fun to see how others reacted to the same action? To see if you and someone in the other side of the world, have interpreted the same think differently or likewise? I, for one, am truly excited to be able to talk about these things with someone that is a product of a different culture than my own.

Great points

By the way, has anyone read/seen John Fletcher's "The Tamer Tamed"? It was written during Shakespeare's lifetime, and though I have just started it I know the summary-- Katherine is dead, Petruchio's seocnd wife tames him. This suggests that the original play was originally performed with a tame Kate at the end.

So? Theater is about reinterpreatation.

PS. Othello's a great one to debate too. I <3 that play.

[#57]

If no one's noticed (Yes I am new), There hasn't been a single thing mentioned about Bianca!

At the end of the play, THere is a contest between the newlyweds' to see who's wife is more submissive. In the end, Petrccio and Kate win while Lucentio and Bianca lose. This is because Bianca refuses to listen to her new husband, even though she loves him. Doesn't it seem that Bianca is becoming a, excuse the Old English Language, shrew in like her big sis once was?

Plz respond. Thanx!

[#57]

P.S.:
I'm only in 8th grade so I don't know much about Shakespeare as I'm just getting into him. I could also really use some help on my HD project!

[Redseven]

I'm doing an essay for school discussing why that taming of the shrew is a dark comedy. If you can back me up it'd be great

[Redzeppelin]

"Shrew" is a wonderful play to teach because it confronts us with many issues - and it also reveals many of our own biases and preconceived views about relationships. I wonder how many readers/viewers stop to ask themselves how much of their cultural "baggage" are they bringing to this play? We are often very quick to attach the terms "sexist," "racist," and "homophobic" to things that may have less to do with the gender/race/orientation of the characters than with the dynamics of human relationship. In other words, would people be as offended if the play had Kate "taming" Petruccio? Would we applaud that outcome? Sitcom TV is full of moronic males - so I guess it's OK to lampoon masculine stupidity (but heaven help the network that makes fun of feminine foibles). Would we be bothered if the play consisted of Bianca "taming" Kate? Or is it because it's a marriage that we bristle over Kate's submission?

eddd made some interesting points above, and I'd like to respond to some of them. Here are the remarks in question:

"BUT ---- in any generation, I think most of the audience would have been left with the uncomfortable question: is such a full and humiliated subservience what they really want? Indeed, was it what Petruchio would have truly wanted - to have a wife with no self-respect, no independent spirit, no bite? By exaggerating the male solution (ie total dominance), Shakespeare I think effectively engenders that uneasiness which I believe he's likely to have also intended."


Is Kate really "humiliated" and in "full subservience" to Petruccio? I'm not convinced. Men who don't want a "firebrand" for a wife do not seek one out merely to "break" her. Petruccio - as a wealthy heir to his father's estate - would certainly have no problem finding a well-doweried woman with not even a tenth of Kate's attitude problems. I can't imagine a man who willingly seeks out a woman like Kate unless he sees something in her worth the challenge, worth the risk. Although Petruccio spoke as if the money was the motivation, it was after his first meeting with her - where she insulted and struck him - that he spoke adamantly about his desire to marry her. I don't believe for a minute that Petruccio "broke" Kate into "submission." I think she's too intelligent for that - I believe that - in the key scene where they are riding to her father's house - that she finally puts her pride down and shows her husband that she's willing to "play his game." It's not that Petruccio wants blind submission - it's that he wants to know that his wife trusts him enough to put her resistance down and join him. I see the banter between the two during that scene as her responding tongue-in-cheek, showing him that she understands what it is he wants.

Secondly, I often hear from students a mirror of eddd's belief that Kate has lost her "self respect," "her spirit" and "her bite" in her submission to Petruccio. It's interesting how - in order to not appear like chauvanists - we are willing to call Kate's destructive, violent and hostile behavior as "spirit." Such behavior in a male character (I'm willing to bet) wouldn't be termed such. Kate is not rebelling against a repressive culture - she is not protesting for female freedom - she is hostile and ranting and out-of-control. There is no "higher purpose" to her violence and shrewishness. She is cruel, willful and malicious. Since when are such things considered positive characteristics? Such comments as "Kate has surrendered her individuality and her spirit" do a diservice to Kate because they imply that Kate is only capable of demonstrating self-assertiveness in dysfunctional behavior. I believe that she has lost none of her spirit, her "bite" or "self respect" in her submission: rather, I believe she becomes more able to express that individuality within the relationship with her husband. A man like Petruccio does not want a "whipped puppy"; he wants a woman with spirit, with fire, with the fiestyness that Kate has (but without the clearly dysfunctional way she relates to the world).

Finally, I do not think "total dominance" is what Petruccio wanted - because the easiest and most efficient way to do that would have been to physically abuse Kate - something that Petruccio never does EVEN ONCE in the play. Petruccio's method was far too time consuming and roundabout if he desired the humilated, "wimpering" submission of Kate.

Lastly, why is it that we expect Petruccio to "accept" socially inappropriate behavior from his mate, but we wouldn't accept such in our own? Since Kate has maladaptive ways of expressing herself, Petruccio is required to accept her the "way she is"? Why is the "taming" seen as a "breaking" of Kate instead of a "redemption" of her - a freeing of Kate from her rage and hostility into a happier woman - one able to enjoy her relationship with the man who saw her gifts and freed her from her own prison? We acknowledge today that angry people are often out-of-control and in need of intervention and help - how is Kate any different? When I read "Taming" I see a man who went into the fire to rescue (from herself) a woman of great beauty and fiery temperament - a woman worthy of a man like Petruccio. Think about it: the play is full of "unmaskings" - of people revealing their true selves (Bianca's emergence as "shrew" during the final scene is a good example). Why is it so hard to believe that Kate too has revealed her true self - not female-slave to Petruccio, but fellow partner?

The play is a love story - about a man who made a committment because he wanted the woman he knew Kate was capable of being, once she was able to be released from the prison of her pain and anger.

[#57]

I have to agree with Redzepplin. In a way, Kate is a prisoner inside herself, trying to show that she is brave and tough, unmoving, but ends up letting her true side fall out in the end. I have a student at the school I go to who, imho, is like the male form of Kate. He is a selfish, spoiled jerk who thinks that he can boss whoever he wants around and get away with it. Several times I've wnted to do to him what is shown in the following smiley: . And, feeling the same way, many other ppl agree with me. He needs someone to "tame" him!

Plz send suggestions to help me deal with him.