by Blair Kay, 2009
Mounting a modern interpretation of any of Shakespeare’s plays is almost impossible without an informed investigation of the cultural-historical world that Shakespeare was writing in and performing to. Like Shakespeare’s other “problem plays” that modern ‘-ism’s have assaulted (anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice and racism in The Tempest) the strong waves of feminism have tainted any attempt to read The Taming of the Shrew outside of its gender politics (Pearson 229). The original socio-cultural framework of the relationship between Shakespeare’s Petruchio and Katherine in The Taming of the Shrew is nearly impossible to translate. By approaching the text in its historical context, The Taming of the Shrew can be read not as a misogynist play that solely enforces patriarchal structures, but rather one that also reconstructs gender roles through rhetoric and physical performance.
Perhaps the most important and impressive facts to consider when contextualizing The Taming of the Shrew are the sixteenth and seventeenth century socially-accepted methods of controlling “shrews” or “scolds”. Lynda Boose sheds light on the various common methods of punishments that “scolds” (defined as “troublesome and angry women”) would receive for “break[ing] the publick Peace” (Boose 186). The most common method of punishment was "ducking" , which required the shrew / scold to sit on a chair attached to a lever, and then subsequently be dunked into the river (187). A common form of controlling a woman was with a bridle: a gag made of iron between 1½-3 inches would firmly suppress the unruly female’s tongue (209). The gag was attached to a headpiece and a long chain, with which her husband could control her movement. Some bridles had nails protruding from the top and bottom, thus any swift movement would cause lacerations (209).
 | |
| 17th century drawing of a woman being subjected to the ducking stool. |
Although the script enforces the patriarchal power structure, it simultaneously critiques traditional gender roles through its theatricality. Katherine is given the last substantial speech of the play. Although she adopts a new doctrine by receding into marital subservience, she is given the opportunity to articulate an argument, specifically, the closing argument. Before the speech, Katherine has responded rashly as the stereotypical shrew; however, the Elizabethan audience may revel in her final speech, because her submission represents the restoration of the highly valued patriarchal order (Khan 88). Moreover, the text serves to positively transform the stereotypical image of the shrew from an “old, usually poor woman or a nagging wife”, to “the newly romanticized vision of a beautiful, rich, and spirited young woman” (Boose 198).
Petruchio’s previously mentioned invocation to the audience and Katherine’s final speech both serve to incorporate the audience into a discourse of gender. Katherine uses various arguments to sway both men and women in the audience to accept her new fate. Katherine appeals to the audience in different ways. Her multiple references to submitting to a ruling “lord” appeal to the universally accepted relationship between individual, God and monarch (5.2.138, 146, 160). The repetition emphasizes how her transformation from shrew to wife extends outside of the husband-wife relationship, and by using direct address and examples with which the Elizabethan audience would identify, she includes the audience in a gendered discourse. However, her references to governing bodies are all masculine, which is troublesome as it denies the presence of Elizabeth I as reigning monarch. There is an interesting parallel between Katherine’s speech and the rhetorical structure that Elizabeth I uses in her “Golden Speech” (Elizabeth I 1093). As Queen Elizabeth I often did with her male members of parliament, Katherine employs a conventionally acceptable gender argument, purporting the physical and emotional “weak”ness of females, so as to not jeopardize the patriarchy (5.2.166).
Unlike modern realistic portrayals of Shakespeare's plays, the Elizabethan actor “did not strive to be a fictitious person, but himself under fictitious circumstances” (Kelly 82). As the original actor, Alexander Cooke, gave Katherine’s final speech, he must have injected his own intentions into the lines. By referring to his male body which portrays the “soft” female, the speech discreetly touches on the powerless position that boy actors held in Elizabethan society, as well as the fact that a male dressing as a female transgresses socially accepted gender boundaries (165). Thus Katherine’s political references to her “lord” also become that of the marginalized boy actor, and is not restricted to the female gender. Moreover, the argument that shrewishness jeopardizes one’s “fame” may refer to the male actor's reception by various authorities: the public, the patriarchal elite, or Queen Elizabeth I (136 - 140).
The physical translation from text to stage creates problems for feminist readings of the play. Katherine implores her fellow females to “place your hands below your husband’s foot”, and although there is no stage direction, it is implied (5.2.157). However degrading it may seem to a modern audience, prostrating was common practice the sixteenth century; the new wife would seal the marriage and a dowry of land by kissing her husband’s foot (Kelly 182). The act of Katherine physically lowering herself to the floor while onstage is symbolic of publicly resigning herself to the hierarchy; moreover, by rising up from that position, it marks her final transition into maturation, from shrewish girl to obedient woman (182).
The Taming of A Shrew, a similar but wholly different version of The Taming of the Shrew presents elements which are interesting within both feminist and gender discourses of the play. Although one might argue that Katherine has been tamed and has little power at the end of the play, by having the last large speech (the lasting word), she is structurally the most powerful character in the play. However, in A Shrew, the play ends with a drunken Christopher Sly getting his due from his untamable wife. A Shrew’s ending turns the play into a comedy, thereby negating the triumph for the Petruchio and the patriarchy, as well the urgency of Katherine’s final address to her female audience (Alexander 111).
When explored in both its historical and performative contexts, The Taming of the Shrew can be read as a script which establishes the necessary patriarchal structures of the Elizabethan period, while simultaneously reconstructing notions of gender. It is difficult to aptly mount and interpret The Taming of the Shrew in a contemporary context, because of how much has changed over the past fifty years, let alone four centuries. However, with a more informed reading, the play can be appreciated as a historical and dramatic document.
Works Cited
Alexander, Peter. “The Original Ending of The Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 20.2 (1969): 111-116.
Boose, Lynda E. “Scolding Brides and Bridling Scolds: Taming the Woman's Unruly Member.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 42.2 (1991): 179-213.
Detmer, Emily. “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and The Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 48.3 (1997): 273-29.
Elizabeth I. “Elizabeth I, 1533-1603”. Longman Anthology of British Literature. Vol 1B, 2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers. 2003.
Kelly, Katherine E. “The Queen's Two Bodies: Shakespeare's Boy Actress in Breeches.” Theatre Journal. 42.1 (1990): 81-93.
Kahn, Coppélia. “"The Taming of the Shrew": Shakespeare's Mirror of Marriage.” Modern Language Studies. 5.1 (1975): 88-102.
Pearson, Velvet D. “In Search of a Liberated Kate in ‘The Taming of the Shrew.’” Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 44.4 (1990): 229-242.
Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew. Signet Classic: New York, 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment