Category: Taming of the Shrew

The Taming of the Shrew is a comedy involving the character Kate Minola. She is a woman with a strong will. She is seen as a shrew because she is unwilling to conform to societys assumed norms of the lady of ladyhood. Also, she refuses to submit to Petruchio, who believes that he is born to tame her. There is, therefore, a question of whether Kate was finally tamed or not. One becomes tamed when she is eventually forced to be submissive and obey the set standards. Additionally, one becomes tamed when they have to unquestionably follow the master for a reward or avoidance of punishment.

I am convinced that Kate is not tamed following the unfolding of events. Kate is liberated as she is acting just as Petruchio demands because she has specific objectives to achieve by her conduct. She wants to break her stigma. In a competition of potential suitors and the respect of their father, Kate grew up being on the losing end. Baptista fails to defend Kate when she receives insults in the streets. Baptista cherishes Bianca, on the other hand. She refers to Kate as too rough or fiend of hell (II.i.26). Accordingly, the beginning of Act Two witnesses Kates jealousy of Bianca. Baptista automatically blames Kate for the fault, which leads to the rise of the conflict. The frustration of lacking a suitor when her sister has several suitors is cited for her anger. Thus Kate purposely takes less consideration on the environment in which she hails.

I am convinced that Petruchio is not successful in taming Kate. Kate learns the privileges that come with better behavior. Petruchios willingness to match Kates ferocity breaks her anger induced by the lonely state. Petruchios compliment is something that Kate has never experienced before and which she has been longing to have. This attention she never received even from her father. Kate had an obligation to conform to the advances made by her husband. Petruchio manages to liberate Kate that whatever people say about her is not significant. As long as she is happy, she should not care about other peoples perceptions of her. He shows up in the wedding dress like a fool putting on worn, mismatched clothes and riding on a diseased horse But our soft conditions and our hearts should well agree with our external parts (V.ii.169)

The situation reveals that Kate is not tamed but has learned to adapt approach life in different ways. Possibly Petruchio wanted to show her that acting tamed in listening to his directions can help her get a path for approaching her self-proclaimed approaches in life. Kate is denied a cap for she is not gentle but finally gets one when she becomes gentle (IV.iii.189). The abusive techniques used by her husband do not necessarily turn her submissive but rather liberate her from loneliness and the toxicity obtained from the past experiences; thus, Kate is not tamed.

In conclusion, the interaction of Kate and Petruchio is far from portraying a taming relationship. Kate is in a learning environment and realizes that she can achieve materialistic goals like acquiring the fathers respect and achievements in happiness and peace. All the personal attributes that Kate receives prove that Kate is more liberated than tamed at the end. Kate is finally able to regain her true self without extinguishing her inner standards and goals.

Work Cited

Shakespeare, William. The taming of the shrew. Yale University Press, 2008.

Comedy in the world of Greek playwriting was considered a popular and influential form of theatre. In addition, Greek tragedy was also a popular form of genre for theatre, which mainly expressed scenarios or stories that end tragically mainly for the protagonist. In addition, Greek comedy is considered to be a public popular culture which in modern times, almost parallels the environment and atmosphere of a major football match. According to Aristotle, Catharsis was the purpose of a tragedy, which is said to cleanse the soul of emotions such as fear, guilt and pity which most people carry within themselves. Although these two genres express different aspects of life, satirical and tragic, both include aspects of the play in which the actions made were generally morally questioned by the public audience. In this essay, I will be critically analysing the ways the play creates an attachment to potentially unlikeable characters whilst pondering on the notion that protagonists from tragedy and comedy often undertake actions that are morally questionable. The play in which I am using for this analysis is “The Taming of the Shrew” by William Shakespeare and the theorist I am using to support my argument is Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays.

In this essay I will analyse how The Taming of the Shrew uses the genres of comedy and tragedy to enhance the plot and to evoke the actions of the characters in which are questionable and unreasonable at times. Through this analysis, I will then provide evidence of the scenes in the play which express the above notions and then I will use my additional secondary sources and the work of my chosen theorist, Northrop Frye to provide argumentative evidence which supports my original argument which is that characters in comedic and tragic plays do things that are morally questionable.

“The story of Greek comedy is one of great popularity, creative energy and ferocious evolution, driven partly by competitive energies internal to the competition, partly, perhaps, by historical and cultural change in the period”. The above quotation is derived from a book by Ian Ruffel called The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome. His quotation brings forth the idea of Greek comedy and its aspects of popularity which make assisted the audience to relate to the subject matter. In relation to comedy, The Taming of the Shrew is believed to be written between 1590 and 1592 and includes an induction in which a nobleman tricks a tinkerman named Christopher Sly into believing he is of nobility himself. In doing so, the nobleman gets trapped in Sly’s imagined world and gets into a competition for the hand of a woman who is the most loyal. At the end, the nobleman discovers that the most unattractive woman, Katherina is discovered to be the most loyal out of all her other competitors, including her sister and ends up marrying her.

In this play, Shakespeare delves into the theme of the interconnectivity between men and women. “There are two ways of developing the form of comedy: one. Is to throw the main emphasis on the blocking characters; the other is to throw it forward on the scenes of discovery and reconciliation. One is general tendency of comic irony, satire, realism, and studies of manners; the other is the tendency of Shakespearean and other types of romantic comedy. The technical hero and heroine are not often very interesting people”. (Frye, pp 166). The above quotation is derived from Norththrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism. This quotation refers to the role and power that characters have in a work of literature. Specifically, in relation to The Taming of the Shrew, the characters are like gods to the reader and/ or audience but also are seen as superior in their own world even without considering their questionable actions. For example, the idea of making a comedic sport of an individual by tricking him to think that he is in much happier circumstance than he originally is in reality is not original. This is furthermore evident in the play in the Induction, Scene 1. “I know the boy will well usurp the grace, Voice, gait, and action of a gentlewoman. I long to hear him call the drunkard husband, and how my men will stay themselves from laughter. When they do homage to this simple peasant” (Induction. Act 1. 136-141). It expresses the Lord’s extravagant plan to turn Sly from a “swine” into a nobleman and also it expresses the notion that all actors, including Shakespeare, undergo transformations each time they set foot on a theatre stage. “The differences between the forms of Comedy and Tragedy may at times be explained as adaptations to the general characteristics of the respective genre, at others as survivals of ancient coexisting or alternative forms among which the respective genre has chosen differently”. The above quotation is from a book by Francisco Rodriguez Adrados called Festival, Comedy and Tragedy: The Greek Origins of Theatre. This quotation can be related to the Shakespearean play, The Taming of the Shrew as comedic plays adapt through time and through the versatility of the plot.

“Usually tragic plays focus on heroes, characters with a literary and mythological background who were often also the object of contemporary cult. The heroes of tragedy are made to act and suffer in ways thought to be paradigmatic of life and human behaviour in general”. The above quotation is derived from the book by Pantelis Michelakis named The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece which focuses on Greek Tragedy. This quotation can be related to the play as it doesn’t have any mythological references but in fact, it is about the complications between a relationship between a man and a woman. “The relationship between Petruchio and Katherina is obviously the heart of the problem… critics have always found it difficult to decide how seriously we should view these particular. It is useful to remind ourselves, first, that “Petruchio is the hero of a farce, not of a romance. More accurately, perhaps, Petruchio is the primary male figure in a farce. We should view comic scenes as far as possible in the light of the common experiences of sixteenth century spectators; for one would assume that an author’s attempt to produce laughter would proceed along the lines of whatever were the age’s comic expectations and proclivity”. The above quotation is derived from an annotation of The Taming of the Shrew by Burton Raffel and Harold Bloom .This phrase expresses the importance and the complicate relationship between Petruchio and Katherina as Petruchio is willing to marry for money and manages to wrest payment from all three of Bianca’s suitors to cover his expenses. This particular imagery expresses the comic strategy that Shakespeare employs throughout the entirety of the play.

The notions of lustful desire and sexuality scratch the surface as for example in the passage “Tranio, since for the great desire I had/ To see fair Padua, nursery of arts, / I am arrived fore fruitful Lombardy, / The pleasant garden of great Italy” (Act 1. 1” 1 – 4). The first noun is “desire” which obviously expresses the sexual desire that will ensue and drive the action of courtship. Other key words such as “fruitful” and “garden” suggest procreation and sexual desire. Even though Lucentio has ambitions of education it is clear that his subconscious mind is filled with dirty desires. This is evident through the quickness of Lucentio’s actions to switch pursuits after seeing Bianca for a brief moment. In reference to the question, the object of the marriage market shows the views on gender and femininity. Therefore, it is morally questionable to test the binary and the performance of the ideal of womanhood. “You lie, in faith, for you are called plain Kate/ And bonny Kate and sometimes’ Kate the Curst’;/ But Kate, the prettiest Kate in Christendom/ Kate of Kate Hall, my super-dainty Kae/ For dainties are all cates” ( Act 2. 1. 182 – 188). The above quotation from the play describes the degradation that Petruchio implies saying that she belongs to the lower category of society which reduces her to an object of exchange between men.

In conclusion, “In tragedy, of course, enmity almost always includes hatred; comedy is different, and one feels that the social judgement against the absurd is closer to the comic norm than the moral judgement against the wicked”. The above quotation from Northrop Frye expresses the differences between the genre’s especially within the environment of Greek theatre. It also relates to the unique and sometimes absurd actions that the characters are employed to carry out. The themes of those actions can be morally questionable however, the specific genre of the play has an enormous role in how that specific play is portrayed to the audience and/ or reader. The Taming of the Shrew is an excellent example of such uncommon actions and societal implications it expresses. Northrop Frye’s article the Anatomy of Criticism supports the question in hand and provides examples and supportive arguments into the differentiation between the genres of Tragedy and Comedy and how the plays evoke the notions the specific genres imply.

“We know what we are but know not what we may be.” -Ophelia, Hamlet (1603)

The rising power of Queen Elizabeth as the monarch which had traditionally been a male preserve, resulted in “destabilizing the structure of a society” (Carole Levin 93) which always expected a man to be the ruler. The renaissance society did not traditionally value the freedom of women. With Queen Elizabeth I’s reign and Puritanism which believed in spiritual equality among the sexes questioning the old Catholic doctrine of female subordination, questions and doubts were being raised about women’s place in society. In keeping with the chaotic and complicated state of matters Shakespeare introduced to the readers two unique heroines who respond to the confines of the society differently. Katherine in The Taming of The Shrew is an example to show the conventional suppressed and inhuman treatment conferred upon women whereas Portia in The Merchant of Venice shows the advent of the new, strong, independent woman.

There were only two socially acceptable positions for Renaissance women, marriage and entering a convent. Marriages, according to Martin Ingram, was “the site for the exercise of patriarchal authority” (114). In both the plays we witness the fathers of the heroines having a strong influence on the life of the daughters regarding marriage, otherwise they are thought of as a burden. Baptista feels “Was ever gentleman thus grieved as I?” (2. 1. 37) as he fails to get his sharp-tongued daughter Katherine married. Katherine feels humiliated when she is treated like a commodity put up for auction in front of Gremio and Hortensio. We see a similar situation in The Merchant of Venice, where Portia laments over not having a choice in choosing her husband- “I may neither choose whom I would nor /refuse whom I dislike—so is the will of a living /daughter curbed by the will of a dead father” (1. 2. 22-24). But unlike Katherine she has a strong hold of the situation as she possesses immense wealth. She quite wittily tries to warn Bassanio of choosing the wrong casket through music thus displaying intelligence, influence and control over her actions and its consequences. We do not witness this in Katherine who had no chance of voicing her opinions in her marriage.

Marriage was not just a social convention but it paved way for economic growth and financial stability as well, in the form of dowries. Martin Ingram says, “Sons had more freedom of movement than daughters…when they were of age were often expected to take an active part in marriage negotiations on their own account…” (118). In The Taming of the Shrew Petruccio blatantly asks the wealth Katherine would bring to the marriage upon which decided whether he was at all interested in her or not. The discussion of dowries and exchange of wealth between Baptista and Petruccio in Act 2 scene 1 demean the sacred institution of marriage as a mere business deal where Katherine has no say. He clearly states in the beginning he has agreed because of the dowry “you shall be my wife, your dowry ’greed on,” (2.1. 267). He does not mention of loving her but just “like thee well”. He does not care for Katherine’s will. He frankly states he was born to tame her and talks about her like a commodity he has just bought. Although quite similar, The Merchant of Venice paints a different picture. Bassanio is no doubt drawn towards Portia because of her enormous inheritance of wealth which would bring him out of debt and allow him lead a luxurious life. But as he has nothing to give Portia in exchange, which gives Portia the control and superior power. Although Portia declares her entire property to be Bassanio’s- “This house, these servants, and this same myself…”, yet Bassanio asks her permission to greet his friends when they arrive with Antonio’s sad news. It is as if Portia is the “Lord” and Bassanio her mistress. The authority with which she orders Bassanio to go to Venice and save Antonio by paying his debt reflects power and domination which is usually seen in the males.

Following the settlement of dowry and inheritance of wealth, courtship before marriage was considered to be an important and essential step which not only reflected the love for the woman but also the strong masculine nature of men showing power and wealth to woo his beloved. It was “also of prime public importance.” (Martin Ingram 116). A major source of humor is Gremio, the older suitor trying to capture the younger Bianca’s hand. By mocking this situation Shakespeare is objecting to the widely accepted practice of families arranging for men to marry significantly younger women. Signifying the old ideal of marriage, Hortensio vows to marry a nice, but wealthy widow (4.2.37) Throughout the play Katherine struggles for control of her own destiny. Although Baptista very modernly insists upon her consent to the marriage, she never really gave it. The interaction between Petruccio and Katherine in Act 2 scene 1 displays the strong dominating nature of Petruccio who wants Katherine’s hand in marriage and the dowry at any cost. It seems he is “fascinated by, the sharpness of women’s (Katherine’s) tongue” (Martin Ingram 124). He sees a chance of proving his masculine power by taming Katherine to be his wife. He tricks Baptista in to believing that she consented in the marriage, thus leaving Katherine’s voice unheard. On the contrary in The Merchant of Venice Portia is seen to woo Bassanio the first time they meet in Act 3 scene 2. She urges Bassanio to “pause a day or two” before choosing the casket as she does not wish to “lose your [Bassanio’s] company”. Portia openly and boldly declares her love for Bassanio, communicates her deep inner desires of loving Bassanio even before he could court Portia. Unlike Katherine, Portia reflects the age of new women taking control of their lives and voicing their choices unreservedly. She is not attracted to any of the masculine qualities in the other suitors- horse riding, drinking, travelling, philosopher, scholar, nothing attracts her. Due to her strong inner masculinity in herself, she is attracted towards romantic, soft, charming, feminine gestures of Bassanio. Instead of Morocco’s victory in fierce battles, Portia is more inclined towards Bassanio’s submissive nature, which is usually desired by a man.

Katherine’s marriage in The Taming of the Shrew justifies Stephen Greenblatt’s statement- “Early modern writings about women and the family constantly return to a political model of domination and submission, in which the husband and father justly rules over wife and children”. Katherine and Petruchio’s relationship shows a glimpse of a social contract between a master and slave- rewarding the slave when he/she obeys and punishing when the slave resists. Similar treatment is being conferred upon poor Katherine. She is fed when her master thinks its fit, she is dressed as he pleases, even her speech is controlled. Whenever she tries to defy him, she is being penalized. She is starved till her freewill is curbed and she blindly follows her husband around. We pity her when we see such a headstrong Shakespearean heroine accepts the sun to be a moon and a gentleman to be a “fair lovely maid”, obeying whatever Petruchio commands her to do, just like a servant. She is stripped of any form of social identity. At the end of the play in Act 5 scene 2, we grieve on seeing Katherine totally submissive to her authoritative husband- “Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper”, “true obedience”, “they[wives] should kneel for peace…they are bound to serve, love, and obey”. It is as if she is admitting “the husbands’ dominance in the family was the justification for the common law rule that prohibited married women from possessing property, administering land…” (Stephen Greenblatt).

A common theme of William Shakespeare’s plays is romantic love and the quest for it; a vast amount of Shakespeare’s most celebrated works include plots which concern heterosexual romance. It can be argued that, for a lot of Shakespearian plays, this theme has a role in the plot of being a catalyst for the events that unfold. It’s typical; for Shakespeare’s works to include men or women on a quest for an idyllic form of ‘true love’, an idea that is commonly represented throughout Shakespeare’s works. This concept of love comes with certain gendered expectations: the images of romantic love that Shakespeare paints in his plays stem from certain traditional expectations on the role of males and females in relationships. In the Taming of the Shrew for example, the character Petruchio- who is attempting to ‘woo’ the “shrew” Katharina- approaches the idea of marriage with expectations of proper, gender-appropriate behaviour, though specifically regarding female etiquette. It is possible that Shakespeare wrote this play with the intention of representing traditional views on marriage and gender behaviour, and at a superficial level this can seem to be the case. However, one could also argue that the storyline of attempting to “tame” a woman so that she is fit for marriage is Shakespeare’s attempt at ironically providing a critical commentary on the unequal positioning of men and women within the realms of traditional marriage. It can thus be said that gender has a large significance in his plays, with women being a key aspect as to why this is so.

The Taming of the Shrew is a play written by Shakespeare sometime between 1590 and 1592. While contemporary readers may impose their own views regarding current socio-political issues, for a long time the presentation of women in the play remained unchallenged. The ‘taming’ of Katharina in the play was largely an inoffensive concept; it is only in recent years that people began to question the treatment of women in the play. This is likely due to a significant change in our culture, where women now have much more of a voice than they would have had at the time Shakespeare wrote this play. In recent years, the feminist movement has brought to light the issues regarding the way women have been, and still are in some cases, subordinated under our long-standing patriarchal societies, causing some readers to question the representation of women in Shakespeare’s work. This questioning can be seen in some modern renditions of the play such as in Phyllida Lloyd’s 2016 adaptation of the original work, where she offers a more ‘ironic’ reading of the play. In Lloyd’s adaptation of the play, she employs an all-female cast, and attempts to make light of the gender politics of Shakespeare’s original work. For example, her version of the play opens with a piece of self-aware and ironic dialogue, performed by the character Gremio, who says:

“You want to know what’s inappropriate- the fact that the director of this show is a woman… Who the hell does she think she is? Telling me where to stand, how to act, what to wear?”

The irony lies in the fact that the actress performing the dialogue is female themselves and is criticising Lloyd for being female and for doing their job. The irony is humorous, and sets the tone of the play, showing the audience what they can expect from this modern rendition’s handling of the problematic themes of misogyny and sexism which plague the original production. Lloyd’s presentation of the misogynistic trends within the play is hyperbolic; she places emphasis on these motifs to allow for them to be opened up to criticism. This exposes Shakespeare’s text for what some interpret it to be: a play condoning misogynistic attitudes and behaviours in the realm of traditional marriage.

On the other hand, some would argue that to read the play in such a way is a somewhat naïve way of interpreting the meanings behind the original text. Shakespeare gives valid reason for Katherina’s supposed shrewishness: her potential suitors are very rude and shallow, and her father seemingly treats Katherina’s marriage as a financial transaction. Katherina has no control over whom she wishes to marry, instead the decision is made in relation to the economics of those attempting to woo her- she is treated like a commodity, and a means for financial gain. This shows that the play’s treatment of gender goes further than what we as an audience see on the surface; if one were to take the connotations of the basic plot of the play as Shakespeare’s intended reading, then perhaps one could argue that they are missing the point as to why the play was written, especially when considering Shakespeare’s wider works where he challenges social conventions of gender roles, behaviour, and identity. For example, Twelfth Night is a play in which exists transgressions of gender identity; cross-dressing is a motif that is central to the plot of the play, provoking ideas of trans-identities, something that would have been taboo at the time the play was written. Shakespeare has shown that he is not afraid to challenge conventional notions of gender, so why would one assume that this type of social commentary and criticism does not exist in The Taming of the Shrew? Shakespeare’s representation of the institution of marriage in the play is intended to be a social commentary, written with the purpose of drawing attention to the unequal and unfair grounds on which women marry in Shakespeare’s time.

With this in mind, it is clear that, at least in the case of The Taming of the Shrew, women play a central role in the course of the plot. The subjugation of Katherina and the other female characters in the play act as a catalyst for the development of the story. More specifically, Shakespeare’s exploration of the female identity in relation to marriage, especially the way in which Katherina feels towards how she is treated, provides ground for the plot; it introduces the ‘dilemma’ of the story, which is a common and necessary practice of story writing. Without having the politics of the misogynistic practices of traditional marriages put at the foreground of the play, there would be no plot development, Katherina would acquiesce to the marriage and the story would be over. The very fact that Shakespeare includes Katherina’s rejection of expected stereotypical gender behaviour shows that he is aware of the issues that exist regarding the institution of marriage relating to female identities in the 16th century. He brings the issues that women faced at the time of writing to the front and centre of his play.

The Taming of The Shrew was one of Shakespeare’s earlier Elizabethan comedies, written in the early 1590s. Set in Renaissance Italy, it is likely that inspiration grew from popular English ballads and folktales, telling of shrewish wives tamed by their belligerent husbands. This relationship dynamic was common in this era, particularly in the male-dominated literary world. The play has recently become less popular, particularly due to its controversial assertion of the subordination of women that is distasteful to modern viewers. Whilst being viewed as an outrageous and comedic exaggeration of a husband’s rights, through a retrospective lens, the play appears oppressive and sexist.

The archetypal “shrew” was a common character in literature of the era and Commedia dell’arte. A “shrew” was a derogatory term for a woman with a bad temper, sharp tongue and strong mind, opposing the expectations of her gender role. Despite there being an unmarried queen ruling England, the roles of women in the Elizabethan era were very limited. Elizabethan society was patriarchal, with clear gender expectations. Men were the dominant breadwinners, whilst women were the property of their male counterparts, expected to be subservient wives and mothers. Men were seen as the head of the family and marriage, and thus he obtained the legal right to chastise his wife. However, there were limitations to this control; he could not inflict bodily harm upon her, and could be prosecuted for abuse.

However, the controversial plot centres upon this right, and questions Petruchio’s “taming” of Katherine into a traditionally submissive role as his obedient wife. Throughout the progression of the play, the complex motif of taming a hawk frames the main plot, incorporating the power imbalance of a patriarchal society, societal values towards a husband’s role and the present social classes and roles.

The initial battle for power in the relationship between Petruchio and Katherine is framed by this motif, thus ignoring her strength of character and instead dehumanising her. Katherine’s behaviour is not suited to the traditional expectations of her time, and thus Petruchio claims he is “born to tame… Kate, / and bring [her] from a wild Kate to a Kate / Conformable as other household Kates” (Act 2.Scene 1.Lines 268-270). The intended subordination of Kate is enshrined in such language of animalistic domestication, with a pun of her animalistic qualities being like that of a “wildcat”.

Petruchio’s methods of domesticating his wife is likened to the process of a falconer taming a wild hawk. The aim of falconry is to force the hawk to lose its freedom and autonomy, taking its natural abilities and exploiting them for sport. As a model for marriage, the entrapment of a powerful and free bird appears as a harrowing metaphor of the fine line between bidding respect and brutal mastery. In Elizabethan society, hawking and falconry were sports for the elite. As seen in The Book of Faulconrie or Hauking (Falconry or Hawking) by George Turberville, published in 1575, the relationship between a falconer and his bird is based upon the ideal of subordination, whilst ensuring she is cared for, in order to do his bidding. Turberville recommends several methods of taming a hawk, which Petruchio utilises upon his newly-wed to extinguish her non-conformist behaviours. In this sense, Petruchio takes on the role of the falconer, forcing Katherine away from her natural instincts through a series of psychological torments and the disruption of the natural world order, thus literally and metaphorically perform the process of taming a wild animal.

The idea of “taming” is slightly ambiguous in this context. Taming referred to the training of the bird, as opposed to the complete change of behaviour. A trained peregrine was often referred to as being “gentled” or “manned”. Taming also refers to the “breaking the instinctive behaviour of an animal to make it serve human needs”; as such, Katherine can be seen in such a way also, as the dominance imposed shatters her natural, independent nature, in order to serve Petruchio as an obedient wife.

Turberville recommends several methods of taming a hawk, but this motif is extended to dehumanise women by Petruchio’s enlistment of the such methods of domestication. One such method involves the supposed disruption of the natural world order, as Katherine’s perception of reality is inverted. Whilst out in broad daylight, Petruchio praises what he claims to be the moon, to which Katherine replies obediently, “Be it moon, or sun, or whatever you please… / Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me.” (5, iv, Line 13-15). This sequence directly links to the training practices of hooding, shifting a hawk’s perception of reality, particularly in reference to night and day. This practice was relatively new during Shakespeare’s lifetime, and was based upon restricting the bird to complete darkness through a hood, instilling confusion and fear. Through the falconer’s ability to remove the animal’s hood, the master / servant dichotomy is established, as the falconer supposedly possesses the power to control night and day. Katherine is forced to sacrifice what she knew to be true for what Petruchio thinks to be true, further shattering her understanding of the natural world order. In such a way, both the bird and Katherine have been “hoodwinked” – misled into submission due to a disruption of reality.

The animalistic idea of hunting for prey also extends to the application of men’s sexual pursuit of women in such a society. Through Petruchio’s treatment of his wife, Shakespeare highlights the inequality of the sexes, as the male counterpart is free to subjugate his wife’s access to food, ability to sleep and understanding of reality. Modern values are greatly disturbed by Katherine’s mistreatment, seeing how a grown woman is subjected to the same process as that of an animal. Shakespeare scholars interpret Petruchio’s dehuamisation of Katherine as both a dangerous example of domestic violence in the pursuit of misogynistic, patriarchal ideals, as well as his fulfilment of his “husbandly duties”, strictly outlined by Elizabethan society.

Furthering the masculine ideals of Elizabethan society, In the final scene, we see yet again that not all characters are able to live up to the expectations set about for their gender. Petruchio, Baptista, Hortensio and Lucentio take a bet to see whom has the most obedient wife, but it soon comes to light that not all of those competing are able to achieve the masculine ideal of commanding one’s wife in the obedient manner expected.

Whilst characters of both genders are shown opposing these ideals, only women are punished for this behaviour. In particular, Katherine is insulted, humiliated and seen as less valuable than her conforming younger sister. This does give the play significant sexist and misogynistic undertones, by today’s standards of the treatment of women. Interpretations and teachings of the play have been highly contested since its earliest performances. John Fletcher wrote as early as 1611, that men “should not reign as Tyrants o’er their wives”, thus opposing the supposed tyrannical behaviour of Petruchio. Dependent upon interpretation, whether the relationship between Petruchio and Kathrine be that of harmlessly unruly or dangerously oppressive, this battle of the sexes is a combination of both comedy and tragedy.

Shakespeare wrote two of his greatest plays during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. She was an example of a strong and competent woman. When she addresses the troops at Tilbury, she was dressed from the waist up in armor and, from the waist down in a dress. She was showing that she was a queen and a lady but also showing that she was a strong woman and was worthy of wearing amour just like a man. When speaking to the men, she states, ‘I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too’ (Francisco, slide 3). She is expressing this view because she knows that it’s a way to get the men of Tilbury, to refer to herself as a weak person but also a strong queen. She is playing to the cultural ideas of what women should be even when she is the queen.

Within my notes, while we were reading The Taming of the Shrew, we talked about what wives or women should be. I have a list of eight concepts; she should be obedient, of social status, wealthy, beautiful, obtain chastity, have a gender division of labor, fertility, and be thrifty (Francisco). These ideals were what once a women married were to possess, if not already possess some before they were married. In his plays, The Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing, Beatrice and Katherine have these concepts but they do not want to accept the idea of marriage. What makes them different is Katherine, she is a shrew, being more challenging to everyone and was always being put in place by Petruchio. Where Beatrice was definite in the fact she does not want to get married, but with others, she is nice, and not to offend put in her place. They are two sides of the same coin, both challenging, but in different ways.

Shakespeare uses the characters of Katherine and Beatrice to show how women should be and what they shouldn’t not be, but they end up being different types of characters. There are two ways that make Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing a romantic heroine from Katherine in The Taming of the Shrew, is a shrew even though both characters express the idea of “pure love and gross love often being contrasted” (Francisco, slide 23). Beatrice, even though she is also refusing a marriage, she is talking in the general sense, not directly about someone. Where Katherines told she is to marry Petruchio, and that’s when she starts to refuse it. Another thing that makes them different is that when they talk to other people, they have a different attitude, Beatrice most of the time was pleasant with others, where Katherine is rude to everyone, even her sister.

Beatrice, at the beginning of the play only knows that Benedick and his friend are coming and that she does not like him. There is no talk about her marrying him, and just in the general sense refuses to get married, she has no idea that they would by the end of the play. Beatrice expresses no intention ever to marry anyone, and Benedick is not even a thought in her mind. Beatrice says, ‘Not till God make men of some other metal than earth’ (2.1.59-60), Beatrice here expresses that she is not going to marry until a man is made out of a different substance then earth. Well, we all know that the planet is made of dirt, so in this case, she is referring to men, that they are dirt. She is suggesting that there is something better out there. From the beginning, she is expressing her distaste for marriage, and not because she’s betrothed to someone at that moment. Then by the end she does get married though, through the use of love sonnets, which can be seen as a pretty romantic thing for a romantic hero.

Even with her distant for marriage at the beginning, when Beatrice talks to someone else within the play, she is not acting like a shrew; she is quite pleasant with people. We see this in the exchange that takes place when Beatrice enters the room of Hero, and the maids and they have a polite conversation,

Hero. Good morrow, coz.

Beatrice. Good morrow, sweet Hero.

Hero. Why, how now? Do you speak in the sick tune?

Beatrice. I am out of all other tune, methinks.

Margaret. Clap’s into “Light o’ love.” That goes without a burden. Do you sing it, and I’ll dance it.

Beatrice. Ye light o’ love with your heels! Then, if your husband have stables enough, you’ll see he shalllack no barns.

Margaret. O illegitimate construction! I scorn that with my heels.

Beatrice. ‘Tis almost five o’clock, cousin; ’tis time you were ready. By my troth, I am exceeding ill. Heigh-ho! (3.4.39-52)

During this little excerpt from the text, we can see that Beatrice can have a polite conversation with everyone else within the play. She is not arguing with anyone over a situation, and she is acting quite pleasant. Beatrice is overall a more pleasant person within the play.

Katherine also does not want to get married, yet she is told she has to, and a big part of that is only so her sister Bianca can go out with a guy she likes. The guy everyone decides Katherine should marry is Petruchio. That is when her distant for marriage happens, she is told by Petruchio that she is to marry him, thus causing the argument of marriage with her father and everyone else:

Thou must be married to no man but me.

For I am he am born to tame you Kate,

And bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate

Conformable as other household Kates. (2.1.290-293)

Petruchio tells Katherine that she is going to marry him and that he is going to tame her. He tells her this because he knows how much of a shrew Katherine is. He says he is going to take her from ‘wild Kate to a Kate,’ meaning that she is an out of control animal that needs to be tamed. This is ironic because a shrew is also known to be a wild animal, and that is what he compares her to. They also argue over what her name is, this is a way of Petruchio already trying to tame Katherine by giving her a different name, something like this can be seen when you try to gain discipline over someone else. In her ending she also does marry but not by something romantic, but she is truly tamed by Petruchio.

Besides arguing with Petruchio and her father, Katherine is always arguing with others, and at the beginning of the play, her sister Bianca points out she is rude to the men by saying, ‘Sister, content you in my discontent” (1.1.81). A couple of lines down, she mocks the men by asking if she may also leave, then laughing and walking away. Then, after the exchange between Katherine and Petruchio about marriage, her father enters the scene, and she became even angrier, she says,

Call you me daughter? now, I promise you

You have show’d a tender fatherly regard,

To wish me wed to one half lunatic;

A mad-cup ruffian and a swearing Jack,

That thinks with oaths to face the matter out. (2.1.302-306)

She questions her father on why he is having her marry Petruchio, and she questions him calling her his daughter, basically saying how can you call me your daughter if you are forcing me to do this. In the end, Katherine is just generally rude to everyone overall making her more of a shrew. Where Beatrice has a distant for marriage, but she is not rude to others within the play making her a romantic hero.

Within these plays are ways Shakespeare is contributing to the conversation happening within the society of what women should be. In the podcast called The Birth of Theater As We Know It, the host says, “Remember too that women were not allowed on the stage at this time either, so boys would have to play all the women’s parts” (King). This is something that Shakespeare was aware of too, so to watch a man act as Beatrice or Katherine on stage could be seen as a stab at women and how Shakespeare and other men perceived them, and also how they would control them.

From these characters of Katherine and Beatrice, he does not seem like a friend to women. He makes them challenging and unlikeable by men. His idea of what women should be is in The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio tells everybody that, “I will be master of what is mine own.– / She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house, / My household stuff, my field, my barn, / My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything.’ (3.2.235-238). Which solidifies who and what Katherine should be, she is his life where she is to take care of all those thing. Along with what Petruchio thinks women should be. Overall according to Shakespeare women are to be tamed and in both plays he expresses the idea.

Work Cited

1. Francisco, Timothy. “drama history revise_3_.” Shakespeare and His World, September 24 2019, Youngstown State University. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. Slide 3.
2. Francisco, Timothy. “Much Ado_1_.” Shakespeare and His World, September 17 2019, Youngstown State University. Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. Slide 23.
3. Francisco, Timothy. ‘The Taming of the Shrew.’ Shakespeare and His World, September 24 2019, Lecture.
4. King, Rebecca, host. “The Birth of Theater As We Know It.” Hold That Thought, Washington University in St. Louis, June 2015. https://thought.artsci.wustl.edu/podcasts/theater-as- we-know-it
5. Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew, edited by Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Simon & Schuster, 2014.
6. Shakespeare, William. Much Ado About Nothing, edited by David L. Stevenson, Signet Classic, 1989.

The topic in this year’s festival is intertextuality between different texts. Intertextuality allows us to draw on existing ideas to create interesting new works and these texts are strongly influenced by society and culture. Shakespeare’s plays are some of the most well-known and adapted texts. His play Taming of the Shrew written in 1590 was adapted in 1999 into the film directed by Gil Junger, 10 Things I Hate About You. In adapting Taming of the Shrew into a modern context, Junger brings new meaning to Shakespeare’s classics and communicates Shakespeare’s key concerns for a modern audience. Most people would say why is Shakespeare so important? He isn’t part of our society now so why is he still relevant? The Taming of the Shrew goes on living because it has, in the first place, that necessary quality of all good drama, a delight in vigorous events subjected to the discipline of a coherent, well organised, and significant plot. 10 Things I Hate About You is still relevant to today’s society because it defies rom-com conventions by giving a misfit female lead a happy ending, without requiring her to shove herself into a conventional mold. In 2019, when so much of the cultural conversation is about accepting people the way they are, Shakespeare’s work takes on more relevance.

In Taming of the Shrew, the characters are both similar between the hypo and hypertext. Some of the character names are similar and some have completely been replaced. For example, Katherine has changed to Kat, Petruchio to Patrick, Bianca has stayed the same between both, and Lucentio has changed to Cameron. The character’s personality has stayed the same, so the audience is still able to identify who is who. Lucentio and Cameron are both tutors to their versions of Bianca. Although in taming of the shrew it’s a lot more complicated than it is in the film. The last names of some characters have also changed. In Taming of the Shrew, Katherine’s surname is Minola and has been changed to Stratford, and Petruchio’s surname is not stated in the text but in the film, Patrick’s last name is Verona. His surname in the film comes from the birthplace of where Petruchio was born. And then there are these two – Hortensio and Joey. Hortensio in Taming of the Shrew is an honest, kind character who wants to get closer to Bianca because he really likes her. Joey in 10 Things I hate About You is a self-centered boy who only wants Bianca for the challenge of getting her and isn’t in love with her. The difference between these two characters are significant because Hortensio isn’t a character that many people can relate to, but people can relate to the Joey character which is the ‘high school jerk’.

The Taming of the Shrew begins with an introduction or a framing device. In the first scene a nobleman finds the beggar, Christopher Sly, passed out at an alehouse and decided to play a practical joke on him. He orders his men to have Sly bathed, groomed, and dressed as a mighty lord, then carried to the finest bedroom in the lord’s manor. When Sly wakes up, the servants convince him that he is actually a nobleman and that his previous life of poverty was a delusional dream. Sly then settles down to watch a play, The Taming of the Shrew. The wealthy merchant Baptisa, who resides in Padua, Italy, has two beautiful daughters, Katherine and Bianca. The younger of the two, Bianca, is a sweet and kind girl while the older, Katherine is ill-tempered. Baptisa decides that Katherine must marry before Bianca and he is well aware that no man is interested in a ‘shrew’ but stands firm in his decision. Meanwhile, a suitable, rich young man, Lucentio and his servant, Tranio, arrive in Padua. Lucentio falls in love with Bianca but he soon realises that he can’t marry her until Katherine gets married. So, what does Lucentio do? He pretends to be a tutor, while his servant pretends to be Lucentio. Now while that is happening, two other men that have also fallen in love with Bianca, have come up with a plan to find someone that will marry Katherine. Lucky them because one of the two men’s friends, Petruchio arrives in Padua looking for a wife. Petruchio marries Katherine and manages to ‘tame’ her much to the surprise of everybody else.

A plot summary of 10 things I Hate About You is that popular, pretty Bianca Stratford is in a dilemma. A family rule forbids her from dating until her popular, rebellious, boy-hating older sister Kat does. In an attempt to win Bianca, potential boyfriend Joey desperately attempts to set Kat up with Patrick Verona, another rebel who may be able to win her heart.

The setting of both of these texts is called Padua. In the play it is Padua, Italy and in the film, it is Padua High School. The taming of the shrew was written in 1590 so the time period was probably around the Italian renaissance which was the 14th to the 17th century. 10 Things I Hate About You was released in 1999 and it is set in a 90’s American high school. The audience call tell that it is set in the ’90s because of the costumes and backgrounds like the hip-hugger jeans and tank tops of the period.

The language has been substituted to modern English instead of keeping it as Shakespearean so it’s easier for a modern audience to understand and for the message to get across clearly. By changing the language, it also changes the target audience. The target audience for the film is now teenagers around 14-18-years old. So, you might be wondering how did Petruchio manage to tame this unruly hot-headed shrew? Well, Petruchio used many different techniques to achieve his desired outcome which included refusing her clothes and food and not letting her get any sleep. Petruchio, in an attempt to add validity to his actions, claims in the text that his goal to transform Katherine and to make sure that she is only getting the best. Act 4 scene 1 shows Petruchio talking about how he is getting Katherine to do what he wants. This is obviously a problem in today’s society and couldn’t be reproduced in the film.

The inequality of genders that has remained a constant value within any society, until the large-scale feminist movement began in the 1800s, is a commonly explored theme in literature and heavily impacted on several aspects of life, i.e. roles within the home, literature, art , politics, and overall the opportunities available to women. The Taming of the Shrew is no exception to this. Shakespeare explores the gender conventions of his time through characterisation and plot development, mainly portraying women in a negative and defenseless role. One exception to this is Katherine, the female lead in Taming of the Shrew. Initially in the play, Katherine has a sharp tongue and has a dominating persona that she uses to hide her insecurities, but as the play evolves, Shakespeare develops the character of Katherine. The male lead, Petruchio appears to have “tamed the shrew” by revealing Katherine’s true self and maintains the dominating male role in the relationship. At the end of the first scene in act 5, Katherine, under pressure from Petruchio, kisses him and says “Nay, I will give thee a kiss. Now pray thee, love stay”. At this point in the play, Katherine has finally accepted her natural role as wife; hostility, petulance, and recalcitrance have been replaced by affection, good humour, and partnership. Katherine and Petruchio’s alliance are sealed by the longest and most eloquent speech in the entire comedy, Katherine’s proclamation of the submission of wife to husband as a law of nature, something essential to the harmonious working of their universe, and therefore to be accepted gladly and not rebelled against begrudgingly.

The part of the monologue where Katherine says “And place your hands below your husband’s foot”, is a reference to a traditional act of allegiance, but the basic idea is clearly set out in the homily entitled ‘Of the State of Matrimony’, where wives are advised to submit to their husbands in respect of the commandment of God, as St Paul expresses it in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord; for the husband is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the church”. There was a lot of social pressure placed upon women in the 16th century and the taming of the shrew shows what happened to women that disobeyed their masters and decided that they wanted to have a life of their own. The 16th century is the same time period that the witch burnings happened. A quote from the book ‘The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering the Religion of the Earth’ says that “The whole secular ‘Enlightenment’ in fact, the male professions of doctor, lawyer, judge, artist, all rose from the ashes of the destroyed women’s culture. Renaissance men were celebrating naked female beauty in their art, while women’s bodies were being tortured and burned by the hundreds of thousands all around them”.

In this film, women, particularly Kat, have power and are allowed to be opinionated and ‘disobey’ the men. Kat’s speech is about her acceptance of Patrick’s dishonesty and she forgives him. One of Kat’s lines “in this society, being a male and an asshole makes you worthy of our time” is a statement that still rings true today. In this statement, Kat uses sarcasm to get across her point of how the whole of society gives all their attention and glorifies the action of all men. Through these two snippets of text that is on the screen, it is apparent that the role of women in today’s society and the effect of feminism on women is that it “is impolite to be a feminist. That calling other people out for their sexist tendencies is rude and disrespectful”, -that means being sexist is still an acceptable way to act. Kat does call people out for it and receives the slurs that inevitably come with it but that doesn’t change who she is and what she stands up for.

In recognising and understanding intertextuality we are then presented with a richer reading or theatrical experience. New interpretations and contexts are viewed which can also be applied to contemporary literature and film. Drawing from our own knowledge and experiences we are able to see ourselves in these modern interpreted roles and consider our culture and society of today compared to the times of the original writings. Intertextuality works perfectly with Shakespeare.

Today we are discussing how modern texts like 10 Things I Hate about You has borrowed an older text like The Taming Of the Shrew by comparing and contrasting different elements of both stories.

Characters are a significant part of both the Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate about You as they drive the story as a whole and the types of characters that are involved are important in a story as it creates different types of conflicts and tensions as well as resolutions. In this particular comparison Kat from 10 Things and Katherine from the Taming of the Shrew are both cruel and are considered abusive as Kat is considered more verbally cruel to others to get her own way whilst Katherine is more physically cruel as she tends to punch people when she wants something. An example of Katherine being physically abusive is when Bianca and Katherine were arguing about how Katherine envies Bianca, so Katherine gets raged and “strikes her”. In 10 Things there are a lot of scenes where Kat uses her voice to act shrewish, for example she would always have rude comments back to Joey when they sat next to each other in class. The difference shown between both characters is quite significant as it changes the roles and how Kat and Katherine are viewed and portrayed. Although they are both viewed as shrews, Kat is more opinionated compared to Katherine and isn’t afraid to say what’s on her mind however Katherine is never taken seriously so she uses violence to be noticed. Another character that shows many similarities and differences between the Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things is the character Horenstio and Joey. Joey in 10 Things plays as a self-centred teenager who only tries to get Bianca for the challenge and doesn’t actually have any feelings for her however Horenstio in the Taming of the Shrew play a nice character who is honest and truly wants to get closer to Bianca because he actually likes her. An example of Horenstio’s personality is when he is speaking to Gremio about how much he wants Bianca’s love and is willing to rival with Gremio and others for Bianca’s love. An example of Joeys personality is how he would always talk about how good looking he was and essentially, he was self-obsessed. Joey has a very large ego and was not afraid to talk about himself to anyone and everyone which is quite opposite to Horenstio’s personality. The difference between both of these characters is significant as Joeys personality adds a modern factor to the movie. Horenstio is not a character that many people can relate to therefore the change in the character development into Joey makes him more of the ‘high school jerk’ which viewers can relate to and understand better than Horenstio’s personality.

A plot is a causal sequence of events that draws the reader into the character’s lives and helps the reader understand the choices that the characters make. A plot’s structure is the way in which the story elements are arranged. The plots in the 10 Things and the Taming of the Shrew have different views on feminism and woman in general. In the Taming of the Shrew, it is quite sexist as it looks down on women and gives the impression that they should obey men. However, in 10 Things I Hate about You women like Kat have power and are allowed to be opinionated and not look up to men. A quote from Petruchio states that he plans to tame Katherine and essentially treats her as if she is an animal that he needs to tame so he can have her under his control. Katherine was never actually treated this poorly from Petruchio however today it isn’t socially acceptable to treat women the way Petruchio treated Katherine in the play therefore in the modern movie we didn’t see Patrick act like this and was a lot nicer to Kat.

Another comparison in the plots is when at the end of the Taming of the Shrew and 10 Things I Hate about You Katherine and Kat both perform a speech directed to their men in front of large crowds. The significant difference between 10 Things and the Taming of the Shrew is that Katherines speech is more about how she has been defeated and is now obedient and tamed whilst Kat’s speech is more of a poem and confesses her love for Patrick.

In 1999, the cult classic “10 Thing I Hate About You” came out. This movie rode on the ideas of Third wave feminism, which was highly prevalent in the 1990s and early 2000’s, unlike its original source material: Taming of the Shrew. Written in the late 16th century, Taming of the shrew is reflective of the renascences misogynistic, patriarchal and mistreatment of the women in that time. The original play tells the story of Petruchio (Patrick in the film) , and how he ‘tames’ an angry and headstrong Katharina (mainly known as Kat in the film), to be obedient and compliant wife. The movie shares only a few things in common such as; the premise of Kat needing to marry/date first before her younger sister Bianca, Cameron (Lucentio in the play) trying to date/marry Bianca and hiding his intentions by acting as a tutor. Because this movie doesn’t have the same themes and societal attitudes of the time that’s its older counterpart took place in, it does not appropriately represent the main concepts of; gender roles ….

Taming of the shrew’s main premise was the ‘taming’ of Katerina. Petruchio’s constant beratement of her, making it clear that she needed to be subservient to him, as he was the patriarchal figure. Its recent adaptation has turned that view of male-dominated society and flipped it, in a way that portrays Patrick being tamed by Kat instead. Both Patrick and Petruchio accept money for dating/marrying Kat, the difference comes with the movie portrayal as Patrick almost seems reluctant to take the money on the second date, and again when he is paid to take Kat to formal, using that money instead to try to make up for his wrongdoings and buys her the guitar she’s been wanting. Petruchio’s character is a stark contrast as he never gives an inch to Katerina, he never apologies and never once puts himself in discomfort for her. An example of this is: “…you would have heard all about how her horse fell with her under it, how swampy the place was, too, and how she was covered in mud, and how he left her like that, with the horse on top of her” (Act 4 Scene 1). The intentions behind this character on both mediums are so dissimilar that the impact that each has, is vastly different. This scene in the movie is completely altered to show Patrick in a more of a caring and affectionate light. The scene depicts Kat drinking too much alcohol and may be suffering from a concussion. Patrick takes the time to look after her, making sure she doesn’t fall asleep or be taken advantage of in her inebriated state. Patrick’s character shows genuine affection towards Kat, as if he was only doing it for money he could have left her to fend for herself at that party. When she vomits on his shoes, he just takes it and leaves it at that. Patricks and Petruchio’s intentions and actions towards Katherine are extremely polarising, one shows genuine affection and love towards Katherine, while the other is demeaning and abuse towards her.

As taming of the shrew was written in the 16th century and the play itself was set in the renaissance, it views of women and their power in society is vastly different to our modern outlook. The character Gremio refers to one of the many ways that women were treated to punish them for being outspoken and non-obedient for their male counterparts: “To cart her, rather” (Act 1 Scene 1). To cart a woman, was to tie them to a cart as it travelled the streets of the town, and the inhabitants would either bang pots and pans to show their offence to the wrongdoer, or in worse cases would whip and physically abuse the shrewish woman. Such practises were common in Shakespeare’s time but in the modern society that !0 things I hate about you was set it, these unfair and torturous practises completely contradict the ideological mindset that feminism implemented into present society. Throughout the play, we can see some of these Elizabethan methods that Petruchio inflicts upon Katerina. He first removes her from her family home, isolating her somewhere where she has choice but to rely on her new husband. He then proceeds to make her as uncomfortable as possible with sleep deprivation, starvation, emotional blackmail and constant humiliation. If the director of !0 things I hate about you had decided to follow the plays ‘taming’ techniques, then the public would be in an outcry as it contradicts the view of how women should be treated. As they took artistic liberties with the plots and themes it no longer represents the primary focus of taming and the impact it truly had upon the characters.

Narratives which lampoon chauvinistic and misogynistic behaviour whilst simultaneously reaffirming their social validity, ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ and ‘Vinegar Girl’ blur the distinction between parody and ideals. Constructed upon the backdrop of a strict renaissance gender hegemony and its leftovers of a similarly gender-driven hierarchy, William Shakespeare and Anne Tyler critique the perception of “Shrewishness” as a product of milieu and the personal transformation undergone by such a terminology’s oppression. The ways in which love and marriage are viewed and regurgitated through contexts unveil the textual integrity and resonance of the narratives’ grounding themes.

A reflection of strong will, independence and arrogance, both the taming of the shrew and vinegar girl appropriate their milieux product of a shrew. Whether deemed outspoken and spiteful or simply charmless and plain speaking, the function of Katherina as the female protagonist reveals the patriarchal backbones of their context. The minute stage presence of herself and of any female character in the metatheatrical opening of the play emulates a stark secularisation between gender roles of the time period and imposes a harsh judgement of her attributes crucially through the perspective of the male characters. Described simply as a transaction in the routine of marriage, Hortensio projects her attitude as ill-mannered and undesirable –– “no mates for you, unless you were of a gentler, milder mold” and instils a paradoxical representation of the traditional Renaissance woman; unvirtuous, unchaste and disobedient. However, Shakespeare’s staging direction and humorous tone belittle the true intent of her shrewishness as she nurtures a deeply seated sense of insecurity and jealousy. Furthermore, the judgement of Kate by Gremio in saying “to cart her, rather, she’s too rough for me” reveals a historical milieu of public shame and punishment for the raging tempestuousness that defines her character in Padua. Anne Tyler’s introduction to a “sullen”, less intense version of the female protagonist renders a “spirited and likeable heroine” who merely strives for acceptance and worthiness in her shallow, adolescent world. Tyler appropriates the speculation of her shrewishness through the male voices in the play into a literary device of an omniscient narrative voice, framing her character profile. An ironically nurturing, kind and tamed fragment of Kate is introduced to the reader in the symbolic setting of the garden, allowing the placid mood to sporadically shift to a sense of urgency following the phone call from her Father –– implementing the similarly infused theme of male dominance through her subservient position from the outset. However, Kate stands out as an idiosyncratic, principled figure as she complains about the domesticity of the modern stereotyped woman. The contextual norm of the time such as “chatting in beauty parlours” and “aimlessly walking chihuahuas” is metaphorically rejected in a sarcastic and mocking tone through the function of the conscience-delving narrative voice. Her shrewishness is thus elevated from a Shakespearean label to a contemporary independent. Both products of their restraining contexts exemplify humanity’s tendencies to suppress individuality and conform to the societal ideal of a tamed, patient and unshrewish woman.

Modernised in synchronisation with feminism and the liberation of women, the values that permeate Vinegar Girl transcend the context of the taming of the shrew and provide underlying catharsis with the personal transformations undergone. Katherina’s dramatic denouement as the closing social statement of the play provokes a difficult mode of interpretation for modern audiences as Shakespeare’s expression of a drastically morphed, obedient wife articulates both genuine enlightenment and a satirical facade. It is communicated through Katherina’s soliloquy; “a woman moved is like a fountain troubled; muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty” that the themes of the play reaffirm the biblical notion of the woman being the glory of the man. In hyperbolically comparing her original volatile nature to a tainted, ugly and undesirable volume, her transformation is perceived as either a result of successful brainwashing by the hounds of the patriarchy or a tactical, untruthful response to her husband’s taming strategies. Her transformation regards the flattened fate of women in the renaissance, claiming “I am ashamed that women are so simple they offer war when they should kneel for peace” and reiterates her expected subservience to her superior husband. Tyler’s contemporary take on transformation is troublingly reminiscent of the play’s sexist sincerities, however, grants the notion of modern romance as she chooses to accept her Father’s self-beneficial proposal which just so happens to align with loving a man who is her equal. Kate ultimately relinquishes her strong will and retains the anti-feminist sentiments in the plot undertaken by Tyler, endorsing a response from the reader to perceive her character development as a mere personal opportunity to fill the gaps in a life she finds wholly unrewarding. “I’m not ‘backing down’ as you call it, I am simply letting him into my country. I am giving him space in a place where we can both be ourselves”. Tyler engineers kate’s subtle metamorphosis through her own incipient recognition that other people’s feelings are worth considering, rather than the need for a man to ‘tame’ her. Along with the epilogue that follows, the symbolism of the conclusion is based upon a mutal tolerance for both eccentricity and difficulty and modernises the type of relationship that hinders complications with language styles and lifestyles. The conventions of comedy are bled through Kate’s witty dialogue and sharp-tongued remarks, however, evocative catharsis is achieved through the transformation undergone by route of her personal realisation, reflective of the shifted authority and agency of gender roles through time.