by Jamie Mahoney, Blogging Circle 3
Stephen Greenblatt’s piece, “Wooing, Wedding, and Repenting,” was persuasive speculation at best, for it is genuinely ridiculous to argue that virtually all of William Shakespeare’s works were thinly veiled comments upon his unfulfilling marriage. His fascination with the human experience and psyche helped him to spin tales of love, in all of its various, glorious, and bizarre forms. Each and every Shakespearean couple functions as a juggernaut of curious behavior, for Shakespeare explored all facets of psychology and emotion in his works. As was mentioned in class, Shakespeare was, first and foremost, an entertainer, and a wicked and twisted love is, of course, a source of fascination. Audience members went to the theater to see amusing, comedic, or exciting – an entertaining play usually does not center itself upon a couple who meets, realizes they are “meant to be,” and is wed immediately and without obstacle.
Plays allow audience members to be nearly omniscient, for the viewers of a play are present for every scene, while characters enter and exit the stage periodically. Therefore, an audience member often knows more than a given character. This is especially true in the case of soliloquies – a method by which Shakespeare exposes the innermost thoughts of his characters. Soliloquies, scenes among a small group of characters, and mumbled asides grant the viewer a deep understanding of characters and events in the play. As well, each scene written by Shakespeare was created with purpose. Everything in a work of Shakespeare has significance to the plot.
Before his character has a chance to truly develop, Petruccio reveals a bit about his true self when he says the following:
“I’ve come to wive it wealthily in Padua,
If wealthily, then happily in Padua.” 1.2. 73-74
In this single sentiment, Petruccio reveals the way he looks at marriage. The woman he marries matters little to him in comparison to her dowry. He is crude, upfront, and unemotional. In some senses, this makes him seem like the perfect match for Katherina,for she is equally crude, and perhaps even more forward with her thoughts and emotions. Petruccio states that his happiness lies in wealth, and a beneficial marriage. However, Kate’s happiness is not mentioned, but surely does not come from a loveless marriage with the insensitive and cruel Petruccio. In fact, during the only scenes that show a married Kate and Petruccio, Petruccio is torturing, isolating, and starving his new bride. Shakespeare’s works have a way of presenting a couple as being both the perfect match, and a terrible combination, everything and nothing all at once. In this case, only one personality of this magnitude can prevail, which gives way to the titular “taming of the shrew,” for it is Kate who is not only tamed, but disregarded completely.
I really enjoyed this post and the topic of if Kate and Petruccio’s marriage is really fair. Of course we see Petruccio’s selfish tendencies, which in this post is even more identified through the quote. He is selfish, and doesn’t care about true love, but the question if Kate really cares either still comes to mind. I do think Kate cares, but I do also think she yearns for companionship and that is shown by the way she is “tamed” by Petruccio’s madness. The time period and choices that women have also make it harder for Katherina to even think about another choice outside her controlling marriage. Overall, I do agree that Kate is put into a position that from an outsiders perspective might seem like “the perfect fit”, but really she is being tamed in an inhumane way by a man who seems to not have her best interest.
I really liked this post. The quote you provided on Petruchio and his view on marriage is spot on. It certainly does sound like him and Katherine are a perfect match. It reminds of a clash of the egos. But, Kate is successfully tamed. Petruchio is able to tame Kate. But, we can only want this to have closure as readers. But, she is tamed in a sadistic way that even someone of her character can’t even snap out of it.
I very much disagree with the idea that Petruccio and Katherina are an ideal match. I think that Katherina has a sharp tongue and that she speaks her mind more honestly (most of the time to a fault) regardless of her emotions, but realistically, the only person she is intentionally hurting is herself. If she chooses to have a bad attitude, that will reflect upon her, and no one else. It’s her own fault that she takes so long to get married because she chooses to live her life according to no one’s rules but her own. Petruccio, on the other hand, constantly is hurting others. He beats Grumio in their first scene together, he starves Katherina and deprives her of sleep, and he publicly embarrasses the Minola family when he arrives late and inappropriately dressed for the wedding. Not even Katherina, who is known far and wide as “shrewish,” would dare do such a thing as embarrass her family. Katherina is not the same as Petruccio because he is much more destructive and harmful of others, therefore forcing Katherina to deal with an abusive marriage.
Hi Jamie,
I like your idea that just because Petruccio is crude and forward, like Katherina, it doesn’t mean they’re a perfect match. Just because two people have similar types of problems doesn’t mean they’re destined for great happiness! I also like that you pointed out that the author of “Wooing, Wedding, and Repenting” made an interesting point but there’s no way whatsoever to test what he’s suggesting about Shakespeare and his marriage. Your idea that Shakespeare’s love stories come from his mind and skill as a playwright is a more convincing argument—no one wants to write (or read) about an average couple who’s just like everyone else. The exciting (and potentially upsetting) story to experience is the unusual, challenge-filled one. In the case of The Taming of the Shrew, Katherina is definitely seen as a means to an end for several people—in Baptista’s and Bianca’s suitors’ minds, she’s a person to be married off so Bianca can be eligible for marriage. In the case of Petruccio, Katherina is a way to attain a large dowry. Though Petruccio has the power to manipulate things and people for his own happiness, Katherina has much more limited means of controlling her life, which is where her sharp mind comes in as no one bothers to ask her what her own wishes are.
I enjoyed reading your post but I disagree with some parts of it and agree with others. What I like most is that you point out that Petruccio states where his happiness lies but Katherine’s happiness is never mentioned. The nearest we come to seeing Katherine’s idea of happiness is in her final speech when she describes what it means to be a good wife. If she’s serious about the speech, then she’s satisfied with her life of being a dutiful wife. Being content is far from being happy but again, it’s the closest we come to happiness with Katherine. Otherwise we only see her being bitter.
I disagree with the idea that Petruccio and Katherine are perfect for each other. There’s no way Katherine is OK with being starved and mistreated just so she can be a dutiful wife to someone she didn’t want to marry. It doesn’t match her personality because she’s outspoken and can stand firm with her beliefs. I don’t believe that Katherine was actually sincere about her speech and that’s why I think she has an unhappy marriage. Petruccio must be happy because he got what he wanted, but Katherine doesn’t express happiness.