by Stephanie Hanna, Blogging Circle 3

Shakespeare segways into his next play, Henry IV, using the same metaphors with supporting imagery present in Richard II. England, in Richard II, is a garden ravaged by political corruption at the hand of KIng Richard. Hope lies within a revolution and King Henry’s seizure of the throne. It becomes evident, however, that there is a role reversal in Henry IV, as Henry is viewed as “canker” destroying the pristine garden of England and Richard becomes martyrized.

Throughout Richard II, Richard is portrayed as more of a landlord than King, abusing the common people and ultimately preying “upon” himself (2:1:36). Richard raises taxes on commoners to inflate his own worth and support a lavish lifestyle. Although he experiences an immediate gain, his inability to recognize his place in the collective of England results in revolution from a collective more powerful than himself and his own death. Henry stands in stark contrast to Richard, and is once characterized as the salvation the “garden” of England desperately needs.

The imagery used to describe Henry shifts from savior to “canker.” Henry, like Richard and those before Richard, is not free from the temptation of corruption (2.4:68). York also refers to Henry as a “white rose” that must be drowned in “bloody red” (2.4:60-61). The imagery of blood and the metaphor that blood is not unique to the individual, but rather lent to an individual from the pool of a collective is also present in Richard II. Richard’s becomes pale, or white, upon the realization that the collective has outnumbered him and will overthrow him. Here, a parallel is drawn between a corrupt Richard and Henry. Paleness or white, thus, becomes a symbol of corruption and disenchantment. Possessing color, specifically red, is reserved for a King who is regarded as part of the collective.

The imagery and metaphor of blood continues as it is invoked to characterize the posthumous reputation of Richard. Blood, once used to portray Richard’s folly and disconnect from the collective, now serves as a connection point between he and the collective. Richard’s death is described as “exempt from ancient gentry” and an act that “live guiltily in” the “blood” of the nation (2.4:94). Exemplified here is the shift in perspective of King Richard from a petulant landlord figure to somewhat of a martyr. His blood, and the responsibility for his “unjust” death, has been recycled to the collective and lies in, small concentration, in each of the inhabitants of England. Henry, following the cyclical pattern of Shakespearean politics, now embodies the role of cankerous garden worm, destroying what was once “pristine.” As one ruler proves himself corrupt and disenchanted from the collective, revolution ensues with a new ruler ultimately seizing the throne. This new ruler will not remain free from corruption and his reputation will eventually turn sour.

by Kamani Porter, Blogging Circle 5

Today, in class, we delved into “Richard II”, a play in which I have never read before leading up to this point. I honestly enjoyed the opening of this play which begins with the trial of Henry Bolingbroke (Bolingbroke) and Thomas Mowbray (Mowbray). Bolingbroke accuses Mowbray of doing heinous actions against King Richard and the country. Mowbray would deny these actions and then accuse Bolingbroke of similar actions. King Richard would respond to this issue by demanding them to duel one another. Hesitantly, King Richard regrets his decision and decides to ban them. Mowbray would be banned for life. Bolingbroke would receive less of a sentence due to the fact that he is the son of King Richard’s uncle, John of Gaunt.

Also, the opening scene of “The Hollow Crown” was covered. In “The Hollow Crown”, King Richard is hailed as somebody who speaks with a chip on his shoulder. He is arrogant in a way to the viewer. In the opening scene, Richard puts Mowbray on a lower pedestal than Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke is able to catch a break due to blood ties with John of Gaunt. But, Richard’s attitude is subtly pointed to the disapproval of Bolingbroke. When reading the text, the reader would assume that King Richard is a king that has a laid-back, peaceful approach to situations.  Despite that approach, he can’t really make decisions on his own. The “Hollow Heart” version of King Richard is portrayed differently than the “Richard II” text-version of King Richard. So, this leads me to one question? Who is the real King Richard? Is he some grimy, selfish king? Or he is someone who contradicts himself when he makes up his mind?

To be honest, the movie version of King Richard is nowhere to be found in the text thus far. King Richard is contradicting in the first act. Most people would think the in-text version Richard is someone that is impartial and fair. For example, in Act I, when Richard is addressing Mowbray during the trial:

“Mowbray, impartiall are our eyes and eares,
Were he my brother, nay our kingdomes heyre,
As he is but my fathers brothers sonne;
Now by my Scepters awe, I make a vow.”

This quote is presenting Richard’s promise to Mowbray about being fair about the trial, meaning Bolingbroke will get treated the same he does. Richard is someone who can’t really make up his mind. So, as the reader would learn, Bolingbroke receives less of a sentence than Mowbray. So not only Richard promises to call this trial fairly, he fails to live up to his promise of keeping this trial even. But, due to John of Gaunt’s power as another king, he is forced to quickly change his decision. Richard is a young king. Bolingbroke is popular with the people due to having affiliation with John of Gaunt. Since John of Gaunt is a well-known and respectable individual for someone of his rank, Richard would not want to face any backlash with his people if he screwed over Bolingbroke. It’s hard to tell whether Richard is being contradictive with himself. You can’t really tell whether King Richard is making decisions based on King Richard’s thinking or on another character’s thinking.

At the end of Act I, here is another quote to display Richard’s hesitation:

“We were not borne to sue, but to command,
Which since we cannot do to make you friends”

King Richard is commanding Bolingbroke and Mowbray to duel. This quote is a contradiction towards Richard’s way of thinking. He is saying that Bolingbroke and Mowbray must make action since no one is wanting to reconcile during the trial. All based of these actions of removing the duel and banishing them, Richard cannot take control of making his own commands. King Richard is unable to display his own identity in the opening of this play. He doesn’t really portray king-like qualities. His age during this play doesn’t cut it. He is supposed to be a king, not someone who relies on others to make his decisions. He might as well hand over his crown to someone who is actual able to make their own decisions based on logic. Richard’s character just isn’t defined in the opening act of the play. As a reader, I’m hoping that the arrogant King Richard comes out. I am hoping to see a newer side of Richard.

by Brian McCue, Blogging Circle 4

I’m interested in the portrayal of Justice and the right to decide fate in this play. Shakespeare is tackling some pretty subversive ideas and is really challenging what Justice is in medieval England, and what Kingship really entails.

In the opening to the play, we see a variation on how justice plays out in King Richard the Second’s England. Henry Bolingbroke and Mowbray are having a bit of a scuffle, they both seem to think that the other one is a traitor and is guilty of high treason. This is a pretty serious offense, and both Mowbray and Bolingbroke don’t seem to have much evidence on another to prove that Mowbray killed Richard and Bolingbroke’s uncle or that Bolingbroke has been stealing from the crown. So obviously, they decide to solve this quarrel by killing each other with swords. Richard who at first tries to settle the matter through words, basically says “alright guys you do what you gotta do.”
The implication here, is that the Trial by Combat Mowbray and Bolingbroke will have is to be solved by divine intervention, if one of the men kills the other, then his claim must be the true one.

In the second scene of Act I, we see Gaunt meeting with the deceased uncle’s (that Mowbray is accused of killing) widow to tell her that he suspects Richard had something to do with her husband’s death. She asks for him to seek some sort of vengeance on Richard and he tells her:

“God’s is the quarrel; for God’s substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caused his death: the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift
An angry arm against His minister.” (1.2 37-41)

Essentially, Gaunt says that “Richard is basically God’s right hand man, can’t really do much about that. You’ll have to ask God to help you.” This of course, is pretty unfulfilling to a widow, and she says that she is so grief struck that she will die. Gaunt is refusing to challenge Richard on his acts, by virtue that Richard is God’s main dude on earth.

Luckily for us, as readers, we know that Mowbray and Bolingbroke are totally going to kill each other, and we’ll be able to tell who is guilty or not by whose blood gets drawn. But of course, Richard denies us our sweet sweet, bloody satisfaction and  decides that both men are guilty so he’ll have to banish them both. Our trial by combat, and access to the divine decision is denied. Bolingbroke seems to accept this,

“Your will be done: this must my comfort be,
Sun that warms you here shall shine on me;
And those his golden beams to you here lent
Shall point on me and gild my banishment.” (1.3)

and considering that he is being banished for 10 years, he even compliments Richard which seems extremely strange. My assumption here is that Bolingbroke really does seem to think Richard is divine, and that his justice is right. Mowbray on the other hand, gets the short end of the stick, being sent away by Richard forever and without any hope of returning. Bolingbroke tells Mowbray to admit his guilt, but Mowbray continues to deny being a traitor to the crown. Mowbray, of course, is heavily implied to have conspired with Richard to kill Richard’s uncle, and believes he didn’t “betray” the throne, instead, he helped Richard solidify his power and now Richard is betraying Mowbray.

So here, Richard has chosen to deny Bolingbroke and Mowbray their trial by combat, or any sense of a legal trial by marking them both guilty with no evidence. Gaunt, Bolingbroke’s father is rightly stricken by this and asks Richard to lessen Bolingbroke’s sentence which he does. It’s pretty clear that Richard’s power is unquestioned here, as Gaunt does not speak up about Richard’s own guilt in the murder of his uncle. This is a pretty solid set up to a tyrannical judicial system which leads us to our conflict in Act II.

In Act II, Bolingbroke raises an army and marches on Richard’s throne while Richard is away, in order to reclaim his inheritance to Lancaster after his father Gaunt has died. (Get it? His name was Gaunt? Because he was weak and dying?) Being exiled, Bolingbroke’s inheritance is pretty questionable, as Richard decided to take Gaunt’s lands (Which should have gone to Bolingbroke) to fund Richard’s military spelunking into Ireland. Bolingbroke meets up with the Duke of York, another of Richard’s uncles and also Bolingbroke’s own uncle, who is keeping the throne warm for Richard while he’s away and explains his situation. The Duke of York says he cannot really stop Bolingbroke and his big army, and Bolingbroke suggests that the Duke of York could technically usurp Richard’s power, and claim his own inheritance of the Kingship. The Duke of York essentially says “Oh darn, I guess you’re going to have to march this big old army into the kingdom and there is nothing anybody can do about it. I sure hope you don’t take the throne from Richard because he’s an awful king and I am sworn to uphold his Kingship.” Bolingbroke isn’t really interested in the throne instead, he just wants justice for himself and an end to his exile. When they finally meet, Richard essentially gives his power up to Bolingbroke since everyone hates him and Bolingbroke killed his friends for treason. Richard assumes that Bolingbroke really wants the throne and gives it to him since he has no actual martial power, suggesting that maybe Richard doesn’t have an inherent right to the throne by blood. Bolingbroke though, seems to honestly want to play by the rules, he does not challenge Richard’s decision to exile him and still praises him as king, and does not seem to have ulterior motives in marching his army to the throne.

The Justice system in this world is deeply religious in nature, either offering up the arbitration to God, or his direct vassal, the King. In both cases we see, Richard muddles everything up by being a pretty terrible king, and denies justice to those who seek it. King Richard’s actual connection to God, and thus his power, is tenuous at best, relying on centuries of tradition and inheritance law and not any kind of fathomable power. As soon as it is tested, Richard’s power crumbles, by any metric other than “divinity” Richard is a really terrible ruler. His vassals hate him, he pretty obviously murdered his uncle, the army does not support him, and he surrounds himself with Yes-men who tell him what he wants to hear.

This implication, that Kings are really just people who lucked out by being born into power must have been an incredibly dangerous one for Shakespeare to make. There is no justice in this world but the justice you create. If the King is not really an exact hand of God, how exactly can you trust his decisions? What then, makes his power legitimate? For Richard, his power is legitimate only by his martial power, as he gives up his power to Bolingbroke based on the fact that his claim is unable to be defended by any army. If the King was truly a hand of God, wouldn’t God protect his kingship? Who is really ruling England? Certainly, Richard’s surrounding of like-minded individuals makes his rule problematic, as Richard should theoretically be able to rule with only the word of God in his ear.

This play has been my favorite that we’ve read so far, specifically because I love court politics and inheritance (I am really really into A Song of Ice and Fire and the tv adaptation, Game of Thrones). For Shakespeare to come to the realization that power is simply a matter of holding on to it, and to reveal it while living under a monarchy is insane. Calling the royal authority (and royalty itself) into question is a very large risk and immediately poses the threat of a rebellion. Super excited to see what happens at the end of this play, but if I had to guess, Richard is going to get killed, and Bolingbroke’s line will succeed the throne. I doubt we’ve seen the last of Mowbray, and I doubt that the throne will look kindly onto Richard being revealed as a kin-slayer.

By Simone Williams, Blogging Circle 3

Professor Mulready raised interesting questions in our last class in regards to the system of justice that is used when a King commits a crime. “What happens when a crime is committed by someone in chivalric order?” “Is there a system of justice that we can evolve that allows us to pass judgment on a king?”

These questions sparked my interest because leaders, kings especially, are greatly admired and placed on a pedestal by the common people. Especially in Shakespeare’s time, we read about how social class alters the way a person is treated tremendously. We saw examples of this in “Taming of the Shrew” when the characters would turn into completely different people when they are wearing clothes or speaking a language of a higher social class.

It is a great question to ask of how we as a people can judge and punish a person who was put in place to not only enforce the rules but to set an example of how they should be followed. This question caused me to research how our leader, the President, would be judged in a court of law if found guilty of committing a crime. Article 2, section 4 of the Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” If the president is found guilty of a crime, regardless of what it is, they are subject to be impeached before the end of their term. When we were discussing the different systems of justice that could be used on a King in class, we came up with: Divine rule, Revolution(Rebellion) or declare a new king.

All of those systems, besides declaring a new king are more extreme than the system we have in our constitution. Which system of rebellion do you think would most likely be used during Shakespeare’s time? Do you think William Shakespeare would have found Article 2, section 4 of our constitution “just” enough?

Daisy Poliandro, Blogging Circle 2

In Act 1, scene 1 of Shakespeare’s Richard II we enter a quarrel between two of Richard II’s noblemen. The two men are seen going back and forth being obnoxious, for instance they throw their gages at each other, as well as unreasonable. The men had horrible tempers and were unwilling to come to a conclusion. Henry Bolingbroke, Richard’s cousin is accusing Thomas Mowbray of embezzlement, and conspiracy against the king. The two’s constant fight back and forth becomes too much for Richard to endure any longer and he devises a plan for them to battle in a traditional matter. I thought to myself if Richard had any other options to end the dispute, but it did seem that the men’s constant argument almost flustered him to the point he needed to stand up and stop the verbal fighting and make a decision.

I found this particular passage to be interesting considering it sounds almost like Richard is ending the fight, but in fact he is just initiating a more “regulated” form of it. His decision was to make a formal duel between the men, and he states…

We were not born to sue but to command;

Which since we cannot do to make you friends,

Be ready as your lives shall answer it

At Conventry upon Saint Lambert’s Day.

There shall your swords and lances arbitrate

Since we cannot atone you, you shall see

Justice Marshal, command our officers at arms

Be ready to direct these homes alarms. (1.1 901-901)

Richard’s decision for a duel in my opinion is an understandable. He does not seem to want to make these men battle on his own will, but feels as if he has no choice. The lines “Which since we cannot do to make you friends”, does indeed prove he tried to reason with the men and help them come eye to eye, but it is their own doing that their fate now lies in the hands a duel rather than a conversation. I think this shows Richard’s qualities as a king, although he may not be the “best” he does seem like a reasonable man from this passage. He does try to give them the benefit of the doubt by hearing their story, but their child-like behavior gives him no choice but to turn to a different route to end the dispute.

Before Richard had come to this conclusion he states, “High-stomached are they both and full of ire, in rage, deaf as the sea, hasty as fire.” (1.1 897-897)

I really admired this quote because I think this says just as much about Richard as it does Bolingbroke and Mowbray. Richard is clearly intimidated about the argument, and is not a great force in it that could stop it from escalating. He had to try and reason with them continuously before coming to the conclusion of a duel. This shows the kind of leader Richard is. It made me feel like he may not know exactly what he is doing especially when considering he was known as the “young king”. I think that other people in power, especially hot-tempered ones may intimidate him a bit and this led him to not ending the dispute earlier, but instead being a bit intimidated by the men’s strong personalities.

by Jesse Herman, Blogging Circle 1

After reading the first act, I was particularly intrigued by one particular detail, and that is that every single line written is in verse, as opposed to pros. Going off of this, I skimmed through the rest of the play to see that there is not a single line not written in verse. I thought this was strange, and after further investigation discovered that this is one of four shows by Shakespeare that there is not both pros and verse included in it.

What reason could there be for this? My first instinct was that maybe every character is high status enough that they wouldn’t speak in pros, but I discovered that to be false after skimming through the play once again.

I delved deeper into his use of verse in the play, and found that Shakespeare implements numerous amounts of rhymed couplets in the dialogue, which may have had to do with how close in proximity Richard II was written to a lot of his famous sonnets. I also imagined that the characters use of rhyming may be the author’s way of hinting at how untrustworthy everyone seems to be in this play. In other words, the characters are hiding behind their fancy words.

Here are three examples of sections of the text from Act I Scene I in which Richard, Mowbary and Bolingbroke use rhyming couplets;

O, God defend my soul from such deep sin!

Shall I seem crest-fall’n in my father’s sight?

Or with pale beggar-fear impeach my height

Before this out-dared dastard? Ere my tongue

Shall wound my honour with such feeble wrong,

Or sound so base a parle, my teeth shall tear

The slavish motive of recanting fear,

And spit it bleeding in his high disgrace,

Where shame doth harbour, even in Mowbray’s face.

–Act 1.1.188-195

There shall your swords and lances arbitrate

The swelling difference of your settled hate:

Since we can not atone you, we shall see

Justice design the victor’s chivalry.

Lord marshal, command our officers at arms

Be ready to direct these home alarms.

—Act 1.1.200-205

Mine honour is my life; both grow in one:

Take honour from me, and my life is done:

Then, dear my liege, mine honour let me try;

In that I live and for that will I die.

—Act 1.1.182-185

Now maybe their use of couplets is just Shakespeare being playful, but I feel that because of how much deceit and deception there is in this play, that the heightened language hides well the character’s true thoughts and intentions.

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.

by Pierce Davis, Blogging Circle 4

I wanted to continue the point I was making in class that I believe Taming of the Shrew is intended to be a lot simpler than we are making it out to be, at least within the particular format we are reading it.  It is my belief that it is simply a comedy without a great deal of complex metaphor concerning gender.  That being said, the comments it does make on gender, while seemingly misogynistic to us as 21stcentury Americans, were intended to be taken at face value and solidify if not justify the gender roles established in Shakespeare’s time.  There is collection of research done by Heather Sharnette that resulted in her writing a piece called “Elizabethan Women” in which she writes, “Women who perhaps suffered most in this period were, ironically, those like the Queen who did not wish to marry… Marriage was seen as the desirable state for both men and women, and single women were sometimes looked upon with suspicion. It was mainly single women who were accused of being witches by their neighbours” (Sharnette).  Our initial impression of Kate is far from positive as she is seen screaming at her family and suitors,

“I’faith, sir, you shall never need to fear:

I wis it is not half way to her heart;

But if it were, doubt not her care should be

To comb your noddle with a three-legg’d stool

And paint your face and use you like a fool.” (1.1)

only to later bind and harass her own sister,

“Good sister, wrong me not, nor wrong yourself,

To make a bondmaid and a slave of me;

That I disdain: but for these other gawds,

Unbind my hands, I’ll pull them off myself,

Yea, all my raiment, to my petticoat;

Or what you will command me will I d’o,

So well I know my duty to my elders.  (2.1.1-7)

Of course when she begins to be abused by Petruccio it is our instinct, as contemporary citizens of the world and not total woman-hating psychos, to pity her.  Yet in pitying her we forget that Shakespeare set up her character so that we would not like her.  If he wanted her to be viewed as a victim, why would he not portray her as a victim from the beginning of the play?  It is true that Pretruccio is being cruel to Kate, but the dialogue being used is very witty and silly and you have to imagine that Kate is also being played by a male actor who is strutting himself about the stage like a fool the entire time.  The disturbing imagery we imagine while reading the play looked far more ridiculous and light hearted when presented at the globe theatre centuries ago.  None of this is meant to argue that domestic abuse in any form should be a source of comedy, but at the time it was a far more common place practice.  For a person from that time it is not difficult to see how the silly mistreatment of a cross-dressed actor acting like a mad witch could have come off as comical.  Though we may see Kate taking a husband as her losing her independence, the audience of the time saw it as gaining social capital through becoming a wife, gaining a rich husband, and benefiting her family through a mutually beneficial marriage.  It also frees Bianca for a marriage of love which she is able to have some choice in, a concept the audience would love because Bianca is portrayed as the darling of the play.  In the final speech Kate delivers she professes the virtue of a model wife.  Our contemporary worldview has us viewing Petruccio as a villain who has gotten his way, but the characters as well as audience members were probably  seeing him as a hero not only for helping Bianca be able to marry, but also for helping Kate grow to become a leader among women, guiding them to be obedient wives and mothers.  The argument can be made that we not have the full version of the play and perhaps Shakespeare intended something differently, or didn’t quite express himself in the way he intended.  When we reviewed Sly’s alternate ending in class it certainly presented things differently.  However, what we have to work wiith in the text we are provided doesn’t leave me with any conclusion other than Shakespeare making a nod to women, but ultimately reinforcing their role as obedient wives and mothers.

http://www.elizabethi.org/contents/women/

by Dayamara Cruz, Blogging Circle 5

One of our discussion questions in our last class had something to do with teaching Taming of the Shrew in a modern classroom or setting. It got me thinking about questioning the timelessness of Shakespeare’s plays. In other words, how do we use Shakespeare’s plays as a platform to discuss and teach modern day concepts and phenomenons that may not have been relevant almost 400 years ago? Our first questions in our first class about “Why do we study Shakespeare?” and “Why do we still study Shakespeare?” have remained essential questions to me in the readings we’ve done so far, especially this first play.

Most prominently, this question is obvious when examining Katherine and Petruccio. Petruccio’s taming of Katherine is praised by all the men in the play, but we never get a female outsider, like Bianca, to comment on how Katherine is being treated. When Petruccio places the wager on whose wife will respond more quickly and obediently to the husband’s command, there is no doubt that Petruccio is showing off:

BAPTISTA: Now, by my halidom, here comes Katherina.

KATHERINA: What is your will, sir, that you send for me?

PETRUCCIO: Where is your sister and Hortensio’s wife?

KATHERINA: They sit conferring by the parlor fire.

PETRUCCIO: Go fetch them hither. If they deny to come,

Swinge me them soundly forth unto their husbands. (5.2.99-104)

Petruccio asks Katherine to frisk up the girls a little bit for not coming when their husbands call and to bring them forth. Now, Katherine is still acting in a “shrewish” manner towards the women, but not to her husband. In a twisted way, Katherine’s title of shrew is erased when she easily responds to a male’s command, but can still be labeled as obedient when she remains blunt and forceful with her sister and the widow. Petruccio describes Katherine’s power over the others, “See where she comes and brings your froward wives/ As prisoners to her womanly persuasion” (5.2.119-20). Her “womanly persuasion” (which sounds pretty “shrewish” to me) is appreciated when she can help put other women in their place, but not when it is directed to the men.

A reading (or viewing) by someone in Shakespeare’s time would have equally praised Petruccio’s taming as a successfully executed plan to shape this woman into a wife. On the other hand, a more modern reading could portray a more controlling, abusive relationship in which Katherine cannot deny or talk back to her husband out of fear that she will be reverted back to the treatment she was given post-marriage. Whether or not Katherine is acting on the knowledge that she can still have power over the women, but not the men, there is something about this power play in the Petruccio/Katherine relationship that doesn’t sit well with modern readers. These hierarchies between men and women, as well as between women, are based on power and violence. In addition to Petruccio’s rash and extreme actions towards Katherine, we could talk about Katherine’s own violence towards Petruccio, Hortensio, and Bianca because her violence shouldn’t be glossed over either.

This kind of ambiguity in author’s intention versus how the text is perceived by a reader is thought-provoking, yet troubling (especially across centuries). How would someone teach this in a high school setting? The ambiguity can be harmful if there is no direct (or the closest one can get to a direct answer) about what the Petruccio/Katherine relationship means in a high school setting, for example. As a student, I feel that I have an obligation to point out these relationship dynamics in the context of modern moral and social ideas because plays and texts like Shakespeare’s have influenced all kinds of writers, intellectuals and regular people for centuries, and these influences are apparent in our everyday actions, our speech, in the books we read, in the movies we watch, etc. While I was researching for our first blog for the class, I came upon the imdb.com webpage for the film adaptation of “The Taming of the Shrew”. The website featured some of the taglines used during the film’s promotion, one of them being “A romantic film amorously devoted to every man who ever gave the back of his hand to his beloved…and to every woman who deserved it!” The very obvious misogyny of the tagline, and possibly of the entire film, informs my hesitance about this play as I interpret it, but also as I think about how to teach a text that may hint towards contemporary ideas of sexism and abusive relationships. At the same time, it is also important to expose students to these questions and texts because censoring discussions about topics such as these are what create miscommunication and misunderstanding of historical realities as well as modern ones.

How do we view Petruccio’s relationship with Katherine? Do we have a responsibility as modern readers to be critical of what seem like social injustices in Shakespeare’s writings, or do we treat these plays as products of their time?

by Stephanie De Molfetto, Blogging Circle 2

Throughout Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew I found it somewhat difficult to remember the values of the time in which the play was performed. I was rooting for Katherina, I loved her strong demeanor and outward rebellion against marrying for profit if she was unhappy with the match. However I eventually took notice of the times. Still rooting for Kate, I placed my hopes in Petruccio. While he did show up to their wedding in ragged attire unfit for his own wedding, I hoped he had a genuine reason for his actions and apparel. Unfortunately Grumio informs readers once the newlyweds have arrived back home that Petruccio is becoming a shrew, leaving the audience—at least myself, to further side with poor Katherina.  The following lines make Katherina seem more like a damsel in distress than the woman who was arguing with her now husband or not much earlier:

GRUMIO

Tell thou the tale: but hadst thou not crossed me, thou shouldst have heard how her horse fell, and she under her horse. Thou shouldst have heard in how miry a place, how she was bemoiled, how he left her with the horse upon her, how he beat me because her horse stumbled, how she waded through the dirt to pluck him off me, how he swore, how she prayed that never prayed before, how I cried, how the horses ran away, how her bridle was burst…

CURTIS

By this reck’ning he is more shrew than she.

(4.1.61-73).

Katherina has never known genuine unhappiness. While she was a “shrew” as named by many suitors, she was always been cared for and never left to want. Petruccio seems to be using this as a weapon against her. In his own twisted way to gain her affection, or rather any form of attention, he drives her crazy with his own madness. Kate regards the actions of Petruccio:

KATHERINE

The more my wrong, the more his spite appears.

What, did he marry me to famish me?

Beggars that come unto my father’s door

Upon entreaty have a present alms.

If not, elsewhere they meet with charity.

But I, who never knew how to entreat,

Nor never needed that I should entreat,

Am starved for meat, giddy for lack of sleep,

With oaths kept waking and with brawling fed.

And that which spites me more than all these wants,

He does it under name of perfect love,

As who should say, if I should sleep or eat,

‘Twere deadly sickness or else present death.

I prithee, go and get me some repast,

I care not what, so it be wholesome food.

Katherina only shows her horrors to the others in Petruccio’s household—the workers and slaves. These people get treated far worse than Katherina, so they’re not at all obliged to be of assistance to her if it goes against the wishes and demands of their master, Petruccio. Kate is beginning to literally go mad with lack of food, sleep, and luxuries she was more than hopeful to have. Petruccio puts items directly in front of her that she wants and needs, but snatches them away before she can even entertain the ideas of using whatever it is she desires. This cruelty brings Kate to her breaking point.

Personally, I do not believe Katherina is really becoming submissive as many people think from her final speech. Katherina seems to be showing Petruccio that while she has tried to get her off her high horse (going back to her falling off of it earlier and him not helping her back up) she has instead decided to show him just how crazy she can be. However to all the people present at the gathering she is what all wives should strive to be. Her final monologue is extremely dramatic and seems to lack a genuine feel to them. She says:

“And for thy maintenance commits his body                                                                                                           To painful labor both by sea and land,

To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,

Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe” (5.2.157-160)

Kate seems to be focusing on the fact that her husband will be away for long periods of time, thankfully. She is simply saying anything that will appease Petruccio and make it so she is treated how she wants to be. Furthermore, this exuberant display will give the Katherina and Petruccio a strong reputation. Other people will not want to make negative assumptions about the two, but they will also be unsure if they really want to have a lunch with the couple either for fear that Katherina will put on another performance. While Petruccio meant to tear Katherina down and make her into the average housewife, or a submissive falcon in training, he definitely made her rise up to show her strength and cunning.