New thoughts to Taming of the Shrew and Gender Roles

I just finished reading the play, and though I rather enjoyed it, laughing at the wordplays and the puns, I find myself rethinking what I thought about how Katherina is treated by Petruchio.


Until this latest reading of the play, my strongest connection to it was acting in a production in high school.  The actress that we had playing Kate played her very well, in my opinion, but mostly it seemed like she was humoring Petruchio the entire time.  Especially in Act 4 Scene 5, when they are travelling and Petruchio calls the sun the moon and gets Kate to agree that it is the moon, only to ridicule her for her mistake. In our production of this scene, the actress playing Kate said the lines as they appear in the script:

"Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun; But sun it is not, when you say it is not; And the moon changes even as your mind. What you will have it nam'd, even that it is, And so it shall be so for Katherine."

But as she said these lines there was overt sarcasm in her voice.  And later, as she apologizes to Vincentio for calling him a woman, she glared at Petruchio, blaming him silently for making her look foolish.


That is how I have always read this play, as Kate simply playing along with Petruchio and his madness, because she got tired of fighting him and suffering the consequences.  Which I guess means that Petruchio did indeed tame her. But even as she recited the last speech, there was still a little hint of defiance.  And maybe it helped that our Petruchio (one of the nicest, kindest guys I have ever met) did not play the part as mean or as angry as he could have, from the text alone. I have never seen this play as oppressive to women, but this latest reading I was struck by just how blatant the spousal abuse really is.

I have tried to justify Petruchio's behaviour in light of his line, "This is a way to kill a wife with kindness",

An Apology for Richard

I have been reading and writing about Richard II lately, but today in class I sat in on a small group discussion about Richard III, a play and a character that I am very familiar with.
First, there is no relation between the two Richards, who ruled England nearly 80 years apart.  Just the briefest of history lessons: Richard II was deposed by Henry IV, whose grandson Henry VI was deposed by Edward IV, who died leaving the throne empty for his brother Richard III.  


As I mentioned, I have study Richard III quite a bit,  two years ago I wrote a 6 page paper in defense of Richard, and last year I wrote a 16 page paper defending him and comparing him to a character in a German novel who I saw as very similar.  Let me set up my defense of Richard, but with one caveat: I do not condone Richard for what he did.  He is a villain, a devil, an evil, evil man who committed many atrocities.  But, I can begin to understand him and where he came from.


The question is asked again and again, "Why is Richard the way he is?"  And for me, part of the answer has to be, That is the way society made him.