The social context at the time this was written would also suggest that Petruchio was to be admired; Trevelyan, an historian, wrote that ‘wife beating was a recognised right of man and was practiced, without shame, by high and low’ – this makes it clear that men were the dominant forces in society. Critics at the time wrote that Petruchio was ‘a very honest fellow’. The critic Hazlitt wrote that ‘The Shrew demonstrates how self will is only to be got the better of by stronger will [Petruchio’s will]’. Another critic, Shaw, wrote that Shakespeare’s comedy was ‘realistic’ and that Petruchio was ‘healthily good humoured’.
These views suggest that at the time the play was written, members of the audience would not only see Petruchio as honest and favourable in this scene, but also throughout the whole play. Shaw wrote that Petruchio’s ‘whole performance was untainted by wanton cruelty’. This also demonstrates, however, that people may interpret Petruchio’s actions as being cruel.
Petruchio compares the taming of Katherina to ‘manning a haggard’. A haggard is a hawk caught middle age; the new owner must then train it. The training of a haggard is extremely harsh; it involves the hawk being locked in a shed and only being fed when it does what the trainer requests of it. It also gets flown out on a leash until it is so reliant on the trainer for food and shelter that it is guaranteed to come back. Petruchio certainly treats Katherina in much the same way as a bird, starving her of food and depriving her of new clothes. Petruchio can be seen as even more of a hero, if taming Katherina is seen to be like taming a shrew, as Katherina is exceptionally shrewish – Petruchio must, therefore, have done an exceptionally good job. Falconry was also seen as a common pursuit of the day by the upper classes. People may have admired Petruchio, therefore, for ‘upping’ his social status here.
Heaney, another critic, wrote that this play is ‘all about mastery, mainly of language’. Petruchio often demonstrates this with his verbosity, his overuse of words. For example his ‘verbal rape’ on Katherina, calling her Kate almost 30 times after she specifically requested to be called Katherina. Or when he is describing Katherina as his ‘goods, chattels, house, household-stuff, field, barn, horse, ox, ass..’ the list goes on. Petruchio’s verbosity, or ‘control’ of the language in the play certainly suggests, therefore, that he is in charge and is to be admired.
Looking back at this interpretation it could be seen as being extremely sexist. The way Petruchio treats Katherina in this scene is terrible, the Pall Mall Gazette wrote that ‘despite Petruchio’s winks and smirks when Katherine is not looking, he cannot make the spectacle of a man cracking a whip at a starving woman other than disgusting and unmanly’. However, this interpretation alone is not enough to explain why the play continues to be performed and enjoyed by men and women today. I believe that there are other interpretations which are more credible than this.
A contrasting interpretation sees Petruchio as the ‘comic villain’. Feminists suggest that Shakespeare may have been writing about how the rights of women should not be abused, such as they are in this play. The argument does have credibility and evidence to back it up. For example, the play was written in the time of the renaissance, a time which represented great changes in society. Women were constantly gaining rights, views and values, Shakespeare may have wanted, therefore, to go against the grain of the traditional conventions of women, and explore the feminist perspectives.
Another good example of this is in Shakespeare’s later works. ‘Beatrice’ in ‘Much Ado about Nothing’ was presented with a sharp tongue and expressed her own mind strongly. We must also remember at this point that the audience was not homogenous – there were certainly lots of mixed views.
In this scene Katherina never gives us reason to believe she is actually being serious when she is ‘submitting’ to Petruchio. Katherina’s replies to Petruchio are often very quick and use much the same language as Petruchio, for example;
Petruchio
I say it is the moon.
Katherina
I know it is the moon.
Shakespeare writes his verse in lines of ten syllables, this indentation in Katherina’s line represents her jumping in quickly to finish Petruchio’s line of ten syllables. Petruchio in this play often uses the tactic of verbosity in order to take control of a conversation, he is a raconteur. We see Katherina doing this as well in order to mimic Petruchio and the way he talks. ‘Young, budding virgin, fair, fresh and sweet whither away or where is thy abode? Happy the parents of so fair a child! Happier the man whom favourable stars allots thee for his lovely bedfellow’ she says. She also uses the word ‘stars’, as does Petruchio in the speech preceding this one, perhaps to mimic his use of somewhat poetic vocabulary, like ‘stars, spangle, heaven, beauty’ and so on.
Katherina at this point is also extremely tired and hungry from the journey, when Petruchio calls for horses to take them all the way back, Katherina also has no choice to be submissive and agree with Petruchio. In this case it seems that she is conscious of the taming going on but is not entirely against it. In this situation it seems Katherina is using it to her advantage, as she thinks she will get food and sleep at her fathers house. Katherina may also be sympathised with here by the audience, so Petruchio becomes less favourable.
Petruchio often tries to takes control of a conversation with his verbosity, Katherina mocks this in her last speech, ‘thy husband is thy life, thy lord, thy keeper, thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee and thy maintenance’. This verbosity makes it hard to take this speech seriously. It comes across as being presented by Katherina as more ironic. Some may find her mockery of Petruchio comic.
I believe that sometimes Katherina sees Petruchio as somewhat unstable, and she is complicit with his commands in order to humour him. She makes comments earlier on, which would suggest that she would rather have a husband. She said that if she were unmarried when her sister was wed, she should ‘dance with apes in hell’. So I feel that she is happy to have a husband, no matter if he is a little insane. This also brings in a little ironic comedy into the play.
Conventions at the time also saw men as higher in marriage than women; but perhaps views on marriage and old conventions were changing. This may also mean that Shakespeare disagrees with the old conventions. This is why, I believe, he throws a loophole in to Katherina’s last speech. She speaks of a wife being ‘obedient to his [the husbands] honest will’. Does this mean then that if the husbands will is not honest then the wife need not be obedient? I believe so. I also believe that Katherina has not been tamed at this point of the book, but however she does love Petruchio. This is shown when they arrive outside Lucentio’s house. Petruchio draws Katherina aside; ‘prithee Kate, let’s stand aside and watch the end of this controversy’. The pair’s agreement to move away from the scene and become an audience here shows their mutual feeling on the ‘controversy’ and also the pair’s new found togertherness.
Critics such as Shaw and Billington suggest that there is an interesting incongruity between Katherina’s early speeches and her last speech. This suggests to me that Katherina feels that her taming is beneficial, so she goes along with Petruchio’s act. She does however use subtle hints to show the audience that she is aware of the taming and is using it to her benefit, suggesting she is stronger and in fact is using Petruchio, for example the ‘loophole’ in her last speech. However, if Katherina is stronger then this interpretation does not work., Petruchio still marries her and gets his way. Katherina is only allowed to be subtle about her opposition and Petruchio is aware of his own behaviour.
Also when reading this play it is extremely important to consider at all times, ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ is a play within a play. It might be deliberately overplayed or ironic in order to make it seem more acted, rather than real. This would also help to make a point about how we set our conventions. So I believe that this mistreatment of Katherina throughout the play is a mockery of the so-called ‘old’ marriage conventions. The loophole in Katherina’s last speech is, I feel, a kind of moral to this story. It helps us to see that the man is perhaps the main force in a marriage but there must also be mutual respect, otherwise it is just sexist. This is the third interpretation of the play – that Shakespeare is mocking the conventions of marriage by producing a parody of the plethora of plays at the time like The Taming of A Shrew
Act 4 Scene 5 takes place on a public road, it is therefore a neutral location of which nobody has ownership. This neutral location enables the characters to negotiate their roles more freely – take for example, Katherina may negotiate who is in control. The ‘audience’ present, Hortensio and Vincentio, is all male. This may mean that Petruchio is going to simply show-off, in order to show the other males who is in charge of their relationship in order to impress them. The play continues when Katherina starts to play the game, pronouncing Vincentio to be a ‘budding young virgin, fair, fresh and sweet.’
In a wider context of the play, it seems as thought the play is questioning how women should ‘act’ in a relationship. Looking back to the induction, the Lord gives the boy many instructions on how to act as a wife, and to talk to his ‘husband’ with ‘soft low tongue and lowly courtesy,’ and to say ‘what is’t your honour will command wherein your lady and humble wife may show her duty and make known her love?’. Also the play is a comedy, therefore is not to be taken too seriously. Petruchio and Katherina often mock the dogmatic viewpoints on both the feminist side, and the side which sees Petruchio as a ‘comic hero’.
References;
York Notes, Part Six; Critical history & broader perspectives