THE WIFE’S STATUS. LOVE AND OBEDIENCE TO THY LORD
22 octubre 2010 by KSENIIA
It is obvious that the wife’s status in the family was very different from that one that our society has now.
First of all, it is important to notice how in Shakespeare’s play men treat women. From the very beginning, from the very first act, we see the conflict: there are several suitors for Bianca, one is old and rich and the other is younger but uglier (Act I, Scene I). Bianca does not like any of them, but she has to choose someone: according to the rules of that time the only meaning of a woman’s life was to marry, have children. Besides (and maybe that would be more important), the parents wanted to “get rid of” their daughters, marrying them to powerful and rich men, thus becoming stronger and richer themselves. In other words, they had to “sell” their daughters to earn money and status. That is why we can see in the play that the father, Baptista, knowing that if he marries his younger daughter first he will have less chance to ‘sell” his older one (who would like to buy an old product, besides with defect?), prohibits wooing Bianca before someone wants to marry Katherina first.
Because of this, the whole process of wooing and marrying looks more like a financial transaction, there is nothing romantic about it. Women’s opinion is not interesting to anyone. All the suitors go directly to the father to ask for permission to take his daughter as a wife, and the only thing that worries the father is how much money the admirer has, the rest is not relevant to anyone.
We can see that there are many references to women in “The Taming of the Shrew” in terms of money: Hortensio says of Bianca: “For in Baptista’s keep my treasure is./ He hath the jewel of my life in hold” (Act I, Scene 2, lines 118-119), combining a kind of literary romanticism with a view of Bianca as treasure or money; Baptista himself is ready to sell her to the highest bidder:
‘Tis deeds must win the prize; and he of both
That can assure my daughter greatest dower
Shall have my Bianca’s love.
(Act 2, Scene 1, lines 342-344)
Probably, the most explicit speech that expresses the idea that the wife is the husband’s property belongs to Petruchio when he pretends to protects Kate from being stolen practically naming her his property:
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 any thing;
And here she stands, touch her whoever dare;
(Act 3, Scene 2, lines 229-233)
The other typical characteristic of the family life was a wife’s total obedience to her husband. This idea was based on the religious conception of hierarchy. The priest had to read to every newly married couple the following passage of St. Paul that was supposed to be the guide to a new family:
Ye women, submit your selves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the wife’s head, even as Christ is the head of the Church, and he is the saviour of the whole body. Therefore as the Church in congregation is subject unto Christ: so likewise let the wives be in subjection unto their own husbands in all things. (Ephesians, 5: 22-5)
It is no coincidence that in the early scenes of the play Katherine is presented as a “devil” (Act 1, Scene 1, line 66), a “fiend of hell” (Act 1, Scene 1, line 88), a “hilding of a devilish spirit” (Act 2, Scene 1, line 26), and “the devil’s dam” (Act 3, Scene 2, line 156). She is not obeying God’s rules. Thus the task undertaken by Petruchio looks like the process of exorcism of an evil spirit from Katherine. However, his methods of taming his shrew are much kinder compared with what happened in most of the other families when sadistic husbands used to bind, beat, bleed their wives into a state of debility or even incarcerate them inside the salted skin of a dead horse. Such violence was commonplace, so Petruchio seems to be an example of humanity in this respect.
One of the most famous episodes where Petruchio explains his plan for Kate’s «domestication» is the last scene of Act 4, Scene 1, lines 188-211:
PETRUCHIO
Thus have I politicly begun my reign,
And ‘tis my hope to end successfully.
My falcon now is sharp and passing empty;
And till she stoop she must not be full-gorged,
For then she never looks upon her lure.
Another way I have to man my haggard,
To make her come and know her keeper’s call,
That is, to watch her, as we watch these kites
That bate and beat and will not be obedient.
She eat no meat today, nor none shall eat;
Last night she slept not, nor tonight she shall not;
As with the meat, some undeserved fault
I’ll find about the making of the bed;
And here I’ll fling the pillow, there the bolster,
This way the coverlet, another way the sheets:
Ay, and amid this hurly I intend
That all is done in reverend care of her;
And in conclusion she shall watch all night:
And if she chance to nod I’ll rail and brawl
And with the clamour keep her still awake.
This is a way to kill a wife with kindness;
And thus I’ll curb her mad and headstrong humor.
He that knows better how to tame a shrew,
Now let him speak: ‘tis charity to shew.
He is going to tame her as the falconer trains his bird, by holding lures out in front of it, just out of reach. All has been planned in his mind in advance: “Thus have I politicly begun my reign,” he says, where “politicly” means «with careful calculation» (IV.i.188). Petruchio wishes to bend Kate’s hostile temperament into benevolence by turning everything against her—ironically, under the guise of heightened concern for her well-being. He means to “kill [his] wife with kindness” (IV.i.208). Though Petruchio’s treatment of Kate is undoubtedly condescending and chauvinistic, it is nevertheless significant that Petruchio decides to “kill” her with kindness rather than with force, otherwise he would appear monstrous to the audience and the pleasant union of the couple would be impossible.
In spite of the fact that the ideal of wife’s obedience had religious basis, Shakespeare does not mention God in Katherina’s final speech where she explains and justifies the main duty of a woman in the family. We can conclude that the author has a purely secular view of marriage where the relationship between man and woman is a civil contract. Of course, the husband is still superior, but he has obligations to fulfill. Katherina mentions these obligations in the last act: the husband has to “care” for his wife and for her “maintenance”, he has to commit his body to “painful labour” to be able to provide for his family (Act 5, Scene 2, lines 146-151). In return for the man’s contribution as bread-winner, the wife has to offer “love, fair looks and true obedience” (Act 5, Scene 2, line 153). Her position in relation to her husband is like that of the subject in relation to the ruler:
Such duty as the subject owes the prince
Even such a woman oweth to her husband;
And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour,
And not obedient to his honest will,
What is she but a foul contending rebel
And graceless traitor to her loving lord?
(Act 5, Scene 2, lines 155-160)
Though Shakespeare’s views on marriage were comparatively advanced and did not base on theology, he still approved of a woman’s submissive position in the family and put its explanation and justification into Katherine’s mouth. This can clarify the fact why since the late nineteenth century the movement for the liberation of women has done for “The Taming of the Shrew” what reaction to the anti-semitism of our time has done for “The Merchant of Venice”: turned it into a problem play. Its tone has proved to be difficult, and the last scene in particular has become something of a touchstone for the liberal sympathies of all concerned.
Several directors have tried to overcome the problem by insisting on the funny, farcical atmosphere of the play; however Katherina’s last speech seems to be rather long and serious to be buried under such comicality.
In modern times the play has still been subjected to some adjustments (especially in the wooing scene and the last scene) to make it “softer” for the public. For example, the twentieth-century actresses made it explicit and obvious that Katherina falls in love with Petruchio at first sight. If the audience believes that she is really in love with Petruchio from the very beginning, it is much easier for it to tolerate the taming process.
At the same time, it has often seemed necessary to change something in Kate’s last speech. When Mary Pickford played the part in the 1929 film version of “The Taming of the Shrew” we are told that “the spirit of Katherina’s famous advice to wives was contradicted with an expressive wink”³. Thus began a new tradition of ironic and ambiguous performances of the play.
And what is happening now to the famous Shakespeare’s play? According to Ann Thompson (2 , page 24) “responses to the play are bound to be affected by the status of women in society at any given time and by the way that status is perceived by both men and women…Productions of the play have frequently attracted whatever thoughts were in the air on the perennially topical subjects of violence and sexual politics, and this tendency can hardly fail to increase in our own time. The play may indeed become less popular on the stage than it has been in previous centuries as it becomes, rightly, more and more difficult to put on productions of it which are simply rollicking good fun.” As the notion of the family and women’s duties has changed significantly since the times of Shakespeare, Katherina’s advice to all wives will be not understood right or will be not taken seriously. Nowadays the producers have to modernize the plot somehow to make it more interesting to the contemporary spectator or to reinforce the comic side of the play to make just a successful comedy out of it.