My favorite concept is the proto thesis of "Although Kate’s subservient attitude seems to be simply submission to her
husband’s will, it is actually her shaping and controlling both her husband and their
marriage which showcases the fluidity of power between man and woman within
marriage."
Basic points
Courting or wooing period, (2.1.195-201)
o She declares him movable
o Their witty banter back and forth “stichomythia” would stop if one or the other was not at the same level of education or wit
Road traveling back
o Explicitly plays to his masculinity but obeying everything he says whether it be the sun/moon
o Embracing the male/female traveler on the road
(And maybe something about) Bianca’s Marriage feast???
o She declares him movable
o Their witty banter back and forth “stichomythia” would stop if one or the other was not at the same level of education or wit
Road traveling back
o Explicitly plays to his masculinity but obeying everything he says whether it be the sun/moon
o Embracing the male/female traveler on the road
(And maybe something about) Bianca’s Marriage feast???
o This is the big point of the play because Kate's speech could be considered her final submission to the men but it could possibly be interpreted as "serve the men and then you really control the power."
My other thesis I don't feel as strongly connected to because I think it's just weak. "The showcase of the changing marriage
contract within the play of Taming of the Shrew was Shakespeare’s social
commentary on the issue which brought popularity to his play because it was a
topic that his audience was forced to wrestle with"
The fake marriage of Sly to “his wife,
the noblewoman” who is not allowed in his bed
The marriage of Kate to Petrucio
(classic marriage) only for economic purposes
o
But it ends up okay because they are
perfect matches in wit, and banter
Bianca to Luetensio (non-traditional
marriage, they run off together)
o
They are in love,
o
Bianca doesn’t obey the summons at the
end of the play
Possible connection to Much Ado about Nothing and the marriage contract as more of an agreement between the two parties rather than the parents of the two individuals???
·
I think the first thesis is stronger, but I think that you can use elements from your second idea to supplement it. I would talk more about the contrast between Kate and Bianca.
ReplyDeleteWas a more fluid marriage something that was becoming more common at the time? or is this a completely novel concept? This is an easy way to tie in some historical background.
If a more fluid marriage is a unique concept to Kate's marriage, then you could make some interesting points about how the two sisters are both fighting norms in their own way (Kate because she and her husband are more equals and Bianca because she runs away). If you go this route, you could talk about their father and again work historical concepts back in by talking about patriarchal ideas.
But if the fluidity is a normal thing, then maybe Bianca is the strange one, and not Kate (because I think more people think that Kate is the strange one).
Those are cool ideas! When you talk about the fluidity of power in a marriage do you mean that the power moves back and forth between the man and the woman, or that it stays with the woman while everyone thinks it's the man so the concept of power is fluid?
ReplyDeleteI also really like your first thesis, as it challenges the too-frequent dismissal of "Taming of the Shrew" as a play about the oppression/subjugation of women. I think you would need to delve into examples from the text to strongly demonstrate the ways in which the spouses balance each other out in their relationship, rather than the husband dominating the wife.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you're still interested in the coat of arms thing, but a little tidbit you might be interested in is found in the first page or so of this article: http://www.jstor.org.erl.lib.byu.edu/openurl?volume=44&date=2004&spage=255&issn=00393657&issue=2& ("Castrating the Creditor" found on JSTOR thru BYU, in case the link doesn't work for you)
ReplyDelete