Disguise
and Revelation: the “Taming” of Kate
Kate is the antiheroic hero of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. Feminists have decried her, doctors and sociologists have used her to illustrate scenarios of sadomasochistic relationships and spousal abuse, and literary critics have called the whole play a Punch and Judy show. While all of these elements are present in the play, I believe it is a mistake to put undue importance on any of them. Is Kate in need of “taming?” The terminology is anathema to our 21st century sensibility, but if we look at one of the bases of psychological consideration, that of interaction with others, Kate certainly shows signs of maladaptive behavior that harms her and those around her. If “taming” is metaphorically “therapy,” as I believe it is, she is in definite need of treatment. However, I believe that Shakespeare does not think Kate to be all that disordered; rather, he seems to believe that her desire for control and power is natural, and can be satisfied by adopting a subtler persona.
Shakespeare is
known for his admirable, if somewhat neurotic, female characters; Kate, viewed
through a certain lens, is no exception.
She is witty, intelligent, outspoken, and strong-willed; a perfect
example of a woman exploring her animus.
Of course, she is also argumentative, continually enraged, and
unreasonable; she has violent tendencies, and demonstrates tremendous
hostility, especially toward her sister.
The question is why, and how does Petruchio’s “therapy” affect her so
remarkably?
The first aspect that must be mentioned and understood about this play is the use of disguise. As in his other plays, Shakespeare’s disguises have psychological meaning. This play is unusual in that it is a play within a play; it opens with a bored nobleman, who has been out hunting, playing a practical joke upon a drunken and unconscious tinker, Christopher Sly. The lord has his servants dress the man up as a nobleman, and has one of his pages dress up as a woman and pretend to be his wife. The tinker awakens, and is told that he has been insane for many years, and is actually a lord. Sly begins by protesting that he is, indeed, Christopher Sly, but soon begins to believe: “Am I a lord, and have I such a lady? Or do I dream? Or have I dreamed till now? ...Upon my life, I am a lord indeed and not a tinker nor Christopher Sly” (Heilman, 1999, p. 11). The servants, at the end of the first scene of the Induction, announce that they will perform a play for the “lord” and his “lady.” This sets up the first act of The Taming of the Shrew.
Already, we have disguises, or masks. According to American psychologist Gordon Allport, “...[the term] personality in English...closely resemble[s] the personalitas of Medieval Latin...scholars agree that this word originally meant ‘mask.’” Interestingly, Allport went on to discover that the classical Latin word persona came from an earlier Latin phrase that “referred to the mouthpiece of the theatrical mask through which an actor’s voice was projected...the meaning of the term...evolved to a more abstract designation indicating the appearance – the mask – and referring also to the person beneath it” (Monte and Sollod, 2003, p. 2). This inspires the consideration that Shakespeare’s characters themselves are masks, the mouthpieces through which psychological truth is told. A character in disguise is then a mask within a mask, as is Christopher Sly. What is his truth? It seems that Sly finds it remarkably easy to believe in the new boundaries of his disguise (helped by the reactions and lies of others), and doubt what he has known all his life to be true. He adopts the role of gentleman effortlessly, but still remains Christopher Sly. In terms of Kate, I believe that Shakespeare is telling us that this sham perpetrated upon Sly has, ultimately, been perpetrated upon Kate. Sly’s drunken behavior and general seediness is seen as undesirable by his acquaintances in the pubs, and by the nobleman. Kate’s sharp tongue and short temper were seen as undesirable by prospective suitors and her family. She was certainly capable of adapting her behavior to suit her best interests; this is shown clearly at the end of the play. But she does not do so until Petruchio “tames” her, providing a “mask,” so that she can interact in acceptable ways with others. This interaction allows her a final comeuppance with her nemesis – her sister, Bianca.
Why is Kate so hostile? How could her psychological development have left her stranded alone in the midst of her family? A clue is given in the relationship between Kate, Bianca, and their father, Baptista: “For shame, thou hilding of a devilish spirit, Why dost thou wrong her that did ne’er wrong thee?” (Heilman, 1999, p. 37). Here, Baptista is referring to Kate as a base wretch (hilding), and branding Bianca as the innocent. Kate has just tied Bianca’s hands and struck her, in response to Bianca’s refusal or inability to tell Kate the name of the man in whom she is most interested. Why does Kate want to know so badly? It seems to me that Kate, and all of the other characters who know these sisters, is “splitting.” Bad Kate, good Bianca is the theme of the day, and society also reinforces the idea of Kate as Bianca’s shadow – the bad feminine persona to the good-feminine persona. Bianca herself encourages this in her insipid obedience, even to Kate: “...I’ll pull them off myself, Yea, all my raiment, to my petticoat, or what you will command me will I do, So well I know my duty to my elders” (Heilman, 1999, p. 36). Here we see Bianca offering up all her clothes (her disguise?) to Kate, but making sure to congratulate herself on knowing her proper duty. Bianca’s persona is well in place; she retains the approval of her father and all of the gentlemen with whom she comes in contact; but, as Jung said,
Only by reason of the fact that the persona is a more or less
accidental or arbitrary segment of collective psyche can we
make the mistake of accepting it in toto as something “individual.”
But...it is only a mask for the collective psyche, a mask that feigns
individuality, and tries to make others and oneself believe that one
is individual, whereas one is simply playing a part in which the
collective psyche speaks....Fundamentally, the persona is nothing
real: it is a compromise between the individual and society as to
what a man should appear to be (Singer, 1994, p. 159).
If this is true, then Bianca and Kate represent the collective unconscious, and their goodness and badness are “nothing real;” Bianca has simply developed a persona that mirrors what society wants a woman to be – she is a living anima projection. Kate, on the other hand, has not developed this “mask,” but is closer to the collective unconscious. This puts her in the position of “shadow projection,” in which “...every situation in life which carries for an individual a charge of strong affect, which makes him excessively angry or anxious or even delighted, must be considered in terms of the possibility that the extra investment of energy may be coming from the unconscious in the form of a shadow projection” (Singer, 1994, p. 175).
Kate and Bianca’s relationship with society, conjointly, seems to be that of anima projection and its shadow. Bianca is viewed as the ultimate feminine “angel,” while Kate is the unfeminine “devil,” who dares to match wits with men, and break lutes when criticized. Lucentio, Bianca’s husband-to-be, “falls in love” with her on sight: “But in the other’s silence do I see maid’s mild behavior and sobriety.” And later, after hearing Bianca speak one sentence that expresses obedience to her father, “...I burn, I pine, I perish...if I achieve not this young modest girl.” And, “Sacred and sweet was all I saw in her” (Heilman, 1999, pp. 20-21). This truly must be one of the most extreme examples of anima projection in literature. Can Bianca really be this “good?” If not, can Kate really be this “bad?” The gentlemen have a very strong reaction to Kate; Gremio even says that “Think’st thou...any man is so very a fool to be married to hell?....I had lief take her dowry with this condition, to be whipped at the high cross every morning.” She is called a “fiend of hell,” and told that “you may go to the devil’s dam.” This after saying to her father, “...is it your will to make a stale of me amongst these mates?” (Heilman, 1999, pp. 17-19). In this one short statement, she makes several incredibly witty puns; a “stale” could mean a laughingstock or a prostitute, and “mates” could be a “low fellow,” a completion of the pun referring to the chess term “stalemate,” in which neither player can win, and can serve as well to mean “husband.” Here we see Kate’s genius, expressed in the masculine trait of wit; her brilliant statement is followed immediately by a quashing: “...No mates for you unless you were of gentler, milder mold” (Heilman, 1999, p. 17).
The wooing of Bianca is carried out, once again, in disguise. Hortensio and Lucentio are both disguised, wooing their own anima projection. Even when Bianca’s petulance shines through a bit (“I’ll not be tied to hours nor ‘pointed times, but learn my lessons as I please myself” (Heilman, 1999, p. 53)), it is accepted without causing a ripple; there is no reaction whatsoever to this expression of control, because it doesn’t fit the men’s idea of Bianca. But the problem with anima projection is that no woman can live up to it forever. As Alexander Leggatt states, “Bianca can play her role in a courtship, and her role in a business transaction, without revealing her true face. But...Lucentio learns to his dismay what lay behind that romantic sweetness” (Leggatt, 1974, p. 49).
How do these two women finally balance out their personae and shadows? By being separated by Petruchio, who is really the therapist in this play. Immediately after their wedding, he takes Kate away. When he brings her back, she has developed a persona of her own, that fits within their societal standards; her “compromise between the individual and society as to what a [wo]man should appear to be” is an opportunity in turn for Bianca, who now is free to let her mask slip a bit, and pull more from the collective unconscious, in particular her animus: “The more fool you for laying on my duty” (Heilman, 1999, p. 107). Petruchio then encourages Kate to address Hortensio’s wife and Bianca, laying out all of the abuse that was heretofore heaped upon her, and thereby providing a cathartic means of resolving her hostility toward her sister, society, and her father, by mirroring their reactions to her right back at them. This scene is the reason that I say Petruchio is a therapist; although some feminists believe him to be abusive, I have to say that he is squarely on Kate’s side in every instance. His concern is expressed to other men as “taming” the wild Kate, but his behavior toward Kate is more of a mirroring and a positive manipulation. Therapy itself could be termed as manipulation; it is an attempt to guide a person’s behavior and perspective in a different direction, so as to benefit the individual as well as the people who surround him or her. It is, without a doubt, therapeutic for Kate to be “the good girl” for once.
How does Petruchio get through to Kate? How does she come to accept him as her “therapist?” In typical fast-forward fashion, Shakespeare compresses the wooing and marrying process (consultation and appointments?) to establish Petruchio’s authority in the most common role regarding men and women, that of husband and head of household. Petruchio, early on, establishes his therapeutic techniques. He begins by “mirroring” Kate; he is overbearing, rude, and shows up late to their wedding wearing ridiculous garments; in other words, he shows her the disrespect that she has shown her family and society in general. But he also makes clear how transitory this is, when he states that “To me she’s married, not unto my clothes. Could I repair what she will wear in me as I can change these poor accoutrements, ‘twere well for Kate and better for myself” (Heilman, 1999, p. 60). He is Petruchio, disguised in strange clothing; she is Kate, and he implies that she is disguised in shrewishness. As he can cast off his disguise, she can cast off hers. This is the first time, in the play, that anyone implies (very subtly) that Kate can “change.”
Once in their own home, after separating Kate (the shadow) from Bianca (the projected anima), Petruchio begins to frustrate and manipulate Kate; but, in the process, he acknowledges and emphasizes her worth, as well as his own:
Petruchio: I am sure, sweet Kate, that this kindness merits thanks. What, not a word? Nay then, thou lov’st it not, and all my pains is sorted to no proof. Here, take away this dish.
Kate: I pray you, let it stand.
Petruchio: The poorest service is repaid in thanks. And so shall mine before you touch the meat.
Kate: I thank you, sir.
When Petruchio plays out a scene in front of Kate, berating the tailor for making clothes not good enough for Kate, she sees the effect that her own behavior has had, namely cutting off her nose to spite her face. At the same time, Petruchio makes sure to imply that she is worthy of the best. “This is a way to kill a wife with kindness,” as Petruchio says (Heilman, 1999, p. 74); it is also a way to cause a breakdown. By the time that Petruchio and Kate leave for her father’s house, she is agreeing that the sun is the moon, the moon is the sun, and an old man is a young girl; this ridiculous exaggeration of obedience and respect is, I believe, Shakespeare’s way of illustrating how ridiculous it is to hold obedience up as the measure of goodness in a woman. Therapeutically speaking, of course, it is the symbol of trust in the therapist, beyond the reasoning of an unreasonable mind. Kate must trust that Petruchio has her best interests at heart, even if it seems insane, if she is to develop her long-overdue persona. As Singer says,
The persona is not altogether negative. It serves a useful function in that it mediates between ourselves and society. I often tell my analysands that a persona is necessary...the purpose of the persona is to indicate something of what the person is like, just as the mask suggests the role or emotions of the actor (Singer, 1994, p. 159).
Petruchio is not exclusively “taming” Kate for his own purposes; he is bringing her back to her father’s house for her own benefit, as well, in demonstrating that Kate’s ability to establish herself as a “good” woman is fully developed; she is now able to receive positive reinforcement from society. In the ridiculousness of his manipulations (sun-moon, etc.), he is showing her the ridiculousness of control; while he has spent time manipulating her, he is now making it clear that she can manipulate him as well. Words can be used to express truth; Kate has developed this talent very well:
Kate: Why sir, I trust I may have leave to speak, and speak I will. I am no child,
no babe. Your betters have endured me say my mind, And if you cannot, best you
stop your ears. My tongue will tell the anger of my heart, or else my heart,
concealing it, will break, and rather than it shall I will be free, even to the
uttermost, as I please, in words.
Of course, her perception is skewed; no-one has really endured Kate’s tongue with any benevolent respect or understanding. And Petruchio here shows Kate another way to use words and win, by deliberately mistaking her meaning: “Why, thou sayst true. It is a paltry cap...I love thee well in that thou lik’st it not” (Heilman, 1999, p. 82). He shows her plainly how to get what she wants from life, without angering others: “When you are gentle you shall have one too, and not till then” (Heilman, 1999, p. 82).
Petruchio “kills her in her own humour,” (Heilman, 1999, p. 72) at the beginning of Kate’s “therapy,” but ends up, in the scene in her father’s house, by demonstrating to others the new woman he has made of his wife. This appears somewhat as though he is trotting out a dog to whom he has shown new tricks, but there is an inherent difference in that he defends his wife against her father, when Baptista attempts to, once again, attach the label of “shrew” to Kate:
Baptista: Now in good sadness, son Petruchio, I think thou hast the veriest shrew
of all.
Petruchio: Well, I say no (Heilman, 1999, p. 104).
And, after Kate shows obedience, he “rewards” her by asking her to beat the other wives if they refuse to come to their husbands. When she brings them, he encourages her to tell them off, giving her permission to thrash the women, verbally and physically, as she has done all her life – but in the context of Kate being the righteous one. He allows her to experience “the incomplete and warring twins of power and knowing” (Siemens, 1996). Kate has turned the corner of mental health by establishing her persona (knowing) while still remaining Kate (power); she is now able, with full permission from society, to use her voice. With vigor, she chastises the other women; and is this speech sincere? I don’t think so. She is now using words to manipulate opinion and behavior, as Petruchio has taught her. She exaggerates the meaning of disobedience: “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?” (Heilman, 1999, p. 108). She is using rhetoric to express the views of society, thereby showing that she knows what these views are. Having been shown by Petruchio the arbitrary nature of control (sun-moon, etc.), she is now wielding it in a whole new way. In an unbalanced society, hypocrisy is a necessary part of a balanced mind, and Petruchio knows it: “We three are married, but you two are sped. ‘Twas I won the wager, [to Lucentio] though you hit the white [Bianca], and, being a winner, God give you good night” (Heilman, 1999, p. 109). In this way, Petruchio confirms Kate’s worth as a person; he prefers her, with all of her difficulties, to Bianca, who may have a more polished persona, but can as such never be quite known or trusted. He has now allied himself with Kate, against all those who have disparaged her.
The mask that Kate has developed is different in an important way from the masks developed by the other characters; because Petruchio has helped her to develop this persona through mirroring and exaggerated manipulation, she is able to use it, but not identify with it completely. This leads her to a more advanced stage of ego development, in which her ego and self can work harmoniously. Prior to her experience with Petruchio, she has become somewhat psychotic, because her unconscious (in particular her animus and her shadow) have almost complete control of her actions; but in establishing an acceptable persona, and teaching her how to satisfy her ego, Petruchio has helped her to align her conscious and unconscious needs. Kate has now developed a public persona, which will allow her to “make his [her] own impact more effective by setting an example, than by bludgeoning his [her] opponent into submission” (Singer, 1994, p. 177); but it is her true relationship with her unconscious that has made her a better (and healthier) person in total, all along: “The person who commits himself [herself] to a life of continuing confrontation with the unconscious within himself [herself], will also confront the unknown in the world at large with an open mind, and what is more, with a heart of wisdom....The old man [Jung] is reputed to have said [translation]: Gentlemen, do not forget that the unconscious is also on the outside” (Singer, 1994, p. 177).
References
Heilman, R. (Ed). (1999). William Shakespeare: the taming of the shrew (2nd revised
edition).
Leggatt, A. (1974). Shakespeare’s
comedy of love.
Monte, C. and Sollod, M.
(2003). Beneath the mask: an introduction to theories of
personality (7th
edition).
Siemens, R. (1996, April). Personations:
the taming of the shrew and the limits of
literary criticism. EMLS 2.1.
Retrieved
Singer, J. (1994). Boundaries of the soul: the practice of Jung’s psychology (revised
edition).