“WHY, THERE’S A WENCH”:
SHAKESPEARE’S UNCONVENTIONAL LOVE PLOTS
Anthony Aycock
“Thou and I are too wise to woo
peaceably.”
Much
Ado about Nothing, 5.2.63
“For I am rough, and woo not like
a babe.”
The
Taming of the Shrew, 2.1.137
Critics have lionized Much Ado about Nothing and The Taming of the Shrew for their
depiction of unconventional romantic plots.
Despite the pervading view in Elizabethan England of women as the
property of their fathers (or, in the case of married women, property of their
husbands), Shakespeare gives these two plays powerful female
characters—Beatrice and Katharina—who refuse to be wooed in the traditional
fashion. The above quotes from the
plays embody the essence of nonconformity; however, the lines also starkly
contrast the dramatic elements that Shakespeare used to effect the departure
from stereotypes.
Benedick protests that he and
Beatrice are too “wise” to woo typically, while Petruchio blames his “rough”
nature for his failure at stock romance.
This distinction between wise and rough temperaments extends to the
plays themselves. Much Ado about Nothing explores the breach with romantic convention
by intellectual wordplay, whereas The
Taming of the Shrew goes a different route—that of physical combat.
Benedick’s courthsip of Beatrice is
not a courtship at all. The attraction
between the two is apparent from the inception of the play when Beatrice
asks: “I pray you, is Signor Mountanto
returned from the wars or no?” (1.1.29-30).
She is ostensibly worried about Benedick, although she follows this
question with japes upon his character.
The wit and acerbity of their first few encounters fails to suppress the
obvious chemistry between them. Alexander
Leggatt (1974) observes that “beneath the exchange of ideas we can detect a deeper
interplay of minds” (p. 168). He later
builds upon this observation: “This is
a game in which the players are so deeply engaged that their instincts are no
longer purely sporting ones: beneath
the wit we sense two minds at work, each one probing the other’s defenses, each
afraid of losing the other’s respect” (p. 169).
Leggatt emphasizes the struggle
between faculties, which is where Shakespeare undoubtedly intended the emphasis
to fall. Benedick and Beatrice practice
an intellectual hegemony over everyone around them. However, as David Bevington (1992) notes, “She is a match for
Benedick” (p. 217), and he serves as her foil as well. They cannot dominate each other, and so they
intimidate each other. Unsteadied by
frustration and feelings of inferiority, Benedick and Beatrice cannot express
their love for each other—and that love churns within each of them.
In
fact, this unrequited passion keeps them from appearing to be gods among men
because it makes them melancholy.
Leggatt elucidates this quality in Beatrice: “We suspect that she is cheering herself up [with her sense of
humor]; indeed, she comes very close to admitting pain behind the gaiety” (p.
171). Similarly, Don Pedro and Claudio
approach the truth when they indict Benedick’s sardonic reception of Hero:
Don Pedro: Thou wast ever an obstinate heretic in the
despite of beauty.
Claudio: And never could maintain his part but in the
force of his will. (1.1.224-227)
This play treats love as a goal
prior to and separate from marriage.
Were their grim moods not filling their speech with cynicism, Benedick
and Beatrice would exist as solitary admirers of each other, and love would
become an abstruse exercise in the play.
However, their friends, who bear the brunt of their incivility, decide
to throw them together. For this
reason, the courtship of Beatrice is not a courtship: The mating dance is active, and these two lovers want to part of
it. Shakespeare relies on others to
cajole his blithe sages into the act of wooing, but the love has always been
present. The reluctance of Benedick and
Beatrice to play the dating game is how Shakespeare chooses to explore the idea
of unconventional romance in Much Ado
about Nothing.
Benedick and Beatrice believe that
“the dedication demanded by the rituals of courtship would be justifiable only
if the loved one were utterly perfect” (Leggatt, 1974: 170). However, Petruchio, the suitor to Katharina
in The Taming of the Shrew, does not
subscribe to that theory. He accepts
Katharina’s termagant reputation as a challenge to his manhood: “For I will board her though she chide as
loud / As thunder when the clouds in autumn crack” (1.2.94-95). Petruchio also admits that the wealth of
Katharina’s father attracts him to her, “be she as foul as was Florentius’ love
/ As old as Sibyl, and as curst and shrewd / As Socrates’ Xanthippe”
(1.2.68-70).
The other characters describe
Katharina as a “shrew.” Her antipathy
toward Petruchio during their first meeting supports that comparison, while
Petruchio himself is depicted as a bawdy conquistador. Naturally, Kate—the irritating sobriquet
that Petruchio gives her—spurns her suitor’s advances, and another odd
dalliance has begun.
Many productions of The Taming of the Shrew portray Kate and
Petruchio as warring individuals, and the early scenes of such stagings are
filled with mayhem. Shakespeare
indicates with stage directions one occasion for Kate to strike Petruchio, to
which he replies: “I swear I’ll cuff
you if you strike again” (2.1.220).
However, the text does not support further fisticuffs between them. Instead, they show their physical
orientation through hostility toward others.
Unlike Benedick and Beatrice, who cope with depression by stepping up
their ironic asides, Kate expresses her disgruntlement by flogging her sister
and by twisting the lute around Hortensio’s neck. Likewise, Petruchio berates his servants for bringing him cold
food and rips the dress that the tailor made for Kate (4.1).
Clearly, the theme of this play
centers around the courtship and marriage of Petruchio and Kate. Unrequited love plagues Benedick and
Beatrice until their friends push them together, but Petruchio weds Kate for
money and for the sport of “taming” her.
These motivations are worldly and base—as is Petruchio’s method of
taming. Irene Dash (1981) has
conjectured that “Petruchio’s wooing of Katharina is a contest of wits” (p.
47). Indeed, the two try their best to
break each other down in their first encounter. However, the wit in their exchange is not as highly developed as
that Benedick and Beatrice because of “the attempt of each to shock by using
earthy language” (p. 47). The profusion
of sexual jokes in the final scene reinformces Shakespeare’s inglorious but vigorous
use of language in the play.
Petruchio’s wooing of Kate is more
accurately a contest of wills. He
subverts her by depriving her body of food (4.3.1-35) and sex
(4.1.176-199). Michael West (1974)
commends Shakespeare for not having Petruchio “wrest conjugal rights from an
unwilling bride” (p. 70) because of the thematic significance: “To overlook or to minimize the obvious
sexual method of taming or ‘training’ a wife is to miss part of what the play
is saying” (Dash, 1981: 37). Kate
eventually learns to love Petruchio, and he loves her in return. Shakespeare demonstrates the physical
unconventionality of this romance by casting love as the product of—not the
precursor to—an intense courtship.
Much
Ado about Nothing and The Taming of
the Shrew reject the usual Elizabethan love plots because the lovers
change. The intellectual anti-courtship
of Benedick and Beatrice presents the metamorphosis of despondency into true
love, while the ordeal of Petruchio and Kate chronicles the curbing of Kate’s wretched
behavior. Petruchio does not appear to
change, for his wager with Lucentio and Hortensio in the final scene echoes the
same bravado with which he initially tackled and subdued Kate. Unfortunately, Shakespeare’s milieu kept him
from writing a play in which a woman could alter a man. Benedick eliminates the bitterness of his
perception of love by entering into a relationship with Beatrice, but she does
not cause this change. Love transforms
Benedick, which the Elizabethan audience could accept. Shakespeare often mentions the power of Cupid—but
never that of Aphrodite.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bevington, David, ed. 1992.
The Complete Works of Shakespeare. 4th ed. New York: HarperCollins,
Inc.
Dash, Irene G. 1981.
Wooing, Wedding, and Power: Women in Shakespeare’s Plays. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Horowitz, David. 1965.
Shakespeare: An Existential View. New York:
Hill and Wang.
Leggatt, Alexander. 1974.
Shakespeare’s Comedy of Love. London:
Methuen & Co.
West Michael. 1974.
Folk background of Petruchio’s wooing dance. Shakespeare Studies: (65-73).