King Henry And Katherine example essay topic

Upon reading Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew and Henry V, I have noticed that the issue of gender ideology and identity has been an intriguing study in both Shakespearean comedies and histories. These traditional Western views have, in a sense deemed which roles are appropriate and socially acceptable, in regards to both males and females. This practice of 'social typecasting' has given men and women certain socially acceptable characteristics, which has influenced how they should think and act. In this essay I take an in-depth look regarding how Shakespeare dealt with gender identity, and if certain characters in The Taming of the Shrew and Henry V accepted their socially predetermined gender identity or if they rejected it. In Shakespearean time and even up to the turn of the 20th Century men were expected to be the sole provider of the family, entailing them to be either well educated or hard working. They were also expected to be good with the handling of finances and property.

It was also acceptable for them to be barbaric, boisterous and socially well connected. This has given the men of this time an overwhelming sense of power, respect and freedom; rights which were not given to women at this time. Far from what was socially acceptable in regards to men, the gender identity of women was of a somewhat weaker nature. Women during Shakespearean time were regarded as docile, quiet and non-opinionated. Their socially acceptable role in many cases was to be domestic, entailing them to spend countless hours in the home, tending to basic familial needs, such as cooking and cleaning. This position prevented many women to receive an education or to socialize outside of the home.

As a result of their inferior social status, they were expected to be submissive and to cater to her husband's needs at all times. Women in Shakespearean time were also treated as property, either by their husbands or fathers, which diminished any sense of self-worth they may have possessed. This gender ideology ultimately paralyzed women, as the majority were helpless to alter their social standing or designated familial role. In Act One of The Taming of the Shrew we catch a glimpse into the life of the Minolta family.

Baptista, the father is forced with a dilemma, as he needs to find a suitor for his daughter Katherine in order to marry off his other daughter Bianca. This controlling nature leads us to believe that they live in a patriarchal society, as the father is making life-altering decisions, without regard as to what his daughters think or feel. This marital practice was common during Shakespearean time, and sometimes led to unhappy marriages. This essentially regards women as property, as they are being treated as objects to financially better the men they marry. This can be seen in Petruchio's conversation with Baptista regarding the dowry he will receive if he marries Katherine: "Then tell me, if I get your daughter's love / What dowry shall I have with her to wife?" (2.1. 126-127).

It is evident at this point that Petruchio's only interest in Katherine hinges on the fact that he will receive a substantial sum of money and property, further objectifying Katherine. Petruchio's objectification of Katherine is clearly evident when he states: "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 anything (3.2. 235-238). This passage also reiterates the fact that women during this time were regarded as property, and not much more. After reading this play it is evident that Katherine refuses to embrace the traditional gender identity which was socially acceptable during this time.

As the reader is first introduced to Katherine, it is evident that she is nothing like her 'ideal's is ter Bianca, who is the epitome of a "Maid's mild behavior and sobriety" (1.1. 73). This can be seen by Hortensio's reaction regarding his potential courtship to Katherine as he states "Mates, maid? How mean you that? No mates for / you /Unless you were of gentler, miler mold" (1.1.

59-61). It is evident that the suitors refuse to court Katherine because of the fact that she does not fit the socially accepted gender identity. The suitors seem to be scared of her, which portrays her as some sort of hideous monster not to be associated with. The fact that she exudes certain characteristics and emotions not common with the typical woman of that time ultimately instills feelings of fear and distaste of Katherine. I believe that this stems from the fact that the men are insecure with their own masculinity; they believe that they would be less of a man if they married Katherine, as they would clearly have less power in the relationship. The way that Katherine speaks and what she says is an indication that she is unlike any other woman.

Her rough dialogue "Put finger in the eye, and she knew why" (1.1. 80), and "Asses are made to bear, and so are you" (2.1. 210), also shows her rejection of the ideal femininity. Katherine's physical behavior also distances her from the traditional gender identity of that time, and can be seen in Act two Scene one when she physically abuses Bianca. This gender inappropriate behavior would be deemed masculine and would take place on a battlefield, not in her sister's room. She is also characterized as "forward, peevish, sullen, or sour" (5.2.

173) which leads us to believe that she is assertive. In this society a woman was supposed to be submissive, as opposed to being assertive and opinionated. Her actions deem her to be independent, as she feels that she does not need to marry to be happy. This is illustrated when Petruchio feels that he must break her will in order to tame her, in other words, to make her more feminine. The fact that Petruchio has such a hard time doing this illustrates just how strong willed Katherine is in her pursuit to be independent.

By being overbearingly masculine, Petruchio finally wins over Katherine as she becomes "obedient to his honest will" (5.2. 74). It is at this point where Katherine's pro-feminine views seem to disappear as she states: "I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer ware where they should kneel for peace, /Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway, /When they are bound to serve, love and obey [... ]" (5.2. 161-164). Katherine is essentially 'selling out', as she denounces her femininity along with her gender as Lynda E. Boose reiterates: "In doing so, she rhetorically pushes everyone marked as "woman" out of that space along with her" (Boose 180). Boose later goes on to argue that Katherine's renunciation of her femininity also affects the play's female audience as they now have to think about their own role in society: And it is perhaps precisely because women's relationships to this particular comedy are so ineluctably bound up in such a theatricalize d appropriation of feminine choice that Shakespeare's play ultimately be comes a kind of primary text within which each woman reader of successive eras must renegotiate a (her) narrative (Boose 180).

This leads us to believe that Shakespeare may have had an ulterior motive regarding his portrayal of female characters in his plays, as he is sending an underlying message regarding his and his societies view of women. It is ultimately Katherine's rejection of typical femininity that gives the play its comedic nature. The majority of comic relief occurs as a result of Katherine's 'shrew-like' behavior and an example can be found in her back and forth banter with Petruchio (2.1. 203-255).

The comic relief ultimately revolves around Katherine's uncharacteristically masculine nature. It seems that everyone has something to say about her behavior, whether it be Gre mio "To cart her, rather. She's too rough for me" (1.1. 55), or even Petruchio " 'Should be' -should buzz!" (2.1.

217). Petruchio's outlandish treatment of Katherine in order to make his point also makes this play a comedy, as he is going to extremes to tame her. In Act four Scene one Petruchio addresses the audience that his overbearing sense of power is merely a performance, which shows the audience that this is indeed a comedy, as nothing more (4.1. 188-211). Lastly, the comedic nature of the play tends to be not as apparent whenever Petruchio finally wins Katherine over, perhaps as a result of his 'performance' coming to an end. As critics have suggested, female characters in Shakespeare's historical plays have been given less agency, and this is no different in Henry V. I believe that this is due to the fact that Shakespeare's comedies have revolved around the abnormalities found in everyday life, whereas histories tend to hinge on social issues which usually results in the plays being labeled as tragedies.

With this in mind, female characters in histories are for the most part non-existent and have little to do with the outcome of the play's events. As found in Henry V, Shakespeare's sole focus is on the king, and his militaristic decisions regarding the war between his English forces against the French. This leaves little to no place of a woman in Shakespeare's historical plays. This can be seen (or not seen for that matter) by the fact that a female character is only seen in 2-3 different scenes throughout the play's duration.

When we do first catch a glimpse of Katherine, the princess of France, we see her trying to learn how to speak English, which gives us the impression that she is oblivious to the fact that there's a war going on in her country. The fact that she is the Queen of France as opposed to a common French woman further degrades both her character and her gender as well, as one would think her title would provoke her to want to know more about her countries' welfare. Katherine's oblivious behavior however was not only limited to her. Women during this time were rarely / never involved with important decisions regarding the state of their country. This lack of involvement / opinion concurs with the socially accepted gender ideology I have discussed throughout this paper, labeling women as being non-opinionated, quiet and docile. These feminine characteristics were contrasted throughout the text and film adaptations of Henry V with the portrayal of the men in this play.

The overwhelming sense of masculinity in this play essentially dwarfs any sense of femininity throughout the plays entirety. An example of this can be seen when Henry V is addressing his troops and trying to boost their morale: "I will not leave the half achieved Harfleur / Till in her ashes she lie buried. /The gates of mercy shall be all shut up [... ] The blind and bloody with foul hand / Desire the locks of your shrill-shrieking daughters" (3.3.

7-10, 34-35). This passage not only illustrates the socially accepted barbaric and tyrannical characteristics of the typical male at this time, but it also personifies the enemy (France) as being like a woman and therefore easy to conquer. The fact that the town in question is named Harfleur also adds to this, as the French word 'fleur' in English means 'flower. ' This once again illustrates the overpowering sense of masculinity in this play, which alludes to male dominance over the female gender. As a result of King Henry's barbaric behavior, he is regarded as the best king that England has ever had, which is solely due to the fact that his actions were considered both noble and respectful during this time period. I believe that if King Henry would have exhibited any sense of feminine behavior (such as scheduling peaceful negotiation talks with the French), he would lose a tremendous amount of credibility and respect from his troops and even the audience of this play.

This is due to the fact that this was not the socially acceptable thing for a man to do during this time. King Henry would have been regarded as weak-willed and docile, which are obviously feminine characteristics. In the wooing scene found in Act 5 Scene 2 we further see the reinforcement of gender ideologies. One might think that because of the fact that King Henry and Katherine are alone in a romantic setting that both genders may take on a more equitable position, but this is not the case.

Arguably, the fact that King Henry has been involved politics and battle all of his life, gives us the reason why he has a hard time courting her, as he lacks the feminine qualities of patience and nurturing. Throughout this interaction with Katherine, we see that he cannot differentiate his political conquests with his newfound romantic one, as Katherine Eggert reinforces: "Even in his attempts to 'woo' the French princess, and under pretense of lover like surrender, he continues to make her precisely equivalent to the cities he has conquered" (Eggert 533). This can be seen in Henry V in the following passage: "For I love France / so well that I will not part with a village of it. I will / have it all mine: and Kate, when France is mine / and I am yours, then yours is France and you are mine" (5.2. 180-184). Katherine, like many other female characters in Shakespeare's plays, is being objectified as she is now the King's property.

She is the prize to be won, and King Henry conquered her as he did her native land. As seen in both of these plays, it is evident that Shakespeare used set gender ideologies for different purposes. In the comedy, The Taming of the Shrew, it is evident that Shakespeare challenges the early modern English gender ideology, by portraying Katherine as being "forward, peevish, sullen, or sour" (5.2. 173).

Conversely in Henry V, we see Shakespeare reinforcing this ideology as he portrays Katherine as being oblivious, as she cannot grasp the 'masculine' concepts of politics and war. Shakepeare's influence has been universal, as his plays have perpetuated and influenced the accepted gender identities of both men and women alike, which are still evident in the 21st Century.