He points to the play’s emphasis on temporary transformation as a means of winning love. Lucentio and Hortensio both dress up in order to court Bianca, and each man “receives the appropriate reward,” in this case wives who disguised their personalities (Daniell 73). Following this pattern, Kate’s and Petruccio’s newfound gentleness would also seem to be an illusion, a disguise of sorts that would be unsatisfying it if turned out to be genuine. Given the play-within-a-play structure of The Taming of the Shrew, it is natural to focus on the theatrics of the characters and assume Kate and Petruccio are using such artifice to cultivate a public persona that allows both of them to find public acceptance while keeping “all their contradictions—and energies—very much alive and kicking” behind closed doors (78). Kate submits to her new husband because she comes to understand the benefits of it, but this makes her smarter, not weaker. Offering further insight on this, Coppélia Khan argues that Kate’s final-act speech is proof of her remaining verve. She writes that the “pompous, wordy, holier-than-thou sermon” “delicately mocks the sermons her husband has delivered,” fusing the very much alive inner Kate with an outward display of carefully crafted obedience (Khan 98). Accepting this, Kate’s submission does not represent total abandonment of her own strength of will in order to please her husband; rather, she acknowledges that by allowing Petruccio to control the relationship, they can find public acceptance, a handsome dowry, and a partner with whom they can bandy wits. In this situation, adhering to the expected gender expectations of society allows them to thrive while robbing neither of them of their
He points to the play’s emphasis on temporary transformation as a means of winning love. Lucentio and Hortensio both dress up in order to court Bianca, and each man “receives the appropriate reward,” in this case wives who disguised their personalities (Daniell 73). Following this pattern, Kate’s and Petruccio’s newfound gentleness would also seem to be an illusion, a disguise of sorts that would be unsatisfying it if turned out to be genuine. Given the play-within-a-play structure of The Taming of the Shrew, it is natural to focus on the theatrics of the characters and assume Kate and Petruccio are using such artifice to cultivate a public persona that allows both of them to find public acceptance while keeping “all their contradictions—and energies—very much alive and kicking” behind closed doors (78). Kate submits to her new husband because she comes to understand the benefits of it, but this makes her smarter, not weaker. Offering further insight on this, Coppélia Khan argues that Kate’s final-act speech is proof of her remaining verve. She writes that the “pompous, wordy, holier-than-thou sermon” “delicately mocks the sermons her husband has delivered,” fusing the very much alive inner Kate with an outward display of carefully crafted obedience (Khan 98). Accepting this, Kate’s submission does not represent total abandonment of her own strength of will in order to please her husband; rather, she acknowledges that by allowing Petruccio to control the relationship, they can find public acceptance, a handsome dowry, and a partner with whom they can bandy wits. In this situation, adhering to the expected gender expectations of society allows them to thrive while robbing neither of them of their