'The Taming of the Shrew' Essay

To What Extent Does Dusinberre Correctly Interpret the Role of Women in Shakespeare’s Time? Use the Argument of Jardine, Three Other Academic Sources, and Close Analysis to Support Your Viewpoint.

Views on women’s roles during the Elizabethan era have been debated by countless scholars, with no clear consensus on how much societal power they truly held. Juliet Dusinberre, a Fellow in English at Girton College, claims women were obtaining greater personal freedom during this era. Lisa Jardine, historian, author, and Professor of Renaissance Studies at University College London, had an opposing view. Dusinberre’s idealized view of the Elizabethan era as being a progressive time for women is highly optimistic, while Jardine’s arguments better represent the state of women's roles within society during Shakespeare's time. She accurately portrays the time period as one during which women were more strongly subjected to patriarchal expectations and rigid gender norms, shown through the contrast between Petruchio's behaviour in the second act being considered acceptable, while Katherine's makes her "shrewish"; she realistically describes how marriage kept women in a position of inferiority and lack of freedom, demonstrated by Petruchio's constant use of dehumanizing language after he and Katherine are married; and she correctly interprets Katherine’s monologue as a surrender to the oppressive patriarchal systems that govern her life, as opposed to an empowering moment.

Dusinberre claims the Renaissance gave women a new level of freedom and power within society. However, Jardine more correctly describes the era as one during which patriarchal systems and ideals became more rigid, confining women to a position of less power and agency over their lives. In response to being referred to as a wasp by Petruchio, Katherine declares, “If I be waspish, best beware my sting” (2, 1, 210). This metaphor shows Katherine as being intimidating and threatening, contradicting Petruchio’s initial comment, which had a much more patronizing, and even dehumanizing, connotation. This response shows how Katherine actively rejects the expectations pushed onto her, and continues to express herself in an audacious way. However, the conversation is immediately taken in a different direction when Petruchio begins to make more sexual remarks. This reminds the audience that no matter how many witty responses Katherine may have, Petruchio remains in control: he can change the tone of the conversation at any moment, and he has the freedom to make overtly sexual comments with no possibility of social repercussions. This is a uniquely male luxury, which Katherine does not possess. This example supports Jardine’s argument that women during this era were subject to strict double standards that restricted their social power. Furthermore, Petruchio dominating the dialogue further amplifies the power imbalance between the two characters. Petruchio, being a man, has permission to be loud and outspoken, only to be viewed as assertive and bold. Katherine, on the other hand, is labeled “shrewish” and “forward”. Simply, this interaction shows Petruchio “out-shrewing” Katherine. The difference is he doesn’t face any social consequences for his behaviour, whereas she is constantly criticized by nearly every other character. This idea has been explained by Matthew Weber, who stated, “She had to realize societal expectations would say that she should be the quiet one” (Weber). This highlights the double standards women were forced to navigate. However, the consequences for a woman refusing to behave in a way that would be considered acceptable extended beyond social repercussions. The stage direction “She strikes him” (2, 1, 218) represents a turning point in the scene. After Katherine hits him, Petruchio immediately threatens to use violence, reminding the audience of his social and physical ability to do so. Ideas around physical violence as a method of “taming” disobedient women have been studied by Emily Detmer, associate professor of English at North Kentucky University, who teaches courses on Shakespeare and Renaissance drama. She explains, “The willingness to discipline rebellious women, sometimes brutally, is documented in the accounts of the legal and extralegal "correction" of scolds and shrews…” (273). This further proves the lack of freedom and power women possessed at the time: acting out of line could result in severe consequences for them, while men did not experience the same constraints.

While Dusinberre takes on a more optimistic view of marriage during Shakespeare’s time, Jardine’s analysis illustrates how women were viewed as being inferior to, and property of, their husbands. Regardless of their behaviour, despite what some believed, they would never achieve true equality, freedom, or independence, instead always settling for second place. As soon as he and Katherine are married, Petruchio announces, “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, 224). He uses repetition of the word “my”, making it evident that he thinks of Katherine as an object that belongs to him. Additionally, this isn’t being said as an aside; Petruchio is proudly announcing in front of other characters that Katherine is his property. The idea of a man having ownership over his wife was socially acceptable, allowing him to publicly make this declaration. This idea disproves Dusinberre’s view of reciprocal obligation in a marriage, which would require some level of mutual respect between both partners. This is not the case when it comes to this relationship. Therefore, we can accept Jardine’s view and assume Katherine would have little to no agency, autonomy, or independence in this marriage. Furthermore, we can see that this is true during Petruchio’s soliloquy in the next act: “My falcon is now sharp and passing empty… Another way I have to man my haggard, to make her come and know her keeper’s call” (4, 1, 167). He, again, uses an animal metaphor to refer to Katherine, this time also referring to himself as “her keeper”. This confirms the sense of ownership he feels over her, and further proves the unequal power distribution within the relationship. Author Jochen Petzold, professor at the University of Regensburg, who writes extensively about various literary topics, agrees with this interpretation, writing: 

By equating Katherina with a falcon, Petruchio effectively dehumanizes her which can clearly be read as a form of degradation. Thus, it can be seen as a typical example of male discourse that tries to control women by metaphorically linking them to animals which are controlled. (165)

The fact that Petruchio expresses these thoughts in a soliloquy shows that these are his true feelings, and gives the audience honest insight into his true intentions. In this moment, he is reflecting on the abusive tactics he is using to manipulate Katherine into submission. Dusinberre’s claim, “A husband could not expect the gift of submission regardless of his own behaviour” (83), is disproven by this scene alone. In this moment, as in most of the play, Petruchio demonstrates the opposite of reciprocal obligation: he attempts to force his wife into submission through malice and violence. Detmer writes about the lack of legislation in place at the time to protect women in situations of domestic violence, and later states, “To enjoy the comedy of the play, readers and viewers must work to see domestic violence from the point of view of an abuser-that is, they must minimalize the violence and, at the same time, justify its use” (274). One could argue Dusinberre falls under this category of audience members who choose to downplay the abuse Katherine endures, to justify the opinion that submission, in the end, grants her power. One cannot hold that opinion while also understanding and acknowledging the extent of the abuse Katherine faces. Moreover, this provides even more evidence suggesting marriage was not as equal and empowering as Dusinberre claims.

Jardine’s more accurate interpretation of the play, particularly concerning Katherine’s final speech, excellently captures the key themes of the story and how they reflect the reality for women during this time period. However, Dusinberre’s views on submission being a method of obtaining power provide her with a flawed interpretation of both the monologue and Katherine’s transformation as a character. The famous monologue in Act 5 confirms that Katherine has inevitably been transformed by Petruchio into the obedient wife he wanted. “Such duty as the subject owes the prince, even such a woman oweth her husband. And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour, and not obedient to his honest will, what is she but a contending rebel and a graceless traitor to her loving lord?” (5, 2, 164) In the preface to the second edition of her book, Dusinberre claims, “Women in Shakespeare’s audience, as in later audiences, may have drawn from the play an energy which they took back with them into the social world outside the theatre” (xxv). She makes the argument that women in the audience would feel a sense of empowerment through seeing his plays, and carry that feeling into their day-to-day lives. This relates to her larger argument that, somehow, this play represents female empowerment. She spends chapters attempting to prove that in some way, Katherine being made to obey and submit to her husband is empowering, both for her and for the women in the audience. One student, Maddy Hall, expressed support for this opinion, agreeing that this moment in the play was empowering for Katherine: “If she’d been tamed, she wouldn’t be speaking as much” (Hall). This argument falls apart when you take into account the reason she delivers the speech in the first place. Throughout most of the scene, all the characters speak a fairly equal amount except for Katherine, who remains silent until instructed by Petruchio to lecture the other wives on submission and obedience. Until she is told to speak by her husband, she doesn’t dare partake in conversation. It is only when she is given permission that she begins to address the group and dominate the dialogue. Therefore, she is still being controlled by Petruchio and it cannot be argued that she is in any sort of position of power in that particular moment. Throughout the monologue, Katherine uses several metaphors that compare husbands to royalty, symbolizing the immense power they hold. She then compares disobedient wives to traitors. This comes as a surprise, as the issue of treason was very prevalent, and taken very seriously. People in the audience were all experiencing constant fear relating to the numerous assassination attempts against Queen Elizabeth I. In a journal published by the Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Society of Church History, Henry M. Shires writes:

Mary Stewart, who had been imprisoned in 1568 by Elizabeth, was the central figure in countless conspiracies against the Crown until she was finally put to death in 1587… A definite papal campaign against Elizabeth matured in 1579 when plans were uncovered for the violent death of Elizabeth and for the stirring up of political revolt in Ireland and Scotland as well as in England. Plots against the life of the Queen, in which Romanists were implicated, became so numerous after 1583 they are catalogued only with difficulty (228).

The constant threat of treason or invasion was a large burden on Shakespearean audiences, who would have been forced to take Katherine’s monologue seriously. With this in mind, it becomes clear how sincere the character is being. The audience has no choice but to believe she truly agrees with what she is saying. Additionally, these metaphors show beyond doubt that Katherine is the least empowered she has been throughout the entire play. By placing husbands on a pedestal and condemning disobedient wives, it is clear Katherine has succumbed to Petruchio’s manipulation. This invalidates Dusinberre’s stance on Katherine gaining power through compliance, and reinforces Jardine’s analysis of Katherine’s loss of agency and freedom.

To conclude, Jardine’s interpretation of the role of women during Shakespeare’s time is far more accurate and realistic than that of Dusinberre. Her opinions about women being restricted to an inferior position within society and this contributing to inequality within marriage is much more truthful than Dusinberre’s arguments. In addition, Dusinberre’s view of Katherine’s speech as being empowering is nowhere near as realistic as Jardine’s interpretation. This play shows us the dangers of losing one’s personal freedom to meet societal standards, and proves submission does not grant true power.

Works Cited

Detmer, Emily. “Civilizing Subordination: Domestic Violence and The Taming of the Shrew.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3, 1997, pp. 273–94. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2871017. Accessed 13 Apr. 2026.

Dusinberre, Juliet. Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. St. Martin's Press, 1996.

Hall, Maddy. ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ Presentation. Blyth Academy Burlington. April 8th, 2026.

Jardine, Lisa. Still Harping on Daughters: Women and Drama in the Age of Shakespeare. Columbia University Press, 1989.

Petzold, Jochen. “Subverting the Master Discourse? The Power of Women’s Words in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew and Fletcher’s The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed.” AAA: Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik, vol. 31, no. 2, 2006, pp. 157–70. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26430831. Accessed 13 Apr. 2026.

Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew. Spark Publishing, 2004.

Shires, Henry M. “The Conflict between Queen Elizabeth and Roman Catholicism.” Church History, vol. 16, no. 4, 1947, pp. 221–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3160951. Accessed 13 Apr. 2026.

Webber, Matthew. ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ Presentation. Blyth Academy Burlington. April 8th, 2026.