Shakespeare and Society

DR. PETER WILLIAMS

Shakespeare and Society The Influence of Elizabethan and Jacobean Society and History on

Shakespearean Plays and their Modern Adaptations in Films

Noha Chahal

6/5/2015

Senior Paper

1Shakespeare and Society

Abstract

William Shakespeare, one of the greatest literary writers of all time, was

brilliant in the way he captured significant traits of history and the real

world and aestheticized them, escalating them into a new dimension,

teaching his audience of the world while also greatly entertaining them,.

In this paper, I will concentrate on his plays, The Tragedy of Macbeth and

The Taming of the Shrew, and how the two plays clearly demonstrate

Shakespeare's knowledge in history, and the human psyche and its

demonstrations in society. I will also further elaborate on Shakespeare's

brilliance in his attributes to many modern day adaptations of his plays

into movies, such as the BBC movie, ShakespeaRe-Told: Macbeth and 10

Things I Hate About You. In this way, I will prove that Shakespeare was

not only successful in reaching the audience of his time and his society,

but also people of all time and of all cultures.


Shakespeare and Society

The Influence of Elizabethan and Jacobean Society and History on

Shakespearean Plays and their Modern Adaptations in Films

Noha Chahal

The soul of literature is a seamless blend of real life, meaningful words, and

transcending aesthetic. Together, they create an escalated realm with infinite

possibilities outside of the realm of life. The combination of letters to create words is

only made true with the existence of its meaning. Art, in all its forms, can only ignite

and inspire with the beauty it reflects and the movement it creates. Literature is life;

without life, literature would simply be an art with empty words and no meanings –

aesthetic with no beauty. It takes a true artist- a truly gifted writer- to capture the

beauty of the world and of life, and fill literary words with meaning. Who could be a

better artist of literary meaning than none other than William Shakespeare, the

"greatest playwright not of his age alone but of all time" (Greenblatt, 2004, p. 1).

One of Shakespeare's greatest specialties was arousing the spirit of his plays

by extracting important elements of the real world and situating them into his own

work, creating the perfect combination of the aesthetic and the real. His life, his

surroundings, and his knowledge were all the basis of the inspiration of his works. In

many of his plays, Shakespeare recreates real people from history, correlating them to

fit different themes of his different play. The characters and themes of his play,

whether historical figures or not, are based on characteristics of Elizabethan and

Jacobean society, bringing them to life and making them relatable to all, while also

aestheticizing and immortalizing them. Examples of these plays include Macbeth and


Taming of the Shrew, plays that both include characters with traits extracted from real

societies and real historic events and people, such as Queen Elizabeth I and King

James I. In these plays, the traits of different characters reflect personas of average

people from the Elizabethan and Jacobean era and the problems they faced revealed

much about the societal norms, lifestyle, and ambitions of people at the time.

Although they may be based on Elizabethan societies, Shakespeare has captured the

incessant human qualities and embedded them in these characters, thus

revolutionizing literature and marking his presence in the literary world.

The success of Shakespeare's plays made their way into the modern day with

numerous movie adaptations all over the world. Examples of these adaptations

include: Macbeth, adapted into a BBC movie called ShakespeaRe-Told: Macbeth; and

Taming of the Shrew, adapted into the 90's Hollywood hit 10 Things I Hate About

You. These adaptations capture the essential plot of the Shakespearean plays and place

them in the present world, giving them a modern twist, making them more relatable to

people of the modern time and Western cultures.

Shakespeare was a man of prodigious knowledge and an unfathomable

understanding of the human psyche. One of the human qualities Shakespeare was all

too familiar with himself was the aim of many ambitious people- to excel to the top.

Some choose to follow the path of nobility, morals, and patience, while others decide

to take matters into their own hands and take drastic measures to jump up the ladder.

The play, The Tragedy of Macbeth, is one of those stories of a man who does

whatever it takes to get into power, no matter the sacrifice and the price he has to pay

for it. The character Macbeth, however, has no sense of direction, which is clear in his

letter to his wife. Upon hearing the fate of his future in his prophecy, he turns to her


instantly, and Lady Macbeth molds him a backbone and constructs the plans for him-

to kill the king and his leader, King Duncan. The three characters carry significant

roles in the play and their formation in a story is one of common practice of

scheming.

History shows itself through a number of Shakespeare's plays, such as in The

Tragedy of King Richard, The Life of Henry the Fifth, King Lear, The Tragedy of

Hamlet King of Denmark, and of course The Tragedy of Macbeth. Each play tells the

significant story of different monarchs or legendary figures significant to the history

and culture of Shakespeare's time. The story of Macbeth follows the same

characteristics as it is based and inspired by the 11th

century Scottish King Mac

Bethad mac Findláich (Williams, 1982).

King James I of Scotland, the king of Scotland and England in the late 16th

early 17th

century, was an impressive man that admired and was admired by

Shakespeare. Shakespeare's acting company, The Kings Men, was honored and

supported by King James and this play was assumedly dedicated to him. Although

this may be true, the essence of the plot of the play follows the story of the 11th

century king of the Scots, King Mac Bethad mac Findlaich- in English, MackBeth.

Shakespeare's knowledge of King MackBeth's life was derived from Raphael

Holinshed's 1587 edition of the Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland

(Williams, 1982). As the story goes, the Scottish thane MackBeth killed King

Duncane in battle, his mother's cousin, in order to succeed the throne. However,

MackBeth did not enjoy the throne long enough before he was killed by King

Duncane's son, Malcolme's, army.


Henry Paul (as cited in Williams, 1982) claimed that the play Macbeth, which

was first performed in 1611, was written as a tribute to King James I. While others,

such as Marvin Rosenberg (as cited in Williams, 1982), have argued otherwise and

that there are in fact many aspects of the play that would have been unacceptable to

King James. Nonetheless, it has been concluded that the play was inspired by the

events in King James's life; and the characters Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Duncan,

all have traces of real traits of people of the time. Although these characters

specifically reflect personas of people directly in King James's societies, they also

portray natural human characteristics and personality traits of people in all kinds of

societies and cultures, all the way from the 11th

century BC until present day.

Not only was Shakespeare able to ignite powerful themes and perfectly

recreate important inimitable historic narratives, he also created impeccable fictional

personas based on the historic figures he found in the Chronicle. Very little could be

known about the actual MackBeth or Duncane; thus, based on their actions and

schemes, Shakespeare was able to put a person into the action- implant an identity for

the real person. Additionally, he fictionalized a wife for MackBeth, whom portrays

the dark scheming wife, Lady Macbeth, a mistake of a woman - a creature with the

body of a woman, but the heart and ambitions of a knight and the gut of a man.

The themes of murder, power, and greed were familiar in Shakespeare's plays

such as Julius Caesar, Hamlet, and Richard III, parallel the stories in history and in

Shakespeare's time. Although Shakespeare appropriated the characters and themes of

a historical event, he created the characters and enlarged the themes to suit his

audience and the events that were taking place at the time; such as witchcraft. The

addition of witchcraft not only tackled an important issue taking place at the time, it


also aestheticized the story, completely escalating it from a story out of a history

book, into an artistic and dramatic literary piece. The witches also give a true meaning

to the plot- the drive to kill Duncan. These witches act as "the devil" in religious

context – he who plays with a person's head to commit a sin. The ugly sisters add

dramatic effect to the play and give it an interesting twist, complicating the plot even

more.

King James himself was quite knowledgeable in witchcraft and published a

book in 1597 on witchery and demon spirits known as his " Daemonologie, In Forme

of a Dialogie, Divided into three Bookes", which eventually became the guide to

witch hunting and demon extinguishing. King James's interest in demonology and his

personal participation in numerous witch trials were the stimulus behind "the ugly

sisters" in Shakespeare's play, Macbeath, and the reason why so many claim that this

play was written for the satisfaction of King James (Williams, 1982). In the actual

story of MackBeth, as mentioned in the Chronicles, the "three women in strange and

wild apparel" were never identified as "witches" but rather "certeine wizards" of some

sort (Williams, 1982, p. 14). The abundance of witches and witchcraft along with

King James's cognizance of the matter were in Shakespeare's favor and his skillful

ingenuity channeled them perfectly in his story for both dramatic effect and a twist to

the plot.

Another event used as a muse for Shakespeare was the attempt of King

James's murder. On November 5th

1605, a group of Catholics under the reign of King

James I, who were discontented with his treatment of the Catholics, plotted to kill the

King and any parliament members with him at the time, in order to put his daughter,

the Catholic Queen Elizabeth, into power. The plan was unsuccessful after Guy


Fawkes, their leader, was caught moments before setting off the barrels of gunpowder

(Nicholls, 2007). This event made its way into the making of Macbeth, first as a way

to personally link the story to King James, and also to reflect the coldblooded

methods in killing monarchs to gain political and religious power.

The lust for power is a human quality that people will never get rid of. Wars

and powerful figures have stumbled into our world and unleashed the influence of

violence on the gluttony of power, especially during the 16th

and 17th

century. During

this time, a powerful monarch meant a powerful army, and a powerful army meant

ruthless killers (Cohen, 2011). A monarch increased his/her power by developing

artillery and running them by engineers and mathematicians skilled in the art of

gunnery, and eventually handing them to the armed knights, ensuring the greatest and

most powerful weaponry and number of kills fall into the hands of the ruler (Draper,

1936). Thus it was the monarch's job to ensure his armed knights were merciless at

the core, and allowed for nothing to stand in their way of getting him his power- he

created murderers.

With this idea in mind, one cannot judge Macbeth as a wicked power-hungry

killing machine, but rather, the result of a man who had the natural human drive for

power and was trained to act on this drive by his ruler, and he allowed himself to act

on it to the fullest potential. For Macbeth, it was impossible to be good and bad at the

same time (Cervel, 2010); trying to empower his king by killing but also wanting to

be in power without killing- the combination did not fit. Monarchs of the time,

unintentionally, drove their troops to becoming mass murderers, and some like King

James I, are betrayed by their people. In addition to the rage in wars and knight

training, people of the time were greatly influenced by the writings of Niccolò


Machiavelli, a 15th

century Italian philosopher, who wrote a book called The Prince,

where he describes his idea of a divine and ultimate ruler, and how to become an

irreplaceable politician, which became known as the infamous doctrine

Machiavellianism (Ferrero, 1939). Followers of these ideas believed that in order to

reach the ultimate state of power and politics, one must strive without sympathy or

remorse, to achieve supremacy. King Richard III would be another perfect example of

a true Machiavellian; despite the honesty of his betraying acts, he shows no sign of

remorse towards anyone- not even his own brother. Although Macbeth and his wife

attempt to become Machiavellians, by the end of the play, they fail to fulfill their

Machiavellian roles.

The character Macbeth is a very controversial character that has been

perceived either as a victim or as an evil murderer. Those who argue that he is a

victim in his tragic destruction claim that his actions were driven by the alluring

prophecy played out to him by the "ugly sisters", and by the threats and demeaning

intimidations from his wife, Lady Macbeth (Cervel, 2010). Others who argue that he

is a malevolent murderer assert that his evil spirit was innate in him, even if his wife

argues otherwise, and that his drive for the throne and power was extant long before

he learned of his prophecy. Lady Macbeth doubts Macbeth's "nature" which is "too

full o'th' milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way" (1.5, 14-16). Whether

Macbeth was in fact evil or if he was truly a victim, it was through this threat to his

manhood and honor that Macbeth is driven to the plot.

As a man who has been trained to kill, the threat of his incapability to murder

stands strong with him. "Courage is the distinguishing virtue of a soldier, and the

reproach of cowardice cannot be borne of any man from a woman without great


impatience" (Johnson, as cited in Miola, 2004, p. 209). In a number of Shakespeare's

plays, the threat of manhood and the diminished masculine persona is an initiative to

murder and power, such as Richard III, whom is so demolished by his deformed,

physically impotent state; he too sets out to kill as a way to regain his honor, although

in the end, he endures the same fate as Macbeth and is killed after taking the throne

(Draper, 1936). Both these tragic, yet very real stories were the common practice of

the time, a term known as regicide. Shakespeare's plays also include stories of

fratricide, such as in Hamlet, and Richard III, and Macbeth's killing of his brother-like

best friend, Banquo.

In the play of Macbeth, two incidents of regicide occur- the killing of King

Duncan, and the killing of King Macbeth; which is truly the case in the real 11th

century tragedy. The execution of King James's mother, Mary Queen of Scots, is also

considered by many to be an act of regicide on Queen Elizabeth I's part. At the time, it

was believed that a monarch was associated with God and it was his (in this case her)

divine order that entitled a monarch to the throne, which is why Queen Elizabeth

argued that "one sovereign in England was enough" (Draper, 1936, p. 82), and that

sovereign was herself.

Macbeth displays the same power hungry desire as his historic counter-part.

However, what differentiates him from the real MackBeth and the other regicidal

murderers is, his wife. The roles of Macbeth and Duncan have become clear- one was

the teacher and one was the student; their story ends with the student destroying the

teacher and the never ending Ping-Pong process. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth's

role is not quite as straightforward. She has a lot of pain bottled up inside her driving

her to let it out on others. "Come to my woman's breasts, and take my milk for gall,


you murd'ring ministers" (1.5.45). Lady Macbeth feels betrayed by the higher power

after having lost a child and thus wants to be freed of the burden on her chest and

seeks revenge- she wants power in return for her suffering (Chamberlain, 2005).

However, how much she has influenced Macbeth or how much Macbeth is aware of

the pain of his wife is never made clear in the play. Thus, her power is nevertheless

evident, and the twist to her character is, her gender.

The reign of a powerful monarch with an admirable army is envious enough,

but an attribute that makes this state even more envious is the fact that it was led by a

female- Queen Elizabeth I. It was rare at this time to see a woman in power or

influence, but with Queen Elizabeth in control, women were bringing out their guns

without holding back. Many of the women in Shakespeare's plays, such as Queen

Gertrude in Hamlet, Viola in Twelfth Night, and Katherine in Taming of the Shrew, all

reflect the revolutionized feminist qualities that were unfolding under the influence of

the Queen.

In her famous 1588 speech to the Troops at Tilbury, Queen Elizabeth strongly

states, "I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart

and stomach of a king" (Jokinen, 1996). This brilliant reference to herself is a perfect

description of Shakespeare's intentions for Lady Macbeth's personality in her famous

lines "unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty"

(1.5, 39-41). Lady Macbeth does not allow her inborn state as a woman and the

societal expectations set upon her to be a gentle and caring woman restrain her from

fulfilling her desires to be in power alongside her husband.

The creation of Lady Macbeth was necessary to complete the character of the

real MackBeth and the drive to take action against Duncane. Being married to a


Thane and of the Upper Class, after the influence of the Renaissance, a unique woman

like Lady Macbeth was much more knowledgeable and aware of the world and not

"chaste dutiful, shamefast and silent" (Norton, 2000, p. 11), as was expected in her

society. She "verbally manipulates gender values and expectations to suit her

purposes" (Thomas, 2012), and endeavors to become her husband's equal. Lady

Macbeth is one of the many social stereotypes and cultural norms Shakespeare

attacks; others being the use of witchcraft, strength in royalty, nobility, etc. It can be

argued that Lady Macbeth's power and wit were a result of characteristics and

powerful attributes Shakespeare extracted from Queen Elizabeth and embedded in her

persona. Queen Elizabeth herself was one to eradicate societal and cultural norms and

disrupt the natural order of their time; despite her success, she did in fact imbalance

the normal order, being the end of the Tudor reign and being a woman. Although

Lady Macbeth believes she is strong enough to follow through with her plan until the

end, just like her husband's fate, Lady Macbeth falls short of her disposition and

commits suicide; unable to symbolically wash away the guilt of human blood off her

fingertips. Thus, Shakespeare makes a point that despite those who appear powerful

and capable of liquefying societal holds, the evil never wins.

Evil, power, greed, murder, guilt and betrayal are all timeless and cultureless

human attributes present in our world, and the basis of Shakespeare's unique strength,

as clearly presented in Macbeth. In the BBC adaptation of Macbeth in the movie,

ShakespeaRe-Told: Macbeth, the film counterparts of the characters in the play

exemplify most of the strong traits clearly portrayed in them. The movie is placed in

21st century Scotland in a five star celebrity-chef restaurant. Joe Macbeth (Macbeth's

counterpart) is the head chef in Duncan Docherty's (King Duncan's counterpart)

restaurant and Ella Macbeth (Lady Macbeth's counterpart) is the hostess of the


restaurant. With Duncan in the spotlight and of extraordinary presence in high-class

society after the success of his restaurant (thanks to Joe), Joe and Ella begin to feel

undermined and cheated by their boss and plot to kill Duncan to gain ownership of the

restaurant and its fame- what they believe is rightfully theirs.

Joe, like Macbeth, is hesitant in committing the deed and requires the extra

push from his wife to follow through. He was generally satisfied with his position but

he was aware of the lack of appreciation from his boss. Duncan seemed to be blunt

about his treatment towards the Macbeth's, especially with his interesting relationship

with Ella. She seems to give him a lot more attention than a hostess should give to her

boss, and he seems to have a buried crush on her, which is obvious when he tells her

"in another life, I'd make a pass at you", where she responds, "in another life, I'd let

you". Their flirtatious relationship is only another reason for Joe to carry revulsion

towards Duncan and another reason for him to want Duncan dead.

When it came time for Joe to actually kill Duncan, he hesitates and cannot

fulfill the deed, demanding Ella to go and finish the job. Just like Lady Macbeth, Ella

must guide her husband step by step and clean up after him, a will of power on the

female figures. Although both these women seem to be the strong front of their

husband and the schemes, the both collapse in the end, unable to sustain the guilt and

contain their out-of-control husbands. Like Macbeth, Joe ends up killing Duncan,

Billy (Banquo) and Peter's (MacDuff) wife and children. The power-hungry

uncontainable drive to ensure his power to the end drives Joe mad and he loses sight

of what his goal truly was- to take what he believed was his. Instead, he lost himself

in the pursuit of power and ended up getting killed by Peter.


The themes of delusion, greed, guilt, power, blood, suicide, and the numerous

other themes relating to the play and the movie, exemplify the ideas of human

qualities and ambitions that will never free the human race. Just like Macbeth, who

wanted power as power was presented in his time, Joe wanted power as power was

presented in his time. Their wives just as wives throughout time, ambition for their

husbands and join them in their motivation for power. While some succeed and others

lose, the never ending battle for endowment and jumping the ladder will never end,

neither now nor centuries from now. What does change is the goal or strife, but the

human drive will live on, just like Shakespeare's plays.

Another ladder that has seemed to stand strong in society is the roles of

women and men. Men always seem to be standing strong on the top of the ladder

while women seem to be lost somewhere on the bottom. Very rarely can a woman

climb to the top and find herself equal or not intimidated by men. Women like Queen

Elizabeth and Countess of Shrewsbury, Bess of Hardwick (Royster, 2012), were two

of the most influential and powerful women of Shakespeare's time. Their passivity to

their intended role in societies compared to the roles they actually fulfill is of great

stimulus to Shakespeare in the making of his play, Taming of the Shrew. In the play,

Shakespeare tackles the issues regarding gender roles and female stereotypes, along

with matters relating to marriage, dowry, and family roles that unfortunately, still

exist today.

Sir Thomas Smith once said, "We do reject women, as those whom nature

hath made to keep home and to nourish their family and children, and not to meddle

with matters abroad, nor to bear office in a city or commonwealth" (Norton, 2000, p.

12). Unfortunately, most of the men at the time, and even today, had the same


mentality as Sir Thomas. However, Shakespeare proudly and successfully rejected the

cliché stereotype of women in Taming of the Shrew, as well as in many of his other

plays with strong female personas such as Katherine in Taming of the Shrew, Lady

Macbeth in Macbeth, Olivia in Twelfth Night, Gertrude in Hamlet, and Desdemona in

Othello (Royster, 2012). All of these female icons, although very aware of their

forsaken roles in society, create scheming and witty ways to manipulate those around

them and stand out amongst the others. Other female characters, such as Bianca, in

Taming of the Shrew, Juliet in Romeo and Juliet, Ophelia in Hamlet, and Lady Anne

in King Richard fall victims to the pressures bestowed on them by society and in

many cases, results in their destruction.

Katherine and Bianca, in Taming of the Shrew, are two perfect examples of the

contradictory personalities displayed in Shakespeare's plays, parallel those found in

society of Shakespeare's England. The play tells the story of two sisters, Katherine,

the headstrong and rude older sister, and Bianca, the quiet beautiful and admired

younger sister, both awaiting in their father's, Baptista's, house to be wed. As Sir

Thomas has clearly stated, the roles of women at the time were simply second degree

to the man, refrained to the house and obedience of the man in control of her- whether

it be her father or her husband. At the time, women had minimal legal rights and

"were denied any rightful claim to institutional authority or personal autonomy"

(Norton, 2000, p. 12). For this reason, she was legally, as well as socially, restrained

by her male hierarchal figure and fully under his mercy. Katherine, who had no say

whatsoever in her betrothal, was fully unaware of her dowry when Petruchio who

"brusquely makes his bid for Kate" (Kahn, 1975, p. 90) and her father satisfied with

the price he sold his daughter, accepts. The only way Kate would actually inherit any

of her dowry was if she were to not bare a son, or if her husband was to die before her


son was of a legal age (Greenblatt, 2000, p. 13). Thus, not only was Kate forcefully

betrothed to Petruchio, she would not gain any power from it- the power all going to

her father.

Seeing as Katherine was not up to the normal ladylike standards of the time,

her father asserts that Bianca, the desired lady of a typical marriage, would not be wed

until he was to marry off Katherine. This, although seeming so, is not a respect to

Katherine and the hierarchal system of a household (marrying off the eldest prior to

the youngest), but rather as a way to guarantee Katherine's marriage and ascertaining

more power in society as having wed both his daughters to good money (Kahn, 1975),

at the time resulting in an award of high prestige and societal rank. Shakespeare

brilliantly plays on these rituals and the completely conflicting female personas in

Baptista's family, and the transformation both females undergo throughout the play-

Katherine being 'tamed' and Bianca falling in love, a very common practice in

Shakespeare's society.

Katherine's character, being the odd girl out in society, can be considered a

mirror image of the numerous female icons in Shakespeare's plays, but also, an

impeccable reflection of the new female power- Queen Elizabeth. Being the first

female monarch to actually rule England (some say a previous Queen Matilda was

supposed to take the throne but was never actually crowned), Queen Elizabeth created

a new path for English females to follow- Katherine was of the first of her kind.

Although in her final speech, Katherine confesses to the importance of being a loyal

wife, she never belittles herself or apologizes for her shrewdness, but rather, in a way

is thanking Petruchio for releasing her from the hate she carried. Because Katherine

was not like the typical woman of the time, she suffered in such a demanding


patriarchal society and household, creating a rigid hate within her. Although Petruchio

believes he has succeeded in taming a shrew, or that he has won power over his wife,

another Machiavellian practice, on the contrary, he seems to have been tamed himself

and is actually under her control.

According to his doctrine, "Machiavelli praises the man of virtù, that rare man

who is able to change his nature with the times" (Shuqair, 2014, p.2), in other words, a

real man is one that can tame his wife. "An analysis of the portrait of marriage in Shrew

suggests that the play promotes a model of husband, reflecting standards of conduct

that are Machiavellian" (Shuqair, 2014, p. 2), thus making Petruchio the perfect

example of a Machiavellian husband. He sets out to prove his manhood by

challenging Kate's sharp tongue and rock solid attitude and accepting the challenge of

mellowing his boiling wife and wrapping her around his finger. However, some critics

have argued that although this may be true, Petruchio himself releases much of his

Machiavellian character by the end of the play, a result of falling in love and

admiration with his wife (Shuqair, 2014). The mutual respect and compromised

understanding that presents itself by the end of the play is significant proof that a man,

Machiavellian or not, can never be in full power and needs to gain his respect rather

than enforce it.

One of the interesting aspects of Elizabethan culture is the stress on marriage

and the obedience of the wife to her husband. On the surface, it seemed like a woman

without a man had more power, and marriage downgraded a woman (Greenblatt,

2000). Although this is legally true, in practice that is not always the case. Legally, a

married woman was not allowed to buy or sell property, sign a contract, and was not

allowed be dismissed from her household unless approved by the husband; and the list


continues. However, as Greenblatt clearly points out, "even within marriage, women

typically had more control over certain spheres than moralizing writers on the family

cared to admit" (2000, p. 12). In Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare played well on

this note. In his taming methods, Petruchio deprives Kate of this power to aggravate

her and leave her wanting more. He deprives her of food, he bans her from getting

involved with the servants, and does not even allow her to sleep- "thus to curb her

mad and headstrong humor"(4.1.190) and take away the few things she has the most

power with. In this way, he obliges her to earn her power by using her magical female

charm (in some cases this means her power in bed), and riding herself of her shrew

attitude to win her place in her new household. While Hortensio and Lucentio believe

they do have full obedience from their wives with absolutely no effort, they were

clearly proven wrong in the last scene of the play; proof that within the private sphere,

women had the control.

Bianca and the widow, reflecting the typical wives, prove that women in

Shakespeare's times were artificial machinery whom their men believed they drove,

but in fact, had a mind of their own. The result of this silent appearance discriminated

women from participating in society or aligning themselves alongside men- keeping

patriarchal dominance evident in society. It took a woman like Queen Elizabeth to

prove to misogynistic men that a woman can be as powerful, headstrong, and sharp

tongued like a man; characteristics clearly transparent in Katherine. However, just

like the Queen, Kate learned to control her tongue, present herself as a lady, and

charm her husband "thy lord, thy king, thy governor"(5.2.142), as a way to respect

herself as well as her husband. Going back to Queen Elizabeth's speech to the Troops

of Tilbury, she states, "I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have

placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my


subjects", respecting her knights and her loyal subjects, just as Kate has come to

respect her loyal husband.

The stereotypes of women, marriage, and family have lived on until this very

day and are evident in many different cultured societies. Evidence of this is present in

the adaptation of Taming of the Shrew in the 1999 movie, 10 Things I Hate About

You. The characters, Kat, Bianca, Patrick, Cameron, Walter, and all the other

characters, all follow the same personas as their drama counterparts. However, they

have transformed into modern 21st century personalities with similar problems but on

very different scales.

Kat (Katherine's counterpart) and Bianca (Bianca's counterpart) are sisters

together in high school, struggling in their adolescent lives with their father Walter

(Baptista's counterpart) after the death of their mother. Kat, a spiteful rebellious senior

in high school refuses to follow cliché norms of high school to "fit in", while her

sophomore sister Bianca goes to extreme measures to ensure her popularity and being

adored by all. However, Bianca is held back from the typical teenage lifestyle- dating

and partying- by her father who formulates a rule that she is not allowed to date until

Kat does (quite relevant to the play). Bianca's problems are abolished when Patrick

(Petruchio's counterpart), the senior bad-ass juvenile delinquent, is hired by the self-

centered snobby Joey (one of Bianca's suitor's counterpart; Bianca's crush in the

movie) to date Kat so that he can date Bianca. On the other hand, Cameron

(Lucentio's counterpart), who has fallen in love at first sight with Bianca and is in

cahoots with Patrick behind Joey's back, pretends to be a French tutor to win her over

with his charm and sweet heart.


Patrick, just like Petruchio, manipulatively forces Kat into dating him, for the

money of course. However, the result of the fake relationship is real feelings. The two

end up falling in love, and their loves releases them of the negative energy and anger

they both carried around for so long (or in other words, they were both tamed). As it

turns out, Patrick was not the dangerous juvenile he was rumored to be, and Kat was

an hurt teenager who had previous embarrassment and regret from previous peer

pressure that drove her to block out all traces of adolescent immaturity. The two were

able to enjoy a meaningful and enlightening relationship, despite a couple of bumps

on the road, notwithstanding the mockery of people in their high school. Bianca, with

the help of Cameron and her awareness of Joey's cocky attitude, was able to realize

her selfishness and the pain it was causing others and by the end of the movie,

developed a lot of self-awareness and realization of the truth in high school

stereotypes. Throughout the movie, the sisters have a few bonding moments that

slowly erased the animosity the two had for one another, until they finally come to

understand the other very different type of woman.

Gil Junger, like Shakespeare, tackles many of the issues that woman were

dealing with in their societies, like peer pressure for sex, wanting to be beautiful and

adored, and also the uprising feminist attitude. Kat, who was greatly hatted in her high

school, being called names like a "bitter, self-righteous hag" and "heinous bitch" is an

example of a revolutionizing feminist trying to make a point in her society (in this

case her high school) about the dangers of peer pressure and the distress of wanting to

fit in and is attacked by misogynist intimidated men. Just like Kate, Kat feels that she

must put on a high guard to protect herself from the wicked tongue of followers of the

cliché norms and empower herself by boosting her own self-ego. Bianca, who seems

to be a self-confident beautiful woman, is actually a lost girl desperate to fit in and be


more popular than her peers. In the play, the audience does not know much about

Bianca except from what her suitors say about her, and that she is an obedient 'daddy's

little girl'. In the movie however, Bianca undergoes a transformation just as important

as Kat's, with the consciousness of the truth in the high school stereotypes and the

importance of being a confident strong woman. She learns to stand up for herself, to

Joey and her friend Chastity, and develops an entirely new respect and understanding

of her sister.

Junger's movie, just like the play, creates an awareness for people on the

dangers of following cliché stereotypes in order to be accepted and the reality behind

them. They both tackle very true and real problems people in their societies are

dealing with and shed light on some of the truths behind the appearances, and the

importance of not being judgmental or hasty. Although the play is not a tragedy like

most of Shakespeare's plays, and Junger's movie is a typical chick-flick teenage

movie, both stories tell the truth about reality and a large problem women have been

facing for quite a while. The morals and lessons of the stories are both strong and

important to be understood.

The power of Shakespeare does not only lie in the beautifully written lines of

his plays, or in the magnificent portrayal of stories and characters, but also in the

aesthetic light that surrounds them. Every word in Shakespeare's lines is aestheticized

and the meaning behind every passage and theme is escalated to a world of limitless

imagination, cultures, and time. Shakespeare was a brilliant man, not only in his

words, but in his knowledge of the world. His awareness of the people in his society,

the suffering and ambitions of the different personas, and the stereotypes not typically

tackled by others, reflect his deep understanding of the human psyche and the social


difficulties. The passion he had for history and religion were evident in the

information he used in his plays and the way he wrought the unknown into something

so relatable and so real clarifies his abilities of imagination and placing anything in a

world beyond our own. Shakespeare's plays Macbeth and Taming of the Shrew are

only two of his 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two narrative poems, and numerous versus that

tell stories of the real in a unique immortal manner. Through his work, people learn

about history, philosophy, religion, society, psychology, feminism, literature, and

most importantly, life. Every one, no matter when or where, will always find

something or someone to relate to in Shakespeare's works, and the beauty of

Shakespeare will continue to adorn our movies, music, plays, stories, and even our

lives.


Reference List

Brozel, M. (Director). (2005). ShakespeaRe-Told: Macbeth [Series]. United

Kingdom: British Broadcasting Company

Bertucci, C. (2014). Rethinking Binaries by Recovering Bianca in 10 Things I Hate

About You and Zeffirelli's The Taming of the Shrew. Literature Film

Quarterly, 42(2), 414-426.

Blake, A. (2002). The Taming of the Shrew: Making fun of Katherine. The

Cambridge Quarterly, 31(3), 237-252.

Breuer, H. (1998). Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. The Explicator, 56(4),

173-175.

Cervel, S. P. (2010). Macbeth Revisited: A Cognitive Analysis. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(1),

1-22, DOI: 10.1080/10926488.2011.535412.

Cohen, D. (2011). Macbeth's Rites of Violence. Shakespeare in Southern Africa, 23,

55-89.

Chamberlain, S. (2005). Fantasizing Infanticide: Lady Macbeth and the Murdering

Mother in Early Modern England. College Literature, 32(3), 72-91.

Crocker, H. A. (2003). Affective Resistance: Performing Passivity and Playing a-Part

in "The Taming of the Shrew". Shakespeare Quarterly, 54(2), 142-159.

Culpepper, J. (2000). A Cognitive Approach to Characterization: Kiatherina in

Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. Language and Literature, 291-316.


Draper, J. W. (1936). Political Themes in Shakespeare's Later Plays. The Journal of

English and Germanic Philology, 35(1), 61-93.

Greenblatt, S. (1980). Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Greenblatt, S. (2000). The Norton Shakespeare General Introduction. (Greenblatt, S.

et al, Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Greenblatt, S. (2004). Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare.

New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Kahn, C. (1975). "The Taming of the Shrew": Shakespeare's Mirror of Marriage.

Modern Language Studies, 5(1), 88-102.

Lazar, A. (Producer), & Junger, G. (Director). (1999). 10 Things I Hate About You

[Motion Picture]. United States: Touchstone Pictures.

Miola, R. S. (Ed.). (2004). William Shakespeare MACBETH Authoritative Text

Sources and Contexts Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Nicholls, M. (2007). Strategy and Motivation in the Gunpowder Plot. The Historical

Journal, 50(4), 787-807.

Pittman, M. L. (2004). Taming 10 Things I Hate About You: Shakespeare and the

Teenage Film Audience. Literature Film Quarterly, 32(2). 144-152.

Rickard, J. (2012). The Writings of King James VI and I and Early Modern Literary

Culture. Literature Compass. 654-664.


Royster, F. T. (2012). Introduction to "Shakespeare's Female Icons": Sorcerers,

Celebrities, Aliens, and Upstarts. The Upstart Crow, 31, 6-13.

Shuqair, K. M. (2014). Matrimonial Relations in Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew:

The Machiavellian Husband/Ruler. Canadian Center of Science and

Education, 4(3), 18-27.

Thomas, C. E. (2012). (UN)Sexing Lady Macbeth: Gender, Power, and Visual

Rhetoric In Her Graphing Afterlives. The Upstart Crow, 31, 81-102.

Williams, G. W. (1982). "Macbeth" King James's Play. South Atlantic Review, 47(2),

12-21.

Withington, P. (2001). Two Renaissance: Urban Political Culture in Post-Reformation

England Reconsidered. The Historical Journal, 44(1), 239-267.

.

Shakespeare and Society

Documents

Transcript of Shakespeare and Society