Evan Fairbairn

Prof. David Hawkes

ENG 534: Shakespeare Studies

April 26, 2019

“Love,” Marriage, and Pronouns:

Betrothal Rites in The Tempest and The Shrew

Arranged marriage is today a touchy subject, yet we often think of the topic as something

inherent to “older” or “simpler” times. However, Martin Ingram, in his essay Love, Sex and

Marriage, points out that “Historians agree that simple models of ‘arranged’ or ‘free’ or

‘individualistic’ marriage are inapplicable to Shakespearean England” (Shakespeare, an Oxford

Guide, 118). In this light there would obviously be nothing simple about marriage rites in

Shakespeare’s plays, and an analysis of power dynamics in The Tempest and The Taming of the

Shrew, as seen through the use of pronouns, reveals a fascinating revelation of the difference

between the “true” love of Miranda and Ferdinand in The Tempest and the earned love of

Katherina and Petruccio in The Shrew. The former shows the enforced distance between two

individuals who are manipulated into marriage by a powerful man, and the latter shows the more

intimate, and ultimately more fruitful, development of love between two individuals who had to

figure things out for themselves.

How are we to understand the relationship that develops between Katherina and Petruccio

in Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew? One reading of the play might reveal a Kate who has

been completely subjugated by her husband. Another might show the development from a rivalry

of wits to a softening of two hearts. Another might interpret Kate as developing in power, if not

over Petruccio, but over other characters in the play. However, a close look at the use of second-
person pronouns in key scenes reveals a more complex relationship between these two

individuals. In light of this perspective, Katherina and Petruccio as characters are both master

manipulators, both over each other and the other characters in the play.

For Miranda and Ferdinand, however, the use of pronouns in their relationship (if we can

actually even call it that, but more on that later), reveals a strained distance enforced by the

manipulation of Prospero. He is the one who arranges everything, he is the one who brings the

two together, and manipulates every moment of every situation to bring himself back into power

as the “rightful” Duke of Milan.

As David Crystal explains in his essay “The Language of Shakespeare,” thou was used

by superiors to inferiors, and you would usually be used by inferiors to superiors. However, as he

states and is particularly salient to this essay, “people would also use thou when they wanted

special intimacy,” (73) while “the upper classes used you to each other, as a rule, even when they

were closely related” (74). As a rough overview, Petruccio tends to switch between thou and you

when speaking with Kate with seemingly reckless abandon throughout the play (although this

essay will prove, I hope, that his usage is particularly intentional), while Katherina is far more

judicious in her choice of pronouns when addressing her suitor. The purposes of their usage of

these pronouns is a key indicator, I believe, of their developing manipulative power over each

other. As the play develops, however, they harness their two wits and become puppet masters

over the other characters in the play.

For Miranda and Ferdinand, however, this switching between pronouns is entirely and

conspicuously absent. Not once throughout the entire duration of the play do they refer to one

another using the informal thou. As stated above, thou is often used to indicate a closeness or

equality between two individuals. The only time Miranda uses thou in the play is when she
berates Caliban for boasting about when he attempted to rape her. She rages, calling him an

“Abhorrèd slave, which any print of goodness wilt not take, being capable of all ill. I pitied

thee,” and reminds him that it was fitting that he “wast thou deservedly confined into this rock”

(1.2.350-60, emphasis mine). In this light, this might be the only time that Miranda truly shows

any real emotion beyond just lovey-dovey affectations directed toward Ferdinand or ignorant

awe at the sight of other human beings. Even so, many editors attribute this monologue to

Prospero, as it seems “inappropriate for Miranda” (NS, footnote 8, 3226). It does seem to make

more sense to attribute it to Prospero, for, as Stephen Greenblatt describes, Prospero has planned

for Ferdinand and Miranda to meet “in what is essentially a carefully planned dynastic alliance”

(NS, 3207). If this is the case, Caliban’s attempted rape of Miranda would potentially ruin

Prospero’s plans of a clean return to power in Milan, especially if Miranda had borne Caliban a

son, even if he was a bastard born of rape. If we do attribute the monologue to Miranda, her use

of thou in reference to Caliban is the only time she uses the informal second-person pronoun, and

is thus the only time she switches code to speak down to another character in the play.

In The Shrew, the first meeting of Katherina and Petruccio in Act 2, Scene 1 is a helpful

example of the more nuanced implication of their signature code switching. The meeting begins

formally, with Petruccio greeting Katherina by bidding her “Good morrow, Kate, for that’s your

name, I hear,” and her equally formal “Well have you heard, but something hard of hearing:

They call me Katherine that do talk of me” (182-4). It is this formal discourse that appears to

aggravate Katherina and begin the argument that follows for nearly 100 more lines. It is perhaps

her combative response that softens Petruccio’s wooing, for he switches to the informal thou

forms after calling her a liar. He offers his “consolation” stating that he has been “Hearing thy
mildness praised in every town, thy virtues spoke of and thy beauty sounded” and so on (185-

192).

The several dozen lines that follow show this strategic switching of forms on the part of

Petruccio and obstinate formality on the part of Katherina. He seems to be looking for the right

way to express his feelings for her, keeping formal distance when he tells her that “‘Twas told

me you were rough and coy and sullen,” (240) and perhaps indicating his warm disposition when

he insists that “thou art pleasant, gamesome, passing courteous,” (242) switching mid-

monologue to the informal. Katherina, on the other hand seems to desire maintaining formal

distance until she becomes fed up with his advances and tells him “Go, fool, and whom thou

keep’st command” (254). This is the first and only time she uses this form in the entire

interaction. While at times she seems like she wants out of the conversation, throughout the vast

majority of this repartee she seems like willing rival to his banter. Petruccio seems to understand

that he’s met his match.

He speaks thereafter not of taming her, but of marrying her. That is, until her father

appears onstage. He is speaking of her beauty and his love for her when he says “Thy beauty that

doth make me like thee well—Thou must be married to no man but me,” but then when her

father makes his appearance, he abruptly changes tack, stating “For I am he am born to tame you,

Kate, and bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate conformable as other household Kates” (272-5).

It is obviously up to the director of a stage production of the play to determine if Petruccio

notices that Baptista is onstage, but his shift in formality and intention, I argue, should lead a

director to instruct the actor portraying Petruccio to make it clear that the suitor has noticed the

father. It is clear that Petruccio has warm feelings for Katherina, as indicated with his parlance

prior to her father’s arrival, but understands the necessity to keep up appearances if he is going to
marry this highborn woman, as indicated with his switch upon Baptista’s arrival. Just like with

Prospero, the presence of the powerful father figure dictates the pronouns being used, and

therefore the power relations that are extant.

In contrast, the discussions between Miranda and Ferdinand in The Tempest show a far

more consistently measured distance between the two young lovers. For one, they are never far

from the omnipresent eye of Prospero, save for one brief moment in Act 3, Scene 1 (and even

then, he is still watching them from a hidden vantage point). Even though they think they are

alone, the strained formality of their relationship is apparent. When she sees him struggling with

a burden of firewood, she entreats him: “If you’ll sit down I’ll bear your logs the while” (23-4,

emphasis mine). He chivalrously declines, stating that he would rather suffer brutal pains “than

you should such dishonor undergo while I sit lazy by” (27-8, emphasis mine). Even without this

discussion of their use of pronouns, the nature of their “love” is called into question briefly after

the aforementioned exchange, when Ferdinand admits that he doesn’t even know Miranda’s

name.

Prospero has effectively ensorcelled the two of them. Just as he has manipulated the very

laws of nature, so too has he manipulated the hearts of these two ignorant children (Miranda is

15 years old during the play). When he tells her of how fast he fell in love with her, it is no

coincidence that he says “the very instant I saw you did my heart fly to your service, there

resides to make me slave to it” (64-6, emphasis mine). The formal, and pervasive, you in this

selection is telling, but even more tainting of their love is his description of his heart as a slave to

hers. Enslavement is the role of Prospero. He repeatedly refers to Caliban and Ariel, his native

servants on this island, as his slaves. It takes no large leap of the imagination to consider whether
Prospero has also enslaved the hearts of Ferdinand and Miranda, two noble children whose

binding through arranged marriage will ensure his re-ascension to power in Europe.

In contrast to the more established political roles of Miranda and Ferdinand, it is

important to note at this point that Katherina and Petruccio are people of tenuous position in the

social structure of Padua. Petruccio is a bachelor, the son of a man of high reputation (Baptista

seems to “know him well” [2.1.70]) and so would understandably be anxious to prove himself to

the upper crust of Padua by both presenting himself with distinction and marrying well.

Katherina is likewise in a troublesome spot: she is singlehandedly strangling her family’s ability

to advance in the social strata. Bianca, being the younger daughter, cannot marry until Katherina

finds a match. Furthermore, her hesitance to marry has labelled her as a “shrew” by all in the

play. She, like Petruccio, stands alone. In the initial meeting between these two disparate

individuals in Act 2, Scene 1, we see them become co-conspirators.

Their conspiracy comes to head at the end of Act 5, Scene 1. Baptista learns of the

convoluted plot for Bianca’s hand, and storms offstage in pursuit of the offending gentlemen.

Petruccio, perhaps sensing that this revelation might endanger his marriage to Katherina, wants

to go home. Katherina takes this opportunity to seal her dedication to their marriage with a kiss.

In an extremely rare usage of the informal thou, she says to Petruccio: “I will give thee a kiss.

Now, pray thee, love, stay” (131). The rare intimacy expressed by Katherina here indicates her

understanding of what is to come in the rest of the play. What follows in Act 5, Scene 2 is, I

argue, a consummation of this unspoken conspiracy.

By playing along with the social strictures of their society, the lovers in The Shrew

manage to publicly belittle all the characters in the play who once held them in low regard, all

the while sealing their social position in Padua’s wealthy elite. In contrast, the only character
capable of manipulating anyone in The Tempest is Prospero. Only after he has humiliated his

enemies into obeisance and ensured his rise to power does he break his staff and drown his book.

While Stephen Greenblatt points out that Prospero “begs for pardon” (NS, 3211) from the

audience at the end of the play, the “love” he enforces between his daughter and Ferdinand might

be unforgivable.