Shakespeare and Stereotypes of Marriage
Mary Purnell
Due to the explosion of print culture, Elizabethan England saw marriage emerge as a topic of social conversation. In numerous essays and ditties, a commonly perceived incompatibility between men and women began to take shape, and gendered stereotypes quickly became popularized in common literature. Shakespeare plays up this gender incompatibility in the relationship between the Duke and Duchess of York in Richard II, deliberately leaning on these stereotypes as a source of humor. He writes the Duchess as a demanding, “shrill-voiced suppliant” whose ability to get her way rests on her knack for irritating people (V.iii.75). She is a model for the fussy wife; even in her supplications to the king to spare her son, she asserts her superiority in a brief but wildly presumptuous etiquette lesson:
KING HENRY: Good aunt, stand up.
DUCHESS: Nay, do not say “stand up.”
Say “pardon” first, and afterwards “stand up.”
An if I were thy nurse, thy tongue to teach,
“Pardon” should be the first word of thy speech.
(114-117)
Even after this audacious and rather insulting tirade, the Duchess still manages to get her way: Aumerle is spared. There is a clear discrepancy between her poor behavior and the noticeable lack of consequences, and embedded in this discrepancy is the popular female stereotype that permeated early modern literature: the pushy woman who uses her powers of criticism to get what she wants. We see it epitomized in an anonymously-published ditty called “The Batchelors delight” (ca. 1650), in which a nagging wife transforms her poor husband into nothing short of a slave, making demands and going so far as to “beat him with the Ladle” should he disregard her. The unhappiness in the Duke and Duchess’s marriage, which presumably stems from this pattern in the Duchess’s character, is evidenced through the numerous gendered insults her husband throws her way. He calls her “thou fond mad woman” (V.ii.104), “foolish woman” (88), “frantic woman” (V.iii.89), and circulates through these three at leisure. Each of these insults could be just as easily applied to the wife in “The Batchelors delight.” Through them, Shakespeare perpetuates the stereotypes already at work in early modern literature, and uses them humorously to his advantage.
But in Henry IV, Part One¸ he departs from these stereotypes in his depiction of Hotspur and Lady Percy’s marriage. While their marriage is hardly free from conflict, it appears to be based on genuine mutual love and concern. Kate’s first interaction with Hotspur begins with an earnest plea that he tell her what’s been troubling him, but when he neglects to take her concern seriously, she lashes out with a brash insult: “Out, you mad-headed ape!” (II.iii.82). Just like that, the two are fighting, and verbal abuses fly between them. Kate pushes her husband, and promises to get to the bottom of his worries: “I’ll know your business, Harry, that I will” (85). It is in response to this demand for information that Hotspur lashes out with a shocking declaration: “I love thee not. / I care not for thee, Kate” (95-96).
But he doesn’t mean it. And although Kate interrogates him about it, she knows not to take these spiteful words to heart. The matter is behind them in the space of five lines, and soon, Hotspur is back to calling his wife “gentle Kate,” a “constant” woman he can trust (114-118). The relationship is certainly volatile, and the arguments many. As quickly as they take up arms, they resolve their disagreement with gentle words. But the underlying foundation for this marriage is undoubtedly real love; Kate doesn’t pry out of desire for control; she pries out of concern for her husband – perhaps to a fault. In this, we see another depiction of a woman that portrays her as imperfect, but deeply caring.
Kate and Hotspur’s relationship is not the stereotypical one that we see in popular early modern literature. It provides us with a clear instance of Shakespeare breaking away from the pre-packaged and gendered image of matrimony, counteracting his conformity to the trope in the Duke and Duchess’s relationship. In these two examples, Shakespeare plays upon a stereotyped marriage as well as examines the complexities of a more realistic one. He explores both the values of real marriages and the exaggerated public perceptions of them, demonstrating the understanding that both the private and public aspects of the institution define it in equal parts.
In these examples from Richard II and Henry IV, Part One, Shakespeare provides a classic example of how the world historically understood marriage. It was – and continues to be – an ever-changing topic of social discussion, something that's fluid and multi-faceted. The stereotypes are there, but so are the underlying moments of genuine humanity and emotional contact that make a relationship real.
But he doesn’t mean it. And although Kate interrogates him about it, she knows not to take these spiteful words to heart. The matter is behind them in the space of five lines, and soon, Hotspur is back to calling his wife “gentle Kate,” a “constant” woman he can trust (114-118). The relationship is certainly volatile, and the arguments many. As quickly as they take up arms, they resolve their disagreement with gentle words. But the underlying foundation for this marriage is undoubtedly real love; Kate doesn’t pry out of desire for control; she pries out of concern for her husband – perhaps to a fault. In this, we see another depiction of a woman that portrays her as imperfect, but deeply caring.
Kate and Hotspur’s relationship is not the stereotypical one that we see in popular early modern literature. It provides us with a clear instance of Shakespeare breaking away from the pre-packaged and gendered image of matrimony, counteracting his conformity to the trope in the Duke and Duchess’s relationship. In these two examples, Shakespeare plays upon a stereotyped marriage as well as examines the complexities of a more realistic one. He explores both the values of real marriages and the exaggerated public perceptions of them, demonstrating the understanding that both the private and public aspects of the institution define it in equal parts.
In these examples from Richard II and Henry IV, Part One, Shakespeare provides a classic example of how the world historically understood marriage. It was – and continues to be – an ever-changing topic of social discussion, something that's fluid and multi-faceted. The stereotypes are there, but so are the underlying moments of genuine humanity and emotional contact that make a relationship real.