When we think about the structure of society in Shakespeare’s time, one concept often emerges: the “Great Chain of Being.” This hierarchical framework was a widely accepted worldview during the Elizabethan era, suggesting that everything in the universe is ranked in a strict order. From God at the top, down through angels, humans, animals, plants, and finally inanimate objects—this idea not only influenced philosophy and religion but also dramatically shaped literature. In Shakespeare’s plays “The Taming of the Shrew” and “Richard III,” we can clearly see how this concept plays out through characters’ actions and societal roles. It highlights themes of power, control, and social status that resonate even today.
The Hierarchical Structure in “The Taming of the Shrew”
“The Taming of the Shrew” presents us with an intriguing exploration of gender roles within this hierarchical structure. At first glance, it might seem that Petruchio’s mission to ‘tame’ Katherina is merely about domesticating a strong-willed woman; however, when viewed through the lens of the Great Chain of Being, it becomes much more than that. In this play, Katherina stands at odds with societal expectations for women—who are typically seen as subordinate to men. Her fiery spirit directly challenges this social order.
Petruchio’s approach to ‘taming’ her reflects an attempt to restore balance according to his understanding of their roles in society: he must be dominant while she must submit. This dynamic reinforces traditional views on gender hierarchy—men wielding power over women—as dictated by the Great Chain. But here’s where it gets interesting: as Katherina undergoes her transformation throughout the play and ultimately appears to accept her role as a submissive wife at the end, we have to question whether she has genuinely internalized these beliefs or if she is just playing along with Petruchio’s game.
Some might argue that Katherina’s final speech endorses patriarchal values; however, I believe there’s room for interpretation here. Is she simply conforming to expectations? Or could it be seen as a strategic move—a clever maneuver within a flawed system? This ambiguity allows us to explore deeper questions about identity and autonomy while still acknowledging how rigidly structured society dictated behaviors based on one’s position within this chain.
Power Dynamics in “Richard III”
Now let’s shift our focus to “Richard III.” If “The Taming of The Shrew” deals with domestic power struggles underlined by gender politics, “Richard III” brings us face-to-face with political machinations and ambition gone awry—the ultimate expression of disruption within this Great Chain framework. Richard Plantagenet is an excellent example here; he embodies ambition at its most ruthless level as he seeks ascendancy despite being born physically deformed (which is itself seen as an affront against nature). His rise through manipulation reveals how his disregard for established order leads not only to personal gain but also chaos across England.
The way Richard moves up ranks—from Duke to King—highlights another key aspect associated with the Great Chain: when someone disrupts their designated place (or rather when Richard forcibly repositions himself), disorder follows suit. His treachery leads not just him but also those around him down a path filled with destruction—a clear indication that violating these natural hierarchies has dire consequences.
Furthermore—and perhaps most compellingly—we see Richard become increasingly paranoid as he consolidates power; this serves as a metaphorical representation of his unstable grasp on authority obtained through nefarious means rather than divine right or noble birthright (the latter being crucial components tied closely together within our Great Chain). What was once an orderly arrangement starts spiraling into madness until ultimately leading toward his own downfall; so much for breaking free from constraints!
Conclusion: Reflection on Hierarchy
The exploration of these two plays showcases distinct manifestations surrounding our understanding—and sometimes subversion—of hierarchical structures pervasive during Shakespearean times via both comedic devices (in “Taming”) alongside darker themes entwined into tragic narratives (in “Richard”). While Petruchio aims at enforcing traditional gender roles reflective upon hierarchical ideals presented through language used towards Katharina who defies such stereotypes initially—alluding back towards commentary regarding female autonomy—it contrasts sharply against Richard III whose villainous pursuits serve exemplarily well illuminating repercussions due neglecting said chain altogether! Ultimately speaking volumes regarding humanity’s relationship towards authority regardless if they find themselves bound underneath oppressive systems versus attempting clamber upwards atop ranks defined by wealth/status alone!
References
- Shakespeare, William. “The Taming of The Shrew.” Edited by John Russell Brown.
- Shakespeare, William. “Richard III.” Edited by John Dover Wilson.
- Eagleton, Terry. “How To Read A Poem.” Wiley-Blackwell.
- Muirhead Alexander & Ian Moulton (Eds.). “The Cambridge Companion To Shakespeare.” Cambridge University Press.
- Kahn, Coppelia & Michael Axtell (Eds.). “Shakespeare’s Feminism.” Routledge.
