8220;thou” and “thy.” This alteration typifies both her husband’s and her own speeches in scenes where they play an act. Thereby, her speech seems to be simply another great performance, rather than evidence of her tameness.The implications of Katerina’s metaphors and the subtleties of her language further disqualify her last speech as a demonstration of obedience. Katerina compares an angry woman with a “fountain troubled / Muddy, ill-seeming. . .And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty will deign to sip” (5.2.142-146). By characterizing domineering women as the source of water for a thirsty wanderer, she grants women dominance as the provider of the situation. Her use of the word “deign” implies that men must “condescend” or “lower themselves” in order to take anything these women offer (Webster’s 723). By implying that the men must lower their status, she further qualifies women as the dominant force. This example also suggests that men will not pay attention to their wives if they feel threatened by them because they will refuse to “condescend.” Therefore, Katerina’s speech suggests that women only need to appear temperate in order to gain the attention they desire.Examining the roles of the provider and the recipient in marriage, Katerina again inverts the classical conception of the dominant player. During her lecture, she implies that women, the reciever, need to perform no duties but accept their provisions. Meanwhile their husbands, while the male provider “commits his body / To painful labor…to watch the night in storms, the day in cold” only desiring “love” and “fair looks” from their wives (5.2.148-153). According to this description, it appears that the women manage the dominant role, while their husbands ridiculously scramble to win a passing glance. After a close exa...
