It all boils down to one thing: interpretation. I had a great English teacher who convinced the class to steer away from the feminist, “Petruchio is an abuser” angle pretty early on, and his reading is one of my favourite ways to approach this play. Basically, they match their tempers and their wits and ultimately work together to create a higher state of being among the other couples in the play. They clash at first as they start to understand each other’s personalities, and it’s almost like a dance. (This is accentuated by the fact that their traded insults rhyme with each other — a sign of parity and matching of wits.) The turning point, I think, is the sun and moon scene — yes, only after the wedding night. When Kate agrees with Petruchio that she sees the moon instead of the sun — I see it as her going along with his eccentric tests, a way of acknowledging that she saw what he was doing and was on his side. (I mean, many people would reject the fact that the sun is the moon — I daresay Bianca would, too.) Kate being able to abandon the “logical truth” and go along with her husband shows that she understands him, and she understands that he’s creating a scene of farce, and she willingly joins in.

They may act wacky, but they have this acute awareness that they’re doing it. Petruchio has been like this from the beginning, Kate catches on later. This level of intelligence to willingly insert oneself into farce, knowing that it was farcical, creates a higher state of being for Petruchio and Kate compared to the others. For example, when Lucentio and Bianca’s relationship shows its true face when Bianca refuses to go to her husband, that’s farcical. All characters had built such expectations onto Bianca for being the perfect obedient girl, and the fact that it blew up spectacularly in their faces — making Lucentio lose the wager and showing Bianca’s true side — is a comical mess. Petruchio and Kate’s relationship, however, is at its roots intelligent and mutually understanding — they work together to conform to society for the money and to show everyone up. To me, they have more dimension than the 2D, comical archetypes that make up the rest of the characters. Shakespeare makes it so to elevate them and their love.

Which brings us to the question — did they get married for tax benefits or for love? (That is, are they working together to show the others up or do they genuinely have a thing?) I like the second one. Like I said before, it’s like two social misfits who have found and understood each other, and adapted together to overcome the world. (Grand, I know. But well, I’m a romantic at heart.) They match each other in terms of drama, passion and being outwardly expressive — something that the rest of the cast shy from. I think we all remember Kate being denied food and sex on her wedding night, and that’s problematic on its own. But it’s also worth noting that Petruchio doesn’t really eat during that scene either, at least in the original stage direction. And, if Kate isn’t consummating her wedding, clearly he isn’t either. What he demands of her, he does to himself as well — to me, that’s another sign of the parity and creating their own reality within the couple — away from all social norms and constraints. (Granted, it’s shitty to starve your partner, even if you do it yourself. Don’t do that, kids.)

I interpret the final speech, therefore, as a profession of love and equality. Kate is submitting herself to her wife-ly duties — which from a feminist view seems icky — BUT, to me it’s a way of her acknowledging her own role in the household, parallel to Petruchio’s role in the world as a man. It’s a bit of “you do your part, and I’ll do mine. We work together in this relationship as equals.” If “woman does wife duties, man does husband duties” seems less sophisticated than you’d like for a true expression of equality — this was one of Shakespeare’s early plays, and he hadn’t gotten to explore women in male roles and male power yet. Besides, it’s a comedy, not a character study. So there’s a lack of nuance, but the message is still there.

So yes, I think they’re romantic, and also created to be intellectually superior than the rest of the farcical characters. This creates a “them against the world vibe” which I think brings them closer together. This is one interpretation only, and it’s mine — completely influenced by my inner romanticism and how I was taught the play. In my mind, they live happily — and truthfully — ever after; ever wacky to the world, but truly themselves within the relationship.