The theme of Marriage in The Taming of the Shrew from LitCharts | The creators of SparkNotes
45 quotes from The Taming of the Shrew: 'My tongue will tell the anger of my Petruchio: Who knows not where a wasp does wear his sting? Katherine: Yours, if you talk of tails: and so farewell. tags: love, marriage, poem, shakespeare. Explanation of the famous quotes in The Taming of the Shrew, including all important Petruchio speaks these lines to Hortensio to explain his intention of finding a bride in Padua. the economic aspect of marriage—something that everyone in the play is keenly aware of CHARACTERS; Katherine: Character Analysis. Free Essay: An analysis of the relationship between Petruchio and Katherina throughout the play The Taming Of The Shrew Introduction: The Taming Of The.
Erostrato reveals himself, and begs clemency for Dulipo. Damon realises that Polynesta is truly in love with Erostrato, and so forgives the subterfuge.
Having been released from jail, Dulipo then discovers he is Cleander's son. Date[ edit ] Efforts to establish the play's date of composition are complicated by its uncertain relationship with another Elizabethan play with an almost identical plot but different wording and character names, A Pleasant Conceited Historie, called the taming of a Shrew.
Different theories suggest A Shrew could be a reported text of a performance of The Shrew, a source for The Shrew, an early draft possibly reported of The Shrew, or an adaptation of The Shrew. A terminus ante quem for A Shrew seems to be Augustas a stage direction at 3. Knack features several passages common to both A Shrew and The Shrew, but it also borrows several passages unique to The Shrew. This suggests The Shrew was on stage prior to June Oliver suggests the play was composed no later than He bases this on the title page of A Shrew, which mentions the play had been performed "sundry times" by Pembroke's Men.
Shakespeare In Action
When the London theatres were closed on 23 June due to an outbreak of plaguePembroke's Men went on a regional tour to Bath and Ludlow. The tour was a financial failure, and the company returned to London on 28 September, financially ruined. Over the course of the next three years, four plays with their name on the title page were published; Christopher Marlowe 's Edward II published in quarto in Julyand Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus published in quarto inThe True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York published in octavo in and The Taming of a Shrew published in quarto in May Oliver says it is a "natural assumption" that these publications were sold by members of Pembroke's Men who were broke after the failed tour.
Oliver assumes that A Shrew is a reported version of The Shrew, which means The Shrew must have been in their possession when they began their tour in June, as they didn't perform it upon returning to London in September, nor would they have taken possession of any new material at that time.
She focuses on the closure of the theatres on 23 Junearguing that the play must have been written prior to June for it to have given rise to A Shrew. Secondly, Elam suggests that Shakespeare derived his Italian idioms and some of the dialogue from Florio's Second Fruits, a bilingual introduction to Italian language and culture. Elam argues that Lucentio's opening dialogue, Tranio, since for the great desire I had To see fair Padua, nursery of arts, I am arrived for fruitful Lombardy, The pleasant garden of great Italy.
Elam's arguments suggest The Shrew must have been written bywhich places the date of composition around — Greg has demonstrated that A Shrew and The Shrew were treated as the same text for the purposes of copyrighti. There are five main theories as to the nature of this relationship: The two plays are unrelated other than the fact that they are both based on another play which is now lost. This is the Ur-Shrew theory in reference to Ur-Hamlet. A Shrew is an early draft of The Shrew. Oliver suggests, there are "passages in [A Shrew] [ In The Shrew, the Christopher Sly framework is only featured twice; at the opening of the play, and at the end of Act 1, Scene 1.
Pope added most of the Sly framework to The Shrew, even though he acknowledged in his preface that he did not believe Shakespeare had written A Shrew. By comparing seven passages which are similar in both plays, he concluded "the original conception is invariably to be found" in The Shrew.
He reached this conclusion primarily because A Shrew features numerous lines almost identical to lines in Marlowe's Tamburlaine and Dr. Instead he labelled A Shrew a bad quarto. His main argument was that, primarily in the subplot of A Shrew, characters act without motivation, whereas such motivation is present in The Shrew. Alexander believed this represents an example of a "reporter" forgetting details and becoming confused, which also explains why lines from other plays are used from time to time; to cover gaps which the reporter knows have been left.
Chamberswho reasserted the source theory. Its textual relation to The Shrew does not bear any analogy to that of other 'bad Quartos' to the legitimate texts from which they were memorised. The nomenclaturewhich at least a memoriser can recall, is entirely different. The verbal parallels are limited to stray phrases, most frequent in the main plot, for which I believe Shakespeare picked them up from A Shrew.
The Taming of the Shrew Quotes by William Shakespeare
InLeo Kirschbaum made a similar argument. In an article listing over twenty examples of bad quartos, Kirschbaum did not include A Shrew, which he felt was too different from The Shrew to come under the bad quarto banner; "despite protestations to the contrary, The Taming of a Shrew does not stand in relation to The Shrew as The True Tragedie, for example, stands in relation to 3 Henry VI.
Alexander's theory continued to be challenged as the years went on. Houk developed what came to be dubbed the Ur-Shrew theory; both A Shrew and The Shrew were based upon a third play, now lost. Duthie refined Houk's suggestion by arguing A Shrew was a memorial reconstruction of Ur-Shrew, a now lost early draft of The Shrew; "A Shrew is substantially a memorially constructed text and is dependent upon an early Shrew play, now lost.
The Shrew is a reworking of this lost play. Duthie argues this other version was a Shakespearean early draft of The Shrew; A Shrew constitutes a reported text of a now lost early draft.
In particular, he concentrated on the various complications and inconsistencies in the subplot of A Shrew, which had been used by Houk and Duthie as evidence for an Ur-Shrew, to argue that the reporter of A Shrew attempted to recreate the complex subplot from The Shrew but got confused; "the compiler of A Shrew while trying to follow the subplot of The Shrew gave it up as too complicated to reproduce, and fell back on love scenes in which he substituted for the maneuvers of the disguised Lucentio and Hortensio extracts from Tamburlaine and Faustus, with which the lovers woo their ladies.
Morris summarised the scholarly position in as one in which no clear-cut answers could be found; "unless new, external evidence comes to light, the relationship between The Shrew and A Shrew can never be decided beyond a peradventure. It will always be a balance of probabilities, shifting as new arguments and opinions are added to the scales. Nevertheless, in the present century, the movement has unquestionably been towards an acceptance of the Bad Quarto theory, and this can now be accepted as at least the current orthodoxy.
The Early Quartos series. Miller agrees with most modern scholars that A Shrew is derived from The Shrew, but he does not believe it to be a bad quarto. Instead, he argues it is an adaptation by someone other than Shakespeare. In The Shrew, after the wedding, Gremio expresses doubts as to whether or not Petruchio will be able to tame Katherina. As Gremio does have a counterpart in I Suppositi, Miller concludes that "to argue the priority of A Shrew in this case would mean arguing that Shakespeare took the negative hints from the speeches of Polidor and Phylema and gave them to a character he resurrected from Supposes.
This is a less economical argument than to suggest that the compiler of A Shrew, dismissing Gremio, simply shared his doubts among the characters available. For him, adaptation includes exact quotation, imitation and incorporation of his own additions. This seems to define his personal style, and his aim seems to be to produce his own version, presumably intended that it should be tuned more towards the popular era than The Shrew. He points out that the subplot in The Shrew is based on "the classical style of Latin comedy with an intricate plot involving deception, often kept in motion by a comic servant.
He points to the fact that in The Shrew, there is only eleven lines of romance between Lucentio and Bianca, but in A Shrew, there is an entire scene between Kate's two sisters and their lovers. This, he argues, is evidence of an adaptation rather than a faulty report; while it is difficult to know the motivation of the adapter, we can reckon that from his point of view an early staging of The Shrew might have revealed an overly wrought play from a writer trying to establish himself but challenging too far the current ideas of popular comedy.
The Shrew is long and complicated. It has three plots, the subplots being in the swift Latin or Italianate style with several disguises. Its language is at first stuffed with difficult Italian quotations, but its dialogue must often sound plain when compared to Marlowe's thunder or Greene's romance, the mouth-filling lines and images that on other afternoons were drawing crowds. An adapter might well have seen his role as that of a 'play doctor' improving The Shrew — while cutting it — by stuffing it with the sort of material currently in demand in popular romantic comedies.
Oliver argues the version of the play in the First Folio was likely copied not from a prompt book or transcript, but from the author's own foul paperswhich he believes showed signs of revision by Shakespeare. When Shakespeare rewrote the play so that Hortensio became a suitor in disguise Litiomany of his lines were either omitted or given to Tranio disguised as Lucentio.
For example, in Act 2, Scene 1, Tranio as Lucentio and Gremio bid for Bianca, but Hortensio, who everyone is aware is also a suitor, is never mentioned. In Act 3, Scene 2, Tranio suddenly becomes an old friend of Petruchio, knowing his mannerisms and explaining his tardiness prior to the wedding.
Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew": An Analysis of a Tamed Kate
However, up to this point, Petruchio's only acquaintance in Padua has been Hortensio. However, as far as Hortensio should be concerned, Lucentio has denounced Bianca, because in Act 4, Scene 2, Tranio disguised as Lucentio agreed with Hortensio that neither of them would pursue Bianca, and as such, his knowledge of the marriage of who he supposes to be Lucentio and Bianca makes no sense.
From this, Oliver concludes that an original version of the play existed in which Hortensio was simply a friend of Petruchio's, and had no involvement in the Bianca subplot, but wishing to complicate things, Shakespeare rewrote the play, introducing the Litio disguise, and giving some of Hortensio's discarded lines to Tranio, but not fully correcting everything to fit the presence of a new suitor. Upon returning to London, they published A Shrew insome time after which Shakespeare rewrote his original play into the form seen in the First Folio.
Petruchio - Wikipedia
Controversy[ edit ] Kevin Black in his "wedding outfit" in the Carmel Shakespeare Festival production. The Taming of the Shrew has been the subject of critical controversy. Dana Aspinall writes "Since its first appearance, some time between andShrew has elicited a panoply of heartily supportive, ethically uneasy, or altogether disgusted responses to its rough-and-tumble treatment of the 'taming' of the 'curst shrew' Katherina, and obviously, of all potentially unruly wives.
Do we simply add our voices to those of critical disapproval, seeing Shrew as at best an 'early Shakespeare', the socially provocative effort of a dramatist who was learning to flex his muscles? Or as an item of social archaeology that we have long ago abandoned? Or do we 'rescue' it from offensive male smugness? Or make an appeal to the slippery category of ' irony '?
Hibbard argues that during the period in which the play was written, arranged marriages were beginning to give way to newer, more romantically informed unions, and thus people's views on women's position in society, and their relationships with men, were in a state of flux. As such, audiences may not have been as predisposed to tolerate the harsh treatment of Katherina as is often thought.
In a mirror of the original, his new wife attempts successfully to tame him — thus the tamer becomes the tamed.
Although Fletcher's sequel is often downplayed as merely a farce, some critics acknowledge the more serious implications of such a reaction. Lynda Boose, for example, writes, "Fletcher's response may in itself reflect the kind of discomfort that Shrew has characteristically provoked in men and why its many revisions since have repeatedly contrived ways of softening the edges.
For some critics, "Kate's taming was no longer as funny as it had been [ Marcus very much believes the play to be what it seems. She argues A Shrew is an earlier version of The Shrew, but acknowledges that most scholars reject the idea that A Shrew was written by Shakespeare. She believes one of the reasons for this is because A Shrew "hedges the play's patriarchal message with numerous qualifiers that do not exist in" The Shrew.
For example, director Conall Morrisonwrote in I find it gobsmacking that some people see the play as misogynistic.
I believe that it is a moral tale.
I believe that it is saying — "do not be like this" and "do not do this. He only wanted to have the relationship to uphold or improve his own reputation in the town.
In this interpretation, Petruchio marries Katharine solely for her dowry. The counterargument is that Petruchio develops love for Katharine and tames her because he sees her shrewishness as a condition that she cannot cure on her own. Another interpretation is that Petruchio likes Katharine for her strong, challenging personality and takes on taming her as a fun challenge.
There is also some debate about how seriously we should take Petruchio, and hence how we should interpret the meaning of the play. His ridiculous actions, including his unconventional attire at his wedding and his treatment of Katharine once they are married, are sometimes viewed as a reflection of his descent into madness. On the other hand, some see Petruchio as the fool of the play and attribute his actions to intended comic relief. Petruchio becomes the shrew[ edit ] Petruchio marries Katharine to gain wealth.
However, he is not content with her shrewish behaviour and he goes through great measures to assert his dominance over her and tame her. He believes that the only way to get through to Katharine is by giving her a taste of her own medicine. Petruchio takes on the role of a shrew to prove to his wife that this kind of behaviour is unpleasant. He makes a scene as he shows up late to his own wedding, and dressed inappropriately for the occasion. He decides that he will be the one to determine when Katharine will eat or sleep, believing that depriving her of her needs makes her more submissive to him.
Toward this end, he also toys with her mind. On their journey back to Padua, Petruccio refuses to continue until Katharine agrees with him that the midday sun is the moon.
What Petruchio neglects to realise is that he is not only degrading Katharine by doing this, but he is also degrading himself. He transforms into a shrew himself while trying to change Katharine. By resorting to giving Katharine a taste of her own medicine, he socially degrades himself by acting shrewish.