THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. INTRODUCTION. THE HE nature of Shakespeare's relation to this comedy cannot be very exactly defined. That he had some claim to its authorship, the admission of it into the folio of 1623 is sufficient evidence; but were this wanting, it has certain passages which, like Hero, father themselves, and show their paternity by marks as unmistakable as Prince Hal's villainous trick of the eye and foolish hanging of the nether lip. Still it is extremely difficult, or, it were better at once to admit, quite impossible, to decide where Shakespeare's work begins and ends. Internal evidence is so strong in many parts that we can confidently say, this is Shakespeare's; and evidence both internal and external establishes, beyond a doubt, that certain other parts are not Shakespeare's; but between these two there is a very wide space of debatable ground. The truth is, that the comedy, like others of its time, is compounded of as many elements as Jaques' melancholy, and that Shakespeare's hand, while it furnished some of them, touched all to harmonious blending. In 1594, A Pleasaunt Conceited Historie, called The Taming of a Shrew, was published, having before that date been Sundry Times acted by the Right Honourable the Earle of Pembrooke his Seruants.* From this play our Taming of the Shrew differs in structure, only by the addition of an underplot which has no influence on the main action, while the thoughts and the language of the two are the same, with slight modifications, for whole Scenes together. No attempt was made to disguise the kind or the degree of obligation which the later play was under to the earlier; while at the same time the utmost freedom was used in altering, adding to, and improving the original work; and the comedy, as * Reprinted by the Shakespeare Society, and by Steevens in 1776. we have it now, is plainly the result, not of the effort or the purpose of any one man, but of managerial contrivance and combination to supply a theatrical exigency: hence no more labor was expended upon it than was absolutely necessary. A play in Shakespeare's day was as often written by two, or three, or four persons as by one: each theatre had several poets and playwrights in its pay, if not in its company, ready to write or rewrite, as the spirit moved or occasion required; and Shakespeare's own company was of course not an exception to the general rule. Our Taming of the Shrew is an example of the result of this system. In it three hands at least are traceable; that of the author of the old play, that of Shakespeare himself, and that of a colaborer. The first appears in the structure of the plot, and in the incidents and the dialogue of most of the minor Scenes, many of which are particularly referred to in the Notes; to the last must be assigned the greater part of the love business between Bianca and her two suitors; while to Shakespeare belong the strong, clear characterization, the delicious humor and the rich verbal coloring of the recast Induction, and all the Scenes in which Katharina and Petruchio and Grumio are the prominent figures, together with the general effect produced by scattering lines and words and phrases here and there, and removing others elsewhere, throughout the rest of the play. The old play is among the best productions of Shakespeare's elder contemporaries. Though its serious dialogue is formal and heavy, and its comic scenes are made up of grossness and triviality, it contains many passages filled with fine imagery and nervous diction, and its characters and action are imbued with a genuine human interest. It must be confessed, too, that not all of the formality and heaviness was eliminated in the preparation of the new play, and that not a little of the grossness and the triviality seems to have been purposely retained. It has been conjectured that Shakespeare himself was the author of the old play, and there are lines in it which in the degree of their excellence would not be unworthy of his earlier years, although their merit is not of his kind. It is quite uncertain who was the author of The Taming of a Shrew. Malone supposed, and Mr. Knight has argued, that it was Robert Greene; but an American correspondent of the latter showed that if Greene were its author, he was not only an open imitator of Marlowe, but a deliberate plagiarist from him in at least ten passages. In my opinion, it is the joint production of Greene, Marlowe, and, possibly, Shakespeare, who seem to have worked together for the Earl of Pembroke's Servants during the first three years of Shakespeare's London life. Much the greater part of it appears to be the work of Greene: Marlowe probably contributed but little, and Shakespeare, if at all, much less. The changes made in the structure of the old play by the authors of the new, are the removal of its scene of action from Athens to Padua, the addition of the disguising intrigues of Bianca's lovers, and the substitution of the Pedant for Vincentio ; the latter incident, together with the name of the shrew-tamer, having been derived from Gascoigne's translation of Ariosto's Suppositi, as Farmer pointed out. The Taming of the Shrew was first published in the folio of 1623 it is not mentioned by Meres in his Palladis Tamia; and there is neither external nor internal evidence by which to determine the date of its production. Malone decided at first for 1596, afterward for 1606; Mr. Knight looks back to 1594; and Mr. Collier inclines to 1601-3. All this is mere conjecture; but Mr. Collier's opinion seems most consistent with the style of Shakespeare's undoubted work upon the play. It is worthy of remark that 'Genoa,' improperly accented in The Merchant of Venice, is properly accented in this play; and Farmer directed attention to the fact that 'Baptista,' used as a woman's name in Hamlet, is here correctly used as a man's. But these indications of an advancing knowledge of Italian, as well as the intimate acquaintance with Italian manners shown in the conduct of this comedy, do not aid us in determining the relative period at which it was produced; for they are derived from those parts of it with which Shakespeare had least to do. The text of the first folio has few corruptions of consequence; but many imperfect and redundant lines are scattered through it, which the old school editors were at the needless pains of eking out or cutting down. As the England and the Italy of Shakespeare's day are represented, the former in the Induction, the latter in the body of this comedy, authorities for the costume abound. But for similar reasons to those assigned in the Introduction to The Merchant of Venice, more would be lost than gained by rigidly conforming to the Paduan fashions of that period. DRAMATIS PERSONE. A LORD, CHRISTOPHER SLY, a drunken Tinker, Hostess, Page, Players, Huntsmen, and Servants, BAPTISTA MINOLA, a rich Gentleman of Padua. LUCENTIO, Son to Vincentio, in love with Bianca. Persons in the Induction. PETRUCHIO, a Gentleman of Verona, a suitor to Katharina. Pedant, an old fellow set up to personate Vincentio. KATHARINA, the Shrew, BIANCA, her Sister, Daughters to Baptista. Widow. Tailor, Haberdasher, and Servants attending on Baptista and Petruchio. SCENE: Sometimes in Padua, and sometimes in Petru. chio's House in the Country. (392) INDUCTION TO THE TAMING OF THE SHREW. SCENE I. Before an Alehouse on a Heath. Enter HOSTESS and SLY. SLY. "'LL pheese you, in faith. I'LL Hostess. A pair of stocks, you rogue! Sly. Y' are a baggage; the Slys are no rogues. Look in the chronicles, we came in with Richard Conqueror. Therefore, paucas pallabris; let the world slide: Sessa! Host. You will not pay for the glasses you have burst? Sly. No, not a denier! Go by, St. Jeronimy Go to thy cold bed, and warm thee. Host. I know my remedy, I must go fetch the thirdborough. [Exit. Sly. Third, or fourth, or fifth borough, I'll answer him by law I'll not budge an inch, boy; let him come, and kindly. [Lies down on the ground, and falls asleep. Y 2 (393) |