The last time I wrote about The Shrew, I said that it was a feminist’s least favorite Shakespeare play.
That was a monstrous understatement (which is quite rare for me…)
The mere mention of this play should be sufficient to start a riot (and put the speaker at great risk of significant bodily harm) in any gathering of radical feminists. I’ve read some criticism trying to rehabilitate this play to make it acceptable to any self-respecting woman, but after reading the play, sorry Jack, it ain’t happening.
First thoughts:
The Shrew seems like an unfinished work. It’s a so-called framework play that opens with one story that is used to tell another story. Here, an English noble plays a trick on a local drunkard, convincing him that he’s not a peasant but a lord who’s been crazy. The drunkard then decides to watch a play by some passing players - the real story of The Shrew. Therein is my problem with the play - it’s a 3-sided picture frame. It opens with the drunkard, tells the Shrew story, and ends. Shakespeare introduces the Sly character - the drunkard - and he interupts the play once or twice toward the beginning, but it seems that about a third of the way in, Shakespeare forgets all about the Sly story. He disappears from the play. A Shrew is a more complete play, which includes more interruptions by Sly, and a closing segment with Sly returning to peasantry. BUT, because we’re not sure Shakespeare had anything to do with A Shrew, it’s not a part of the canon.
Second, as mentioned earlier, any person with any respect for women whatsoever has to be at least partially put off by the subject matter of the play. The shrew of the title is one of two daughters. She is smart, witty, and independent, and thus completely undesireable . Her younger sister is demure, quiet, subservient, and thus is pursued by practically all of Italy. Their father refuses to let any man woo the younger daughter until the older daughter is married. Fortuitously for the suitors, a guy who’s more of an asshole than the older daughter is "shrewish" shows up, and is willing to "woo" her regardless of her negative traits simply because her father is rich. The father allows him to marry his daughter simply because he’s interested in the older daughter. He then cows the daughter (Kate) by acting extremely dominating, denying her food and refusing to let her go home to see her family until she agrees to anything and everything that he says, such as calling the sun the moon, and obeying his every command. (Thus the famous line, "Kiss me Kate.)
Meanwhile, the various suitors to the younger daughter trick the father into giving them access to her by disguising themselves as tutors. A clever one tricks the other suitors into disavowing interest in her by making her look like a ‘loose’ woman by her talking with another man. Then he fools her father into letting him marry her by getting a traveller to playact as his father. The whole charade almost falls apart when his real father comes to town, but all is saved because he marries the daughter before revealing the trickery. The daughters’ father is briefly angry at being tricked, but is soothed by assurances that he will receive a proper dowery for the younger daughter.
Then everyone has a marriage party at which Kate and her husband appear. The asshole sends the women away, and bets the other husbands that the shrew is really quite docile now and more obedient than their wives, which they happily take up knowing Kate’s frowardness (great new word - shrewishness). But Kate wins the bet by quickly obeying her husband’s command while the other wives make excuses why they can’t come. Kate then retrieves the recalcitrant wives and scolds them in the play-ending monologue.
The comedy has several clever puns and whatnot, and is just as bawdy as "Two Gentlemen." Shakespeare really seems, at this point, to enjoy punning "tale" and "tail" in their normal meanings with "tail" to mean butt. The writing continues to be very readable, once the reader gets past Shakespeare’s immense vocabulary and many anachronistic usages. Thus most passages require two or more readings for full enjoyment.
Final thoughts:
This play is important for understanding the writing development of Shakespeare as his style matures, but I would not recommend that it be on the agenda for any casual theatre fan to see in person.
NOW
Next in the chute is The Second Part of Henry VI, which is the first of Shakespeare’s historical plays about the English royal family. It details the war between the houses laying claim to the English throne, one of which was symbolized by the white rose and the other by the red rose. Hence "The War of the Roses." It includes a peasant revolt, and multiple acts of violence and brutality by the nobles, the royals, and the peasants, including the on-stage murder of the Duke of Glouchester.
Until next time.
