Shakespeare Study Programs; The Comedies

VALENTINE, SILVIA AND JULIA VERSUS PROTHEUS

What are the results of Silvia's flight?

Why does outlawry bring out the superiority of Valentine?

Does it serve also to bring out the inferiority of Protheus?

How does outlawry serve to defeat the purposes of the Duke and Thurio and bring about the conquest over them of Valentine?

How does Thurio's nature inure to the credit of Valentine's with the Duke?

Does outlawry here represent the injustices of civic life? To what degree? Or the natural life beneficent and innocent of Arden Forest in "As You Like It?" To what degree is this true?

Queries For Discussion. Why did Julia swoon? Was the repentance of Protheus genuine?--and natural? What does Valentine mean by his forgiveness of Protheus and his proof of it--"All that was mine, in Silvia, I give thee?" could he give her, personally, against her will, in Chivalry? Or in true love? How could he mean anything then, but proving by this entrusting of her to his friend his belief in his loyalty and purity?

Why is Silvia silent? (See Introduction to the Play in "First Folio Edition," also Selected Criticism and Notes on V, iv, 91, for hints on these latter queries).

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

A Play or mask within the Play is not uncommon in Shakespeare. A Play outside the Play especially distinguishes the arrangement of this Comedy.

Perhaps it serves to indicate that the theme of the taming of a wife is crude and primitive folk-farce, particularly suited to the taste of the drunken tinker before whom it is played.

Shakespeare's handling of the tinker's subject, however, like other rude and homely matters taken up by an acute mind is such as to fasten deeper attention and to overgo a tinker's appreciation.

I

THE PLAY OUTSIDE THE PLAY

The effect of the Induction in dramatic presentation is not easy to estimate. Since there is no direct connection between it and the Play itself what do you see that it could be made to do for the action? Is it like a frame for a picture adapted to give the theme remoteness? Is this appropriate? Is it otherwise a mere cause for confusion? Or is it intended to add one more thread of amusement? Why does Shakespeare in "The Shrew" drop the tinker interregnum dialogue recurring regularly in "A Shrew?" May Shakespeare, therefore, be cited as finding only a limited use for "the Play outside the Play," deeming it in the way later? How has he arranged for its gradual disappearance from attention? Is there a stage reason alone enough to account for it? (See suggestions in Notes on I, i, 266, and IV, iii, i, "First Folio Edition"). Compare the Tinker scenes in the version of 1594. (For these see Extracts in Sources, pp. 105-110, in "First Folio Edition"). Do the Slie of "A Shrew" and Christophero Sly of "The Shrew" differ as characters? As to their opinion of the Play: Are their between-the-act dialogues materially different?

What is the relation to the source and what has been altered from the old tale.

The local Warwickshire touches in the Induction and their explanation. (For these see "Story of the Induction" in the Play).

Queries For Discussion. Ought the Induction play to be left out? How might it be made more effective by special treatment on the stage? Should the additional scenes be interpolated as was the stage custom, or should Shakespeare's diminishing notice of them be adopted to produce the most artistic effect?

Ii. THE DOUBLE PLOT OF THE MAIN PLAY

In "A Shrew" and "The Shrew": Show how the story, with respect to the Taming scenes, is the same substantially, with comparatively minor differences, except for the characterization. But with respect to the Bianca scenes it has been expanded and altered. This suggests, most naturally, that the part Shakespeare did not write or answer for in "A Shrew" was merely the Bianca scenes, and that his task in "The Shrew" was to cut out and rewrite the scenes that were not his so as to be unhampered with the disharmony of the two parts of the plot as it appears in the Quarto of 1594.

The story of the Play as it now stands consists of an interweaving of the Taming story and the story of Bianca's Courtship in such a way that while they keep their separateness of necessity, they balance better in interest and are more continually brought to bear upon each other from time to time. What are their points of contact in each Act? The sisters with relation to their father and their suitors in Act I: How does this initiate the action?

With relation to each other and the Music Master in Act II: How does this separate the action into two lines of Courtship.

After Katherine's marriage in Act III the interest divides between the Taming of Katherine and the Courtship of Bianca.

In Act IV two or three points of contact are arranged by means of the journey and what two characters?

In Act V how is contact both objective and moral obtained?

Alternative interest in the Bianca Courtship after Kate's marriage and taming is attained by the elaborate scheme to make Lucentio the most successful suitor and the droll surprises and difficulties met with in the process.

Queries For Discussion. Is the lack of unity in the Play sufficiently remedied by enriching the Bianca counterplot and arranging for alternate interest first in the plot and then in the counterplot, or is the original difficulty irremediable?

In which story is plot or else character the supreme interest?

Is the Bianca story or the Katherine story the more entertaining? Why?

Iii. BIANCA AND HER SUITORS

Lucentio's errand in Padua, his breeding and relations to his servant qualify him as quite the conventional hero of a romantic love-story. How does he compare with the young noblemen of "Love's Labour's Lost?" What part of the study of Philosophy does he specially desire to take up and how does his temper toward learning fall in with theirs?

What light does Bianca on her appearance throw upon herself? Through the testimony of her sister and her father and the two suitors what else is to be gathered?

Her effect upon Lucentio: The parallelism with "A Midsommer Nights Dreame" (I, i, 156, and see p. 134 in the First Folio Edition of "The Shrew") not appearing in "A Shrew," considered as indicative of the favorite method of Shakespearian lovers in falling in love at first sight.

Katherine's effect upon Tranio, lost upon Lucentio, in his daze over Bianca, leads to what plan of action? How does the part Hortensio and Gremio play in this reinforce the plot, and combine them all to instigate Petruchio to woo Katherine? How does the contest for the best sale of Bianca when Katherine is out of the way lead to a new plot? The money-contest of the suitors, judged by the father is supplemented by the mock teaching-contest of the lovers of which Bianca herself is the judge. Show how this constitutes the second step in the action and what complications and simplifications it prepares. Lucentio's studies in the hedonistic Philosophy he professes and its victory over Music and Hortensio.

What is Bianca's contribution to the gossip excited by Katherine's wedding, and what impression does Act III give you altogether of Bianca's character? Is the bad report of it in Act IV, made by Hortensio, as the Musician, Lisio, with Tranio, quite fair to her?

The abusive opinion and jealousy of Hortensio assisted by the supposed Lucentio narrow down the uncertainties of the courtship so as to concentrate interest on the new scheme of the supposed father. How is this worked out? Explain the conflict with the arrival of the true father, and the amusing counter-play.

Queries For Discussion. Why does Lucentio's suit excel that of any other in interest?

Is Bianca wrong in acting independently of her father?

Iv. THE SHREW AND HER TAMER

Does the Shrew justify her reputation on her first appearance? What is said of her compared with what she does then and in Act II? Why is Petruchio's first approach with a combat of wit and a great bluff of compliment effective? Is Kate really impressed by it, or only fearful that she is being fooled? How do you account for her denial of him and his suit to her father in Act II and her mortification when he does not arrive till late in Act III? Does Petruchio's speech to the others and before them (II, i, 328-350) account for the change? His arrival at the wedding in such shabby attire and with so wretched an appearance as to retinue, with his sorry horse and man-servant contrasts strongly with the promises held out in this speech. What is the effect on Kate and why does it serve his purpose?

Is Kate's entreaty to stay, or her action in showing her bridegroom the door the climax of the wedding scene? What is the point in the stage business of Petruchio's speech warning others not to touch his chattel? Is she really being befriended by the bystanders when she declares they must go "forward to the bridall dinner" or is she so entirely alone in her opposition to Petruchio's command to go, that his speech is the keenest satire upon her defencelessness in every direction but through him?

Is Petruchio's conduct at home and the servants' comment upon it such as to make Kate's two entreaties explicable?

What light does Petruchio's own account (IV, i, 183-207) of his method throw upon it?

In the eating and haberdasher scene (IV, iii) what is it Kate learns--merely that she cannot command by force and can have what she wants by another method? What is the secret of her tractableness in Scene v?

Queries For Discussion. Are Katherine and Petruchio the most interesting characters in the Play? Why?

Is their prominence due to their personal attractiveness or to the Dramatist's skill?

V

THE TRIPLE MARRIAGE AND THE MORAL

Why should the Play not end with Act IV?

What does Act V add?

Is the quality of the table-talk in keeping with the plot and characters?

The husbands' talk and wager turns on what point, obedience to the husband, or agreement of husband and wife as mutually to their interest?

Show the drift of Kate's expression of the moral of the Play, and state your own way of looking at it.

Queries For Discussion. Did Petruchio and Kate give an impromptu performance of conjugal felicity, or one decided upon beforehand?

Was Kate quick-witted enough to guess there was money in it, or was she really, once of a different mind and reformed.

Vi. THE FOLK ORIGIN OF THE TAMING

Trace the antiquity of this schooling of a wife, and the resemblances and contrasts in the chief variants of the story (for help in this see Sources in "First Folio Edition").

Is there any progress to be discerned in the degree of bodily force deemed expedient?

Is any such scheme of the marriage-relation compatible with advanced civilization, or is it peculiar to crude notions of life in a taming age?

Queries For Discussion. Is the folk-legend indicative of an inherent relation in marriage of the male and female natures, or is it merely an expression of established custom and legalized institution upon gaining for each the aims and line of conduct desired? If so, is the result of the process to gain a ground of mutual compromise and accommodation and a division of labor in joint life which will enable the process itself to fall into disuse.

Is coercion of others consistent with a high grade of individuality?

Did Petruchio play the Tamer in a "Pickwickian sense" and the whole thing being a bit of acting, did Kate see through it, finally, and play her part too?

The use of finesse in the Play (see Introduction to the Play "First Folio Edition").

Does Shakespeare's way of handling the characters and the process of taming materially differ from the way prevailing both in the crude folk tales and in "A Shrew?"

Does he suggest that in both Petruchio's and Kate's case they are merely bent upon their own individual emotions until closer relation makes them join forces?

What is the modern bearing of Shakespeare's way of putting the story?

Partnership and co-operation _versus_ autocratic rule: Are the administrative advantages of the latter consonant with the good will and continual psychical development furthered by the former?

Does the intellectual advantage rest with the user of force or with the mind that accommodates itself to force by gaining its ends by stratagem and other indirect policies?

Is coercion as wise as persuasion which has no such penalties to pay?

LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST

Shakespeare makes us laugh in "Love's Labour's Lost" at the futility of the attempt of ascetic and academic men to shut out love and women from their schemes of life and study.

His early work in putting the past history of England into dramatic form may possibly have suggested to him to put more recent history on the stage by means of this Comedy. Light as it is, the point of it is to satirize the monastic and exclusive element in current educational schemes. Fictitious as the story is, it touches upon names and incidents belonging to actual history. So familiar were these actual happenings of the day to his audience that it could especially enjoy these veiled allusions to them.

The main idea of the plot of the Comedy--the "Academe," was one that had a bearing upon various similarly named educational projects of that time in England.

One such scheme was drawn up about 1570, by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Sir Walter Raleigh's half-brother, for the "education of her Majeste's Wardes and others the youths of nobility and gentlemen." This plan was, like Shakespeare's arranged for a "three yeeres terme" (I, i, 20) and at the end of "every three years" some book was to be published which would represent the fruit of the Academy's study during that period. Merely the title of this scheme--"Queen Elizabethes Achademy" may have suggested Shakespeare's "Achademe" (I, i, 17). Of course, however, both Gilbert's and Shakespeare's adoption of the name are examples of the appropriation by educational groups of the classic academes of the Philosophers of Athens and their student followers. Another educational plan "for the bringing up in vertue and learning of the Queenes Majestis Wardes," was devised by Sir Nicholas Bacon, in 1561. Later, in the reign of James I, the establishment of the "Academe Royal" by Bolton, is an example of the early vogue of the name, which has since become familiar everywhere, for educational and learned institutions.

A less important element in the formation of the plot is the allusion to current French politics which the situation of the characters of the Play suggests.

A King of Navarre and a Princess of France conferring in treaty over a disputed province and a claim of allowance for services rendered is an incident constituting a reference to a state of things in France then closely concerning England. The succession to the throne of France of Henry of Navarre, the champion of the Huguenots of France, was long contested. England was friendly to Navarre, the object of her foreign policy being to counterpoise the power of Spain and the Catholics of France, with whom Queen Elizabeth's most formidable rival, Mary Stuart, was allied in interest.

No king of Navarre was ever named Ferdinand. Yet by making an entirely fictitious hero a king of Navarre and the suitor of a princess of France, the relationship of Henry of Navarre to dominance in France was suggested in an unobjectionable and amusing way. And the death of the King of France introduced at the close of the Play, involving the prospect as a probability that the hero might then succeed to the throne of France, could scarcely fail to remind Shakespeare's audience of the actual struggle of the King of Navarre for the French crown, and also of the fact that on the death of the French King in August, 1589, Navarre then became heir presumptive, and after the battle of Ivry in 1590 Spain delayed but could not long obstruct his complete success.

In 1593 the most important cities of the Kingdom yielded him allegiance and in the Spring of 1594 Paris herself opened her gates to him. These dates 1589-1594 indicate the time, also, when "Love's Labour's Lost" is likely to have been timely in these references, and yield a clew to its date of composition.

The effect of these allusions to French political affairs, made more piquant by the downfall of Spain in her political opposition both to England and the party of Henry of Navarre, was intensified in Shakespeare's Play by the names given to Navarre's lords. _Berowne_, as the name appears in the Folio, is an English spelling of the French name _Biron_, to which it is changed in modernized editions of Shakespeare. _Longavill_ is an English equivalent of _Longueville_, and _Dumaine_ or _Dumane_ of De Mayenne, names which also are changed in the modernized editions, although not consistently. All these names are associated with Navarre's struggles in France. The Maréchal de Biron and the Duc de Longueville fought prominently on Navarre's side. The Duc de Mayenne, brother of Henry of Guise, fought on the opposite side. The Duc d'Alençon long a suitor for the hand of Queen Elizabeth, is mentioned as the father of Rosaline.

Another veiled reference to a Russian suitor of the Queen's seems to be made in the incident introduced in the last Act. This scene of the wooing of the King and his lords when disguised as Russians makes fun, perhaps, of an actual embassy of Russians to the Court of Elizabeth, in 1583, when the Queen had arranged to put upon Lady Mary Hastings the suit which the Czar Ivan had originally hoped to proffer to the Queen herself. (For information upon these and other incidents of the period that may be used in the plot see Sources, pp. 106-116 also Notes in the "First Folio Edition" of this Play).