Family Values ...

The fun and games going on over the other side of the pond with regard to illegitimate babies, women in politics and ‘redneckidness’ might seem to be far removed from Shakespeare and Elizabethan Theatre, but I’m not so sure.

One of those constant metaphors (in western society at least) seems to be to view the body politic as a family. There is the head of the family, the family itself and, in earlier times at least, the servants. The very powerful combination of man and wife in harmony, with children growing under their protection, operating within a sometimes hostile world is a very strong idea – just look at the galvanizing effect the ‘Republican ticket’ has had.

Shakespeare starts his first History play (The First Part of the Contention) with this image.

Henry is united with Margaret and they go off to unite with the state in her coronation. But there is a degree of family disharmony – the elder statesman, Gloucester is not happy with the settlement – this is not a marriage of equals and too much has been spent – there is a danger to the stability of the family – his ‘uncle’ argues and goes behind his back, others do the same … just as in any normal family. Instead of looking to the family, each (perhaps with the exception of Gloucester) is looking to himself.

It is the job of the head of the family (and his wife) to control this natural sibling rivalry – and it is the responsibility of the children to follow the rules of the family … to the Elizabethan, this was a God-given responsibility: I suspect, to a number of dwellers across the seas, the same would apply.

We are so used these ideas we forget the element which was so exciting to the Elizabethan was the changing role of the woman in all this.

As I pointed out in an earlier post – the significant role of the junction of man and wife as a religious, moral and ideal unit was a consequence of Protestantism and Shakespeare’s promotion of this ideal could be considered almost revolutionary.

In his two previous plays he dealt with the issues directly in terms of comedy – of male uniting with female.

Here, in the first of a new genre of play for the writer, he deals with a more abstract, almost philosophical conception – the power of an ordered group over the disorder of chaos – the need for a natural balance with people fulfilling their roles, accepting both their strength and limitations. The play which follows from the union of Henry and Margaret is in a direct line to the speech of Katherine at the end of The Taming of the Shrew.

But what we get here is not Petruccio and Katherine’s story – it is that of the Widow and Hortensio, or of Bianca and Lucentio. The necessary submission for unity is not going to be made.

I think it is very telling that the first very public, very political scene is followed by the private domestic scene between Gloucester and ‘Nell’, his wife, the ‘Duchess’.

Central at this point is Gloucester – he is the only one in the previous scene who seems to have the needs of ‘King and Country’ foremost in his mind – he is rebelled against by everyone, behind his back … and when he is at home, his wife preaches rebellion and treachery – and (significantly) goes behind his back and disobeys his orders – for her own benefit rather than the countries or even her family.

But Shakespeare isn’t only drawing a parallel here, he pushes it one stage further – it involves consorting with the powers of evil, with a going against God and consulting the devil and his subordinates … and these actions are linked to a supposed holy man (the Cardinal Uncle) and others of the political commonweal.

Rebellion in the family, rebellion in the state and rebellion of the soul against the heavenly ordained.

The redneck Cade and his followers are merely and extension – the wild consequence of a breakdown in the values enshrined in the family.

What is playing out in the US of A at the moment is an echo of this first history play – and is an exploration in real life of the issues Shakespeare explored (based quite closely on real life) several centuries ago.

What the BBC did with it ...

I have to start out by making it clear, it was the BBC production of the three Henry VI Plays which got me hooked on the History plays - yes I knew Henry V and Henry IV Part 1, I'd endured Richard the Second and seen Larry hamming up the Third for all it was worth. But it was the BBC that made me register 'History Play' as something different. And they still keep up the good work: How well did Shakespeare know history?

The BBC though took a path I am not taking - they did the three Henry VI plays in historical chronological order, I am looking at them in a reconstructed order of their writing.

The three plays as a sequence I will leave until later on - possibly when I have finished the three Henry VIs, possibly when I look at the whole of the history plays.

Here I want to take a look at what the opening of 'The First Part of the Contention ...' was like - taking into consideration what I posted last and those rather irritating Olympics which have me glued to the TV even as I write.

I've blogged on the opening ceremony of the Olympics over on Thoughts from the Edge and won't tread the same ground - I will say though that both Shakespeare and the BBC open this exploration of a national history in the same spirit - big loud and colourful.

Which is precisely what the BBC production gave us - well, not so big (as befits a stage play) but certainly loud and colourful.

Trumpets blared, drums rolled, crowds cheered and in marched the key agents to the play which will follow - each preceded by a flag, each marching in and nodding to the king, who we don't see as the camera is peeping over his shoulder, and each taking up his appointed place.

The colours are all there - mainly in the costume but also in the painted wood of the 'bear-pit' the production is placed in, and in all the fluttering flags and shiny clothes.

Then, with all the 'athletes' in place, in comes the 'torch' on the hand of an upstart - rose-petal like discs of coloured paper fluttering around Margaret and Suffolk just as after a wedding - but this is a bride who has not yet married although a 'troth' has been plighted.

This has the essence of an Olympic ceremony and is as much an attempt to claim national identity and significance as any such splendours played out nowadays.

You get a 'feel good factor' - there is pride and there is hope.

Suffolk, speaking as only the politician in front of a national audience can, declares, "... in sight of England and her lordly peers ..." to have fulfilled all that was requested of him.

And you just know, in the original production - that sight of England was accompanied by a gesture to the assembled theatre - already dragged in emotionally by the music and flag waving.

You didn't quite get that from the TV. Although the voice made clear its importance - we are watching you - the world is watching you; Cue camera and roll.

Henry, weak of voice, pale of colour (although with lively eyes) responds.

He thanks Suffolk, then kisses his bride - and, if you are expecting warmth and love, excitement and passion, forget it. In a triumphal theatrical moment, Henry kisses the hand of Margaret. She had moved to kiss cheeks or lips and is visibly surprised.

This is back to the question of the marriage relationship - Henry, as a devout man, as a Catholic King esteems the Platonic above the lustful. Whatever, union is about to be sanctified, it is not going to be carnal. Friendship before equality? And, after the three kisses of 'The Taming of the Shrew' what clearer indication could you have of all not being well?

There is a disappointment - it is as if you were to discover the fireworks opening the Beijing Olympics were a computer trick, or the cute girl singing the Chinese national anthem was miming to someone else's voice.
The difference, of course, being we do not discover 'til after the event, the slight of hand in China - here the BBC give us, in the middle of the ceremony, disappointment and unease.

And they haven't finished with us yet ...



Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Henry VI, BBC Shakespeare, Olympics

Shakespeare's Matrimony

I wasn't going to post this here as it's a bit too 'school essay' - it was written for a different site. But, having just gone through a couple of performances of The First Part of the Contention (Henry VI, Part 2) I thought I better put down some markers -

Marriage has become such a common theme in Literature, and the works of Shakespeare so well known, that it is hard for us to realise that back in Elizabethan England ideas about marriage were very much up in the air.

Until the Reformation, the ideals of virginity, chastity and widowhood; of platonic relationships; of friendship - all rated higher than marriage.

With the coming of Protestantism, ideals changed.

Shakespeare was at the forefront of portraying these changes and many of his plays could be said to act as promotional tools for the act of marriage.

If Stanley Wells and his friends are right, Shakespeare's first two plays are both comedies - The Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Taming of the Shrew.

It is interesting to see how Shakespeare tackles the themes of the marriage debate in these plays - and it reveals several interesting aspects of the plays, some of which are much misunderstood.

The Two Gentlemen is a play about friendship - Valentine and Proteus start the play off with a dialogue making it very clear these two are ideal, youthful friends. What happens during the play undermines this ideal - deliberately so.

The thing that weakens their love for each other is love for a female: Shakespeare seems to be asking us if this is inevitable - will inter-gender love overpower, necessarily, intra-gender love?

But nothing is as simple as that in Shakespeare - Valentine has a one-to-one relationship with Silvia; Proteus already had an attachment to Julia, and then switches to the (un-reciprocated) love of Silvia. This, despite the exchange of rings and other tokens.

One is reminded of the idea of the fickleness of love at this point - and in several plays Shakespeare has young men switching their attentions (Demetrias, don't forget; and Romeo). Love is a necessary condition for a relationship, but is not sufficient.

Another doubt is raised by the way in which Valentine 'loves' Silvia - I am not alone in thinking there is almost a 'Platonic' basis to it - he is in love with an ideal, not with a real human.

The 'clown' Lance with his letter has progressed a little further than either of the two 'Gentlemen': His contract itemising the qualities of a potential wife widens the conditions; thought ought to be given to issues such as money and temperament, to weaknesses as well as strengths - it is very much a dead end in this play, the youth of the main protagonists seems to exclude them from making a sensible decision.

But Shakespeare hasn't quite finished with his exploration of the theme of friendship - there is one horrendous moment, towards the end of the play, where, after Proteus has attempted to force himself on Silvia, been stopped, and repented his sins, Valentine 'gives' Silvia to him.

Julia faints at this point - and well she might.

We need to realise that, far from condoning this action, the audience is meant to be as outraged as Silvia must be, as shocked as Julia. Portraying such a gross act Shakespeare is again questioning the ideal of friendship.

The Two Gentlemen quickly resolves itself into marriage - but we are left with an empty feeling. There is something not quite right in the pairings and the anything-but-gentlemen seem to get off lightly.

Perhaps Shakespeare felt so too, because his next play, The Taming of the Shrew, shows the successful pairing of a well matched couple - and some less than satisfactory fringe partnerships.

I've already written about Katherine and Petruccio (in Katerina's Just Desserts) and don't want to go over the same ground, but I do think it is important to point out their relationship is about a mutual sharing and suitability. What isn't talked about much is love.

There is a 'love' relationship in the play though, Lucentio and Bianca. At the time of their marriage, their are still issues to resolve - Bianca's refusal to come at the request of her husband is meant to signify the incompleteness of the match-making.

So too is the widow's refusal - where the marriage is based on financial, rather than emotional, compatibility.

What Katherine and Petruccio have done before this point, is worked through all the conditions needed to secure a successful and fecund marriage.

But there are other marriages in the Shrew - Sly, who appears in the Induction, is "married" twice, once to the page boy, and once to a real wife.

We ignore the Induction at our peril.

Sly is a drunk who is so full-up he falls asleep in the street. He is married to a 'shrew' (if we accept 'A Shrew' as indicating further additions to the Folio text) and who can doubt they deserve each other? This is a funny version of the need for a mutual relationship in marriage. Worth noting about Sly's real marriage is the apparent 'respect' he has for his wife - she is not 'madam' but a name - he wants to keep her as Alice or whatever .... surely an indication of social difference and criticism of the aristocratic?

Sly's other marriage is a reminder to the audience that what you are watching is not real, there is a pretence going on here - you are being presented with a dramatic fiction. All of the marriages Shakespeare represents on stage need to be viewed in this light - none are real, all are explorations of limited aspects of the state of matrimony.

Just how all this fits with Shakespeare's first History play I'll let you know in the next post.

Katerina's Just Desserts ....

(Some notes on Gender Relations in Taming of the Shrew)

There is a tendency to portray Katherine as some sort of abused everywoman and Petruccio as a typical misogynist male. Indeed, this is the line taken in many classrooms and leads to a mistaken understanding both of the play and of Elizabethan society. Support for the stance can be found in the text – as long as you are selective in your reading - and is frequently supplemented by ‘common knowledge’ about the relationships between men and women in times past.

I would like to suggest that, far from being socially conservative in his views of male-female roles and promoting the status quo, Shakespeare is in fact questioning a centuries old acceptance of the inferior status of marriage (as opposed to virginity, celibacy and widowhood) and suggesting, in the words of Germaine Greer, the ‘complimentary couple’ as ‘the linchpin of the social structure’ (Greer, Shakespeare, A Short Introduction: pg 138).

Let me start with the abusive Katherine.

Few commentators dwell too long over the physical and emotional batterings Katherine doles out to all around her. She is clearly the most violent person in the play striking anyone she feels like: Three times she assaults men – Hortensio’s head is ‘broke’, Petruccio is slapped, and she beats Grumio: But her biggest abuse is reserved for her sister who she ties up, drags onto the stage and subjects to far worse treatment than anything she herself will suffer at the hands of Petruccio. It is worth noting that at no point (according to the script) does Petruccio strike Katherine.

If you add to this the ‘you don’t love me’; ‘you treat my sister better than me’; ‘you’re not a real man’ and other such jibes and comments which flow continuously from her mouth, she is not an attractive human being (although is great fun to watch on stage).

Presenting Katherine as ‘downtrodden victim’ is absurd. She is clearly out of control and her behaviour is causing misery to all around her. More importantly, in Elizabethan terms, she is also in danger of her soul – she is damaging not only her earthly marriage prospects, but her immortal ones too.

By the end of the play, Katherine has become a dignified, self-controlled rock; half of the foundation of what will become a strong family unit. Equally important is the fact she is now able to play a role in society (which includes lordship over the male servants) and is firmly on the path to a happy afterlife.

What brings on the metamorphosis is her pairing with a complementary force – Petruccio. The key word here is complementary – Petruccio balances Katherine, he is not the same and he is not ‘better’.

When he talks, early in the play, of ‘two raging fires’ burning themselves out, he admits his similarity to Katherine, with a difference – he is ‘pre-emptory’, she , ‘proud minded’. Together they will be in balance.

This is the point in the play at which the financial deal is done – again much misunderstood.

Both sides bring money – Petruccio, who has just inherited a considerable fortune, is sensibly seeking an equal amount: This will benefit both himself and his wife – and lay in a strong inheritance for any children. Marriage is all about family, it is an economic and social union – as much today as in Elizabethan days.

What people miss in this exchange is Petruccio’s leaving of everything to his ‘widow’ in the event of his early death: Katherine gets everything – she becomes an exceptionally wealthy woman. There is no need to bargain over this point – it is freely given. It shows Petruccio has complete faith in his wife-to-be’s sense and economic astuteness (hence the need for a female from an equal house). It also disproves the ‘goods and chattels’ view of the relationship regularly suggested – since when have goods and chattels inherited themselves?

Which brings me on to another frequently expressed view – Petruccio is only interested in the money. He certainly says such a thing when he is talking to Hortensio – but he uses an interesting expression to do so, he talks of finding a woman rich enough to be his wife, then he goes on to use the word wealth – “to wive it wealthily”.

The word wealth is suggestive of more than money – could it be that Petruccio is being deliberately ironic in his choice of word? Later in the play, when Katherine has been deprived of the expensive fashionable gown and hat, Petruccio says, “for ‘tis the mind that makes the body rich” and points out the jay and adder have earthly looking riches but inwardly are not better than other creatures.

Petruccio has seen Katherine’s potential – as an equal, not as an inferior. He has chosen her as a balance … and negotiated with her father for her hand.

And her father has given as much as he can of her – but he demands, before agreeing, that Katherine agree. He demands Petruccio win Katherine’s ‘love’.

We do not see the intervening days between the first encounter of Katherine and Petruccio and their wedding day – but there is ample opportunity for Katherine to stop the marriage – she doesn’t. She waits for Petruccio on the steps of the church – she would be asked in church if she accepts Petruccio, and she must have said, before God, she does.

All of this suggests, whatever public face she puts on it, Katherine has accepted Petruccio – it is a mutual not an enforced marriage.

Katherine’s last speech, rather than being an act of submission to oppression, is a recognition that the former firebrand Katherine was counter productive – there is always a stronger than you. It is a contract laying out the conditions needed for peace and prosperity, for right balance and mutual benefit.

But it is only half a contract – Petruccio is as bound by unspoken bonds which lay duties and commitments on him. He binds himself to her with a kiss – and physically they become one – not lord and servant, but a unity.

Shakespeare, in The Taming of the Shrew, is laying out, possibly for the first time on the English stage, a view of society where the mutual support of man and wife is the foundation of peace and contentment for society as a whole. It expresses not a view that women are subservient to men – but that only by mutual support can fulfilment be attained.

The battle of the sexes, shown at the start of the ‘Shrew’ play-within-a-play, is destructive and holds back both the individual and the community. Only by joining with the balancing power of a marriage partner of the right fit can life find a fuller, and more soul-fulfilling path.

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew Gender Relations

Funny Shakespeare ?

Geek is asking hard questions again – basically, “What is funny about the Shakespeare Comedies?”

Well, having just ‘done’ his first two plays – both of which (if Wells is right) were comedies, I suppose I ought to have something to say about it.

The first thing I notice when thinking about both Two Gentlemen and The Shrew is that they are marriage linked – and so too are all of the ‘comedies’ (hesitant, just a little, about that statement).

The comedies seem to be about union, about coming together and communal success – they ‘celebrate’ successful unions which are expected to be fruitful and, if not uneventful, at least lasting.

This pairing is more than an individual event – it is public and accepted as important for the common-weal – for the good of the community.

This in itself is not belly laugh material – but it is celebratory – it is inductive of happiness.

[This fits in with what is thought to have been the origin of the word comedy – which translates to something like song of the village – as opposed to tragedy which is goat song (don’t ask).]

The happy ending is rarely presented in Shakespeare as an ending though – After Two Gentlemen we feel a rough ride coming up … but don’t doubt an eventual satisfaction; The Shrew ends with a more conclusive union for the primary protagonists – but only a fool would imagine that these two madcaps have burnt out – that is going to be a hot marriage (and goodness knows what fun the children will bring!).

You do sometimes read that the comedy title given by the Elizabethans really just meant happy ending – which is basically a way of saying it isn’t a tragedy or a history.

There might be a reason for this – earlier than Shakespeare and into his career as a writer, the professional theatre was new, and only just defining itself. The idea of genre itself was not a comfortable thing for the actors – a play was something to be adapted to fit the audience – if it was one type of scholastic audience, pump up the poetic; lower-life pub crowds would need less poetry and more prat-fall.

With Two Gentlemen we have more of the former, The Shrew, more of the later … but both plays are sometimes regarded as ‘incomplete’ – the first has been called a touring script; the second has the irritating A Shrew rumbling away in the background – could that be the pub version?

Interesting at this point is the Hamlet instruction to actors – there are two points relevant here:

1. Hamlet and the actors both expect to be able to mess around with the story – to adapt it to suit a particular audience and to fit in contemporary material and thus make the play more relevant;

2. Hamlet specifies a type of acting – he wants this ‘aristocratic’ type of acting for this play with this audience – and he specifies, cut the comedy.

Too often this speech is assumed to be Shakespeare’s thoughts on how to act – it isn’t – it, like everything else in the plays, is from the mouth of a character and indicative of that character: But it is very revealing about the adaptability of all types of plays and also the way comedy and tragedy were more techniques than genres.

(Thanks also to The Bard Blog for reminding me to have a rant about the Hamlet instructions.)

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Shakespeare Comedies, Taming of the Shrew, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Hamlet

One Step back - and then Two Steps forward:

The Arkangel on Earth!

I’m fairly new and naïve in the world of mp3 and the like – I think I’ve said it before, I actually pay for my downloads: Rewards however, are earthly – The Arkangel Complete Works of Shakespeare is buyable for download, one play at a time, and I’ve been able to indulge.

On Sunday I ‘Shrewed’’ – and a fine performance it was too.

We use the word audience too lightly. Shakespeare’s, and his contemporaries’, plays were appreciated primarily through the ear. With a different play every day there was no time or need for elaborate staging and people went to hear a play anyway.

I suppose performances were more like staged readings than anything else; the sort of thing that gets done nowadays on the radio in front of a live audience.

One of the ‘insights’ gained from the touring Globe’s fast Romeo and Juliet (which visited Timisoara earlier this month) was the difference in what you pick up through the ear when things are taken at speed – and I’ll add to that now, what you pick up through the ear when it is unsupported by the visual.

Recently I’ve read a couple of editions of The Taming of the Shrew (The Oxford School edition and The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works, Second Edition, edition) and I’ve seen two performances on DVD – the BBC Shakespeare and the Zeffirelli; additionally I watched the Shakespeare, The Animated Tales version.

I gained something from all of these experiences (not the least being how essential it is to see the comedies – how the characters don’t read well, how the humour is essentially human and social).

Listening to the Arkangel ‘straight’ audio version gave an extra dimension (which is odd if you think about it – take away the images and gain something). I’ll have to use the word ‘connectivity’ – a nasty word; a technician’s stringy, sticky-old-cobweb of a word; a soulless word.

Nevertheless, use it I must, for it is the only one I can think of that describes the nexus created by the physical experience of certain sound repartitions.
Listening gave you connectivity – an awareness of links across the scenes and across the plays. I must have heard and seen and read, but never noticed the word ‘pink’ in ‘The Shrew’ several times – it took the audio version to make it register – and connect it to Romeo and Juliet – and shoes: It brought with it a degree of contempt for fashion and a memory of big loud Mercutio: Which is the wrong way round – it is Petruccio who is in Mercutio.

Sly, talking of dreams, echoed all the way to Bottom’s dream – for surely Sly is a proto-Bottom. And Petruccio also sent an echo to The Dream bouncing off the walls – his ‘poorest service is repaid with thanks’ is surely Theseus on taking kindly what is kindly meant. Biondello (why does that sound like bordello?) went back to Speed – now sidelined as we are dealing with a mature marriage as opposed to playful courtship.

Part of the reason is, unsurprisingly, the Arkangel version used the full text – both the BBC and the Film cut. The criminality of wrongful cutting shone out.
But it is something else too – an Elizabethan audience was more aural – when they went to church and listened to the sermon or the Homily for the day sound patterns were set down – Shakespeare and his kin exploit these patterns. I’ve argued before about the word wealth and the strange use of it made by Petruccio – what I’d not noticed ‘til I listened was his,

‘tis the mind that makes the body rich

– and

honour peereth in the meanest habit.

These are keys that open the vaults to a deeper concept of the play and tie it to a much wider and wealthier world of human bond-ship and bondage. It is the wealth of the homilies and Protestantism of his time. Looking at these words on the page doesn’t make them penetrate the way hearing them spoken does – even now, as I look back at this paragraph.

Another aural shift came with Katherina – she is as violent as Petruccio (if not more so) – and by taking away the stage business, you become aware of this. What is tied up in laughter and slapstick unravels to reveal not an innocent victim of male aggression, but a female aggressor equal to any man. She is remarkably nasty – and ‘deserves all she gets’ at the hands of Petruccio. Her treatment of her sister is far worse than anything Petruccio does to her. And she assaults at least two men in the play.

I’ve downloaded the next play – The First Part of the Contention (2 Henry VI) and will be listening to it soon. I’ll watch the BBC version first, and possibly read it.

But before that I’ll be going back a step – to The Two Gentlemen of Verona. I’m going to listen to that tonight – but I don’t intend blogging on it – it’s mine, and I’m gong to just enjoy the performance.

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, Arkangel Shakespeare

Oxford School Shakespeare (3)

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

The Text

With most of Shakespeare’s plays the basic text is not a problem – you can fiddle around with words and punctuation but in reality it makes very little difference, especially in performance.

With ‘The Taming of the Shrew’, there are difficulties – serious difficulties that affect the performance of the piece: The choices made can also seriously alter the meaning.

Key choice is about the ‘Induction’ and Sly additions: In the Folio, produced after Shakespeare’s death, Sly disappears never to return – in A Shrew (which is thought to be an ‘illegal’ copy done around the time of The Shrew’s first production) there are more Sly scenes – providing a constant reminder that this is a play you are watching, and forcing serious questioning of the reality of what you are watching.

The Oxford School Shakespeare edition has chosen to use (perversely, if you know the rivalry between the two universities) the New Cambridge Shakespeare: A safe choice.

The text basically follows the folio – with the extra Sly scenes printed in Appendix A. For the school classroom this is a sensible decision – at this stage in a student’s study of Shakespeare it is more important for him/her to get the accepted canonical view – whilst suggesting the idea of contention and endless academic bickering – than to engage fully in the ‘debate’ her/him-self.

Each page is split into two columns – on the right the play text split into the conventional Act and Scenes and with the lines numbered every 5 lines. Character names are given in full and bold at the head of the dialogue making it very easy to follow who is speaking. Stage directions are in italic. Half lines are indented when appropriate.

The overall effect is to produce a very easy-to-read text – an essential for classroom use. It is quick and simple to find specified points in the play and the layout and print size makes it a good text for reading out loud or acting with.

The left hand column is jam-packed full of ‘glosses’, pictures and helpful snippets. Printed slightly smaller, these are not obtrusive and don’t get in the way of the main text.

Each scene starts with a brief, but helpful summary of what is to follow – and sometimes an indication of what to look for: The second scene of the Induction, for example, we are informed, ‘Two lifestyles are contrasted …’.

Most of the notes are printed next to the lines they refer to – all are numbered. Some of the notes are accompanied by generally helpful line drawings. In Act 2, Scene 1, when Petruchio and Katherina are engaged in their quick fire ‘word-play’ fight, three sketches help explain the text – one of a coat of arms, one of a fools ‘coxcomb’ hat and a third of two cocks fighting (to go with line 224, ‘craven’ – the defeated cock in a cock fight). As this is potentially the first time students could have encountered not only the words but the implied images, these pictures are very useful. The third sketch of the birds fighting also acts as an indicator of what is happening on stage – Katherina and Petruchio are ‘cock fighting’.

The notes are not purely explanatory – they have the delightful habit of being opinionated – at line 205 of the same scene, we are informed that Petruchio makes a feeble pun; and at 204 Katherina is insisting she is honest. The sex is not ignored either (which is a good thing) – in line 200, when Katherina uses the word ‘jade’ we are informed it implies Petruchio lacks sexual stamina !

The notes demonstrate clearly an awareness of the needs of a modern reader in several places. My favourite is in Act 3 scene 2, when Biondello is delivering his all too easy to ignore speech about what Petruchio looks like on the way to his wedding and is going through a list of diseases of horses – we are asked to remember they would be as familiar to the Elizabethan audience as a list of mechanical failings of an old car would be to the ‘modern’ – and the tediousness of many a pub visit leaps into view!

Scattered throughout the text are additional, larger drawings and photographs of the play in stage performance. Not only do these illustrate particular points in the play they also help keep the theatrical context – another essential requirement not only for this play but for all Shakespeare in general, particularly when being given to teenage readers.

There is nothing so instinctively conservative as a teenager.

Asked to ‘image’ a part of the text they will go straight for ‘old’ costumes of the perceived time Shakespeare set the play and with naturalistic backgrounds.

Using the RSC 1995 production photographs, with ‘Italian’ scooters, commedia beards, and clearly mixed-date costumes set in a strongly theatrical space, the students can be introduced to a freer perception and induced to break open their fertile reserves of imagination.

I think it is the adaptability of the material presented in this edition which is its biggest selling point – I could easily use this in the classroom – and it would make my work a lot easier. There is plenty for me to work on, and I could be very flexible with my approach – the notes give all the explanations needed but can be ignored if not needed or wanted – there are images to support and stretch, there’s an introduction to ignore or use and stimulate.

Students could pick this up on their own and have a good chance of not only following the events but starting to interrogate and respond.

Stuck on the end, in addition to the Appendix A extra Sly scenes, there is an Appendix B with an extract from ‘A Kestrel for a Knave’ – explaining in a delightfully modern way just what ‘manning a hawk’ means (and with a teenage protagonist to boot); there is a very boring ‘what to do with the play’ if you really want to answer examination questions section; and a final extra background section – which is useful. To end this strange eventful comedy, is my second major niggle – a summary of Shakespeare’s life and work I don’t subscribe to – I’d go through it and then ‘rubbish it’ in class, so it isn’t going to stop me from using the book in the classroom.

The final point I think I need to make is that, although I have judged the text by its intentions – I hope I’ve also shown this is good general text too. If you are not an English School Child, don’t be put off by the ‘School Shakespeare’ title – if you want a clear, easy to read and follow edition – this should certainly be considered.

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, Oxford School Shakespeare

Oxford School Shakespeare (2)

Introduction to:

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

The Introduction starts with a couple of paragraphs, ‘About the Play’.

The first point made, and it is one well worth making, is that this is one of Shakespeare’s most successful and popular plays – in performance. What is dull and complicated on the page becomes lively and clear on the stage.

The second point tries to nail that complicated plot down – it describes the play as … ‘an-action-within-a-plot-within-a-deception’. This phrase is to form the backbone of what follows and, although I have doubts about some of the consequences of the phrase, it is quite a clever way of describing the play and I think it would work well with the teenage readership. I especially like the hyphens.
By restricting this section to two points Ms Gill (the editor) gives the readership every chance of forming a strong foundation of understanding, not only of this play, but of any other Shakespeare texts they will encounter: This is a play, it should be judged in the theatre and its reputation is based on theatre performance. In addition, this play has a theatrical dynamic – a play within a play which constitutes a part of the meaning and is not just a device … the words deception, plot and action resonate.
A final point I’d make here is the publishers have given a whole page to the text – which is remarkably sensitive to the needs of the students. You don’t ‘rush on’, you do stop and think – and there is time to absorb. There are no distractions so the teacher can focus and give full attention to these fundamental points safe in the knowledge that many of the class will be with him/her.

Next we are given the ‘Leading Characters in the Play’. These are split according to the three-part-phrase introduced on the previous page.

Again, the layout is significant – it reinforces the earlier idea of three levels, but also groups characters in a way which helps point to their interactions.
Part 1 and Part 3 both have two ‘principle’ characters – and you end up asking the question, are they in some way linked – why two? The first is a deception, the last an action – is there action in the first and deception in the last?
Part 2 and Part 3 have some characters in common – why? This list of characters is not a straight ‘shopping list’ – it is designed to introduce the main roles, the play components and the ‘chemistry’ between them. So Katherina is listed twice – first, in ‘The Plot’, with an emphasis on her temper; then, in ‘The Action’, with the addition of intelligence and independence. Again, you ask the question – why the addition, is it character development or something else – do we have a reflection of the insight Petruccio has in this addition?

As a teacher I could make a lot of use of this page – it allows me not only to point to a couple of upcoming themes but also gives me the opportunity to explore in embryo wider issues and ideas with the students – raising questions which can only be answered by reading the text and watching the play.

We move on to a ‘Synopsis’- this is organised by scene and is relatively straight forward.

But here we come to my first niggle – someone (if I am lucky) is going to ask me what the word synopsis means, and I am going to say, “It’s a fancy way to say ‘the plot’ – the events of the play, what happens, the story.”

“Do you mean it’s the story of the second part – ‘The Plot’?”

“No, Roma Gill, the editor is using the word ‘plot’ there to mean a plan, - they are plotting like criminals or terrorists to do something; here the word means the storyline.”

You, I am sure, get my point – by calling the second part, The Plot, confusion is going to be created … I’d, at this point, go back and get the kids to cross out the word ‘plot’ in the previous pages and replace it with some agreed term, like plan or trick …

The rest of the Synopsis is about as easy to read as any – although I think the vocabulary is a little rich in places and some of the sentences could have been simplified. However, I am not likely to use it in class – not until reading through the play text where each scene has a mini synopsis in the notes at the side anyway.

After the Synopsis comes, The Taming of the Shrew: commentary.

Firmly 1-2-3.d with the foundation phrase, each part is given a good scrubbing making it clean and shiny and easy to follow. We are given helpful (and essential) information – and pointed to obvious things which are far from obvious to the Shakespeare initiate.

For example, Part 1 is clearly stated to be in Shakespeare’s Warwickshire, and the comment is made that there could be reference to real people in the text (Marian Hacket): Great points for question raising in the classroom – why make this part so realistic?
Basic information about social stratification, its reflection in the language use of the play, theatre practise (such as touring productions and boy acting) and even an indication of a sexual innuendo all make great hooks for the student to attach their own thoughts and ideas to and compare what they see with what they read.

Part 2 points to the origins of the plot (and the Plot plan/trick) - the sort of thing that takes Shakespeare away from the ivory-tower isolation of the Bardolators; gives more indication of the need to ‘listen’ to how people are speaking, not just what they are saying; emphasises these are now actors acting being actors; and indicates the interpretation of Baptista’s given in Elizabethan England would possibly be significantly different from ‘modern’ western interpretations.

Twice as much space is given to Part 3 (as expected) and it combines much of the same sort of information as the previous two – social, historical and theatrical context – but going deeper. It also gives a clear line on the development of the wooing – highlighting the 3 kisses and the way they signal different things.

I disagree with the ‘weak ending’ Ms Gill claims, but then, the text I’d use is more complete than the one she has opted for.

Overall, this commentary does its job, and does it well – the attentive student will get a lot from it and will have started to develop a way of looking at the texts of the plays which recognises the theatrical nature of the material and the need to give thought to questions raised rather than look for answers.

The final two parts of the introduction are on Shakespeare’s Verse and Source, Date and Text.

Both can be considered necessary, but dull. I’ve yet to find the writing on Shakespeare’s verse that gives anywhere near the understanding listening to the lines said will – this is no different. What is given is a great chunk of text which is readable ‘out loud’ and will then quickly give all you do need to understand about blank verse.

Source date and Text does make a neat summary – and raises, ever so slightly, the issue of The Shrew vs A Shrew.

Both these sections I am likely to refer back to later on, during an exploration of the text itself … which is what I now need to move on to …

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Oxford School Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew

Oxford School Shakespeare

THE TAMING

OF THE SHREW

(1)

Let’s nail the first point well and truly down – this is an edition of the play that is intended to be used in the classroom situation in an educational institution in the UK: It would be totally unfair to treat it as anything else.

That is not to say it is not usable (or indeed preferable) in other situations, but with the title ‘School Shakespeare’, the colours are firmly attached to the flagpole. Maybe I should clarify the use of the word ‘school’ for our transatlantic language speakers – a school is a place children go to learn – it is not a higher education institution – school children attend schools.

When you pick it up – and that is the first experience many people will have of the full text of any Shakespeare (this is, after all, mistakenly considered one of the easier and safer plays to do with young people) … as I was saying … when you pick it up, it feels good: Not too heavy; clear flexible binding (which state school in England could afford the hardback?); good colourful picture with suitably dramatic facial expressions; clean white paper – which falls open to give a tantalizing glimpse of lots of space and not too intimidating amounts of print. You also notice the pictures – black and white.

The blurb on the back is unhelpful in the classroom – just advertising promoting the series – although it does claim to deliver the full text and student notes. A missed educational opportunity based on a commercial decision?

On the title page we get two Oxfords, one Oxon, a Cantab., and an OBE – an M.A. and a B.Litt.: We also get the name of the woman many of these letters attach to: – oh, and a Title.

None of this will interest the schoolchildren – none of it really interests the teachers – the editors are giving as much ‘clout’ as they dare to support a supposed need for academic excellence attached to The National Poet’s works.

Most students at this point will be flicking through the book looking at the pictures and picking out bits of text and the notes.

Oxford have done a good job at this point – there are quite a few illustrations – some photographs taken from RSC productions – principally 1995; others line drawings illustrating and supporting particular points in the text or the notes.

You notice pictures of cards, cannons and puppets; men in silly trousers on a scooter, a woman in an off the shoulder dress, and one in a wedding dress – two women fighting and several young men … all will stimulate the interest in the majority of classrooms … and raise the first hooks for understanding the play. They also help reduce the ‘intimidation’ factor – this is not going to be as difficult as people say.

Most teachers will have introduced the play their own way – and would initially ignore the Introduction – “Turn to the characters on page xix,” is a very likely start to the lesson. However, I will go through the book in book order – just to make things easier ...

(To be continued)

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, Oxford School Shakespeare

The Animated Shrew

I like ‘Shakespeare: The Animated Tales’ as a concept and, of the ones I’ve seen so far, (most of the time) in execution: The texts, superbly sliced by Leon Garfield, abridgements rather than rewrites; the animations various in style, all of the highest quality, filmed in the studios of Russia; the voices of actors from the ‘British tradition’ many of whom have performed Shakespeare on stage with organizations like the RSC and The National Theatre.

The idea is to provide short introductions to the plays which are accessible to a young audience but which don’t make sacrifices to the gods of patronization or oversimplification and which not only inform but entertain.

The Taming of the Shrew is not an exception – it is an intelligent romp through the basic story with some witty stop-gap animations and a perception of the original play worth thinking about.

Unlike many ‘full text’ productions, which cut the framing device, the film starts with the drunken Sly bouncing out of the ale house, and being picked up by the ‘lord’ and his retinue: Sly literally replaces the wild boar on the huntsmen’s pole. Although the words are cut, this makes clearer than the spoken words the line:

‘O monstrous beast, how like a swine he lies’

and illustrates nicely the subtlety this animated version attains – it is an image which fixes the metaphor, fixes it fast, and amuses.

The Sly scenes are kept, I think, to highlight the ‘play-within’ device – throughout the film there are curtains and stages, applause and a character crossing through the invisible wall. Leon Garfield (with the advice of Stanley Wells – who is credited?) has been true to his source and seems to be maintaining the necessity of remembering this is not real – this is only a tale – which, when added to the alienating effect of the characters being animated, really drives home the question of how ‘real’ the plot is meant to be taken.

Does the ‘Taming’ present a piece of advice (which Sly mistakenly takes it for at the end and ends up bouncing again) or is it an exploration of extremes?

Is this a cathartic experience – like Tom and Jerry?

These are not questions for the children who form the principle intended audience of the tale – but they do illustrate the way that the animations have been ‘intelligently’ constructed – they are planting seeds for later revisitings, providing strong images to connect to when you see the play live on stage.

And, because the audience is meant to be young, there is a strong narrative line given to the story which is, after all, a ‘Tale’. This has meant a degree of reorganisation – the Bianca story is separated out and tagged on to the end; after the initial Sly story, we move straight to Kate and Petruccio – and stay focused on the interchange between them.

This works remarkably well. I can imagine young people being able to follow the twists and turns of Shakespeare’s plotting much more easily after seeing this – more so than after reading the text: Inventive teaching would have to work pretty hard to do as good a job.

Katherine and Petruccio also illustrate nicely the clarity animated figures can bring to a production – both characters here are handsome – and young; both are lively and spirited – there is one point where the dialogue is supported by a ‘dance’ competition; both ‘express’ through pose - which would strike one as odd in the theatre. Facial expression is there – and unambiguous.

To go with the excellent animation the voices are clear, the dialogue paired down to essentials, and meaning consequently not difficult to follow. As indicated above, there are directorial insertions which support the words when necessary, sometimes obviously, sometimes less so: I could not tell you why, but I was very aware the morning after watching that there were three kisses.

The Director (Aida Ziablikova) and Designer (Olga Titova) are Russian – and demonstrate what I’ve known for some time, not only the English have the ability to turn out fantastic Shakespeare.

‘High Production Values’ is a term you sometimes here connected with expensive ‘artistic’ films, and less artistic blockbusters – well, it is also a term you can apply to smaller scale (if half-an-hour of animation is smaller scale) work – and I don’t think you’ll find higher production values than in this series of Animated Tales!

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, Animated Shakespeare

Wiving Wealthily

Petruccio:
I come to wive it wealthily in Padua;
If wealthily, then happily in Padua.

Money? Or something else as well: From the root weal. Linked to the word commonweal - an implication of much wider usage than just goods and money (and that is still used in its wider sense, eg the Catholic Publication and the Commonweal Institute).

Wealth is a word that is used much in some of the Homilies preached every Sunday from the pulpit in Elizabethan England - on the one on good Order and obedience, for example, it is a word used 10 times - never once meaning money. In the homily against drunkeness it appears four times, including this -

so they haue worldly wealth and riches aboundant to satisfie their vnmeasurable lustes, they care not what they doe. They are not ashamed to shew their drunken faces, and to play the madde man openly.

where the 'worldly' is necessary to distinguish other types of wealth.

Does Petruccio, when he says he comes to 'wive it wealthily' mean this worldly wealth - or is he saying something else?

There was a saying in Elizabethan England about it not being possible to gain both a wife and wealth in the same year - is Petruccio out to prove it wrong?

There are other attempts at wealthy marriages and other talks of money in the play - don't forget, Kate's father is as anxious to find a rich suitor for Kate as Petruccio is for himself (which puts pay to the idea Petruccio doesn't have money); and he selects a partner for his other daughter on the same criteria; the widow at the end of the play is 'rich'.

Aren't we being faced with a dilemma - isn't Shakespeare asking the question - wherein lies true wealth?

Katherina and Petruccio make a 'rich' match - but they are also wealthily married - I'm not too sure about the other two couples.

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, wealth, Taming of the Shrew

On Sly's small beer ...

Few of us know (or would want to know) Small Beer.

Sly, when he wakes up calls for small beer -

SLY. For God's sake, a pot of small ale.

Benjamin Franklin drank it for breakfast, George Washington had a recipe for it, Ann Hathaway would have made it at home for the whole family to drink - and schoolboys at Elizabethan school were given it to drink at lunchtime.

When I visited a village in Oltenea (a part of Southern Romania) back in the last century (think about it) I found out exactly why people drank small beer:

The water is dangerous.

I arrived in a small village - the only road in being along a dried river bed - in winter there are times when you can't drive in.

There was no electricity - maybe there still isn't.

I was treated royally - good food, plenty of alcohol.

I stayed overnight there - sleeping in the same room as the family - hot and mosquito bitten.

In the morning I woke with a 'bit of a head' (much like Sly must have woken) and asked for water -

"Water is for animals."

I was given a glass of wine ... water just was not available. There was a well, there was 'water' but unfit for human consumption - experience had taught the villagers that it was better to drink the fermented juice of the grape - unfermented when available (as must but that is only available for part of the year).

The youngest children drank milk - the older ones wine. When it was available, and up in the mountains it was throughout the summer, you drank the liquid that comes off the top of the sheep cheese - the whey.

So too in England for most of its history - drink water and risk serious disease and death.

When you make very low alcohol beer (small beer) you will boil the water - it 'kills the germs' and so is much safer to drink than water from a well. There is alcohol in it - but not much.

Sly calls for small beer - not because he is in need of alcohol, but because he is in need of liquid - do the servants offer the upper-class wine - in the same spirit? Is it the equivalent of the red wine I got in Oltenea?


Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Romania, Taming of the Shrew, Small Beer

HOMILY ON THE STATE OF MATRIMONY

The Library of the University of Toronto has kindly made available to all the Elizabethan and Jacobean Homilies. The one I'm interested in at the moment is the one on the state marriage.

For this folly is euer from our tender age growne vp with vs, to haue a desire to rule, to thinke highly of our selfe, so that none thinketh it meet to giue place to another and to disseuer the loue of heart, then to preserue concord. That wicked vice of stubborne will and selfe loue, is more meet to breake

OK - that's a clear reference to Kate - and it is a danger to marriage - so Petruccio breaking her of it is good: Elizabethan view.

But surely Petruccio is aiming at ruling? I am not so sure - elsewhere in the Homily it says (about marriage):

It is instituted of GOD, to the intent that man and wo­man should liue lawfully in a perpetuall friendship

That's an interesting word - friendship - back to Two Gentlemen and their 'friendship'?

The friends in Two Gentlemen teased each other - Petruccio and Katherina haven't got to the stage where that teasing can happen -or have they? Does the moon/sun encounter on the road show a dawning in Katherina that Petruccio is moving on from tame to tease? When he calls her in at the end of the play - is she teasing him? (Which flies in the face all I've said before - or does it?)

And let's make clear - this Homily doesn't only set about women - it sets about men too:

For that is surely the singular gift of GOD, where the common example of the world declareth how the diuell hath their hearts bound and entangled in diuers snares, so that they in their wiuelesse state runne into open abominations, without any grudge of their conscience. Which sort of men that liue so desperately, and filthy,

Doesn't that sound a bit like Sly? The desperate and filthy life he leads ... the Lord calls him a swine ... he looks like a pig in mud.

But isn't it also what Petruccio is about - getting a wife? He has heard the Homily - and wants to avoid sin.

I have to admit - there are elements (well, whopping big chunks) of the Homily that are firmly in the male is best camp -

For the woman is a weake creature, not indued with like strength and constancie of minde, therefore they be the sooner disquieted, and they be the more prone to all weake affections & dispositions of mind, more then men bee, & lighter they bee, and more vaine in their fantasies & opinions.

Not exactly the modern view ... but notice something please - there is a 'hesitation' in that text ... the word 'prone'. All women are not like this - and women are 'sooner' likely to be disquieted - not that men will not be - both are in danger.

And the Homily goes on to say:

reasoning should be vsed, and not figh­ting. Yea hee saith more, that the woman ought to haue a certaine honour attributed to her, that is to say, shee must bee spared and borne with,

which, in a perverse sort of way, Petruccio is doing? He honours Katherina in seeing her as a fit partner for himself?

The homily is quite clearly against violence between husband and wife - so the A Shrew text doesn't follow where The Shrew leads ... Petruccio does not hit Kate - he refrains, although he clearly could.

And there is a piece of advice in the homily:

that first and be­fore all things, a man doe his best endeuour to get him a good wife, en­dued with all honestie and vertue

which links to:

let vs doe all things, that we may haue the fellowship of our wiues, which is the factour of all our doings at home, in great quiet and rest. And by these meanes all things shall prosper quietly, and so shall we passe through the dangers of the troublous sea of this world.

and on to

For this state of life will bee more honourable and comfortable then our houses, then seruants, then money, then landes and possessions, then all things that can bee told.

As I've said before - this is a play not about lustful love .. but about the true deep 'in God' Love between man and women paired for life ... in sickness and in health, through flood, fire and ... well, an out of date concept?

The Book of Common Prayer and the Homilies were the linguistic and moral foundations on which Shakespeare and his contemporaries built their fantastic works. Every Sunday, unless for very good reason, the population of England was in church listening to these words, thinking about them and measuring their lives against them.

We might not be of the same religion (or shade of religion), we might have moved away from the concepts of harmony and order common at the time of writing - but if we want to take out of the works of Shakespeare some idea of the original intention, then we need to remember the deep faith they were written under.

We don't need to though to get great pleasure out of performances, or even the text when read.

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Religion, Elizabethan Homily

'SOLEMPNIZACION OF MATRIMONYE'

Today being the anniversary of the introduction of the Protestant Book of Common Prayer, I thought, 'What better time to think about marriage and The Taming of the Shrew?'

DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is an honorable state, instytuted of God in Paradise, in the time of manes innocencie, signiflyng unto us the mistical union that is betwixt Christ and his Churche:

That's the opening of the church service - notice the very public 'gathering' of friends - marriage is a social ritual;

therfore is not to be enterprised, nor taken in hande unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to satisfye mennes carnall lustes and appetytes, lyke brute beastes that have no understandyng ; but reverently, discretely, advisedly, soberly, and in the feare of God,

and that is part of the continuation - love the contrast (and think it connects with the final scene in 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona');

Followed by this:

One was the procreation of children, to be brought up in the feare and nurtoure of the Lorde, and praise of God. Secondly, it was ordeined for a remedy agaynste sinne and to avoide fornication, that suche persones as have not the gifte of continencie might mary, and kepe themselves undefiled membres of Christes body. Thirdly, for the mutual societie, helpe, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, bothe in prosperity and adversitye, into the whiche holy state these two persones present, come nowe to be joyned.

Which basically says ...You get married for children, to avoid sin and ... for mutual society!

That's the basis of marriage - that is the norm of Shakespeare's day, that is the background to Kate and Petruccio getting hitched.

It is a publicly performed ritual, in English so that everyone can understand it, even if you do not read or write.

There are several points we tend to loose sight of nowadays and in our changed times.

First, marriage is a way of avoiding sin.

When Kate behaves the way she does at the start of the play, it is seen as excessive, wild, uncontrolled - and would have been seen as sinful. At the end of the play, she has grown calm, more mature - and has joined in an enterprise (marriage) in the correct spirit: "reverently, discretely, advisedly, soberly, and in the feare of God."

I cannot emphasis the last five words enough for an Elizabethan audience - Petruccio's 'taming' has saved Kate (and himself) from Hell's flames.

The idea of original sin was strong - so too was the idea that salvation came through marriage and the family.

One of the significant changes in perception that the Protestant Reformation brought about was the elevation of marriage - and the rejection of necessarily unmarried priests (one of the first things Luther did was get married - and Archbishop Cranmer - the man behind the prayer book we are looking at - did too).

This 'sea change' is difficult to communicate nowadays, but the family has been shifted well and truly 'centre stage'.

Shakespeare is exploring that in this play. When Petruccio has taken the decision to marry, he has taken the decision to take the 'remedy against sin' - in a sober fashion.

Which is interesting if you consider his behaviour during the service - his clothes, his lateness, his throwing down and assault of the priest.

Unless you were meant to take 'the service' as being in Latin and meaningless. The throwing down of the Latin text, unintelligible to all but a few - consequently un-wittnessable.

Or unless you are meant to take the actions as a deliberately ironic comment.

Don't forget - we have a drunken 'Sly' with his pretend wife up above ... and Petruccio, in intent, is deadly serious about the marriage and the holy state they are both entering into.

The second point I'd emphasis is the 'mutual societie' - the church service makes no bones about this - both get and give, both contribute, both benefit. This is the only context we should read Katerina's submission in.

What both her sister and the widow have failed to grasp is the mutual - they are treating the marriages they have entered into as a battleground - I win this one, you win that one ... Katherina has learnt it is all about 'helpe, and comfort' - in prosperity and in adversity: It is, for her, a holy state - representing the union of man and god.

It is also the mistake made by the 'silly' feminist brigade (as opposed to the thinking feminists) and too many modern (usually male) directors who treat the text and their productions as a 'battle of the sexes'.



Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew

I had a dream ...

... last night - very strange, flipping between seedy cellar flats in muddy London, Pet Shop Boys trying to pay me back for wood I'd bought on their behalf, a clamped delivery van and ever-lengthening queues to buy tickets for the London Underground whilst a woman I knew 'grilled' the ticket seller for information about times and place to for a Christian 'Timeout".

All irrelevant I hear you say, to the noble theme of Shakespeare - but from this melee of images and ideas I woke (the bloody Blackbird from Hades is back - 5.30 start this morning).

But I woke, once I'd shook the above from my head, with a thought - I bet the boy who played Speed in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, played Kate in 'Shrew'!

A bit of Brahms on the mp3, sink comfortably into the bed and work on it ...

It's the meeting of Kate and Petruccio ... the 'witty' exchange and battle of words: Speed does the same continuously in the earlier play.

But there is a difference - here, in The Shrew, it IS funny - or rather, is still funny.

In the former play, it is words words words - a bit of word-play, verbal fencing, wit for wit's sake; here there is something serious underneath.

In the former play it is intellectual; here it is emotional.

The former play needs a lot of support from the action to make the exchanges comprehensible - here most of the exchange is comprehensible as Kate attempts to bludgeon Petruccio - verbally and then physically.

But the comprehensibility comes not from understanding the words - it comes from understanding the intent.

The words really don't matter that much ... it is the play of emotion, the constant assault of Kate, the sidestepping, and deft pushing away of Petruccio, the resources and intellect shown by Kate, that matter.

Don't miss-take my meaning - if the words are understood, it is witty too - but the words are but a surface.

We've lost the full impact of the play on the word 'Kate' - we have to stretch our minds (or the audience's hearing) to make the pun work; we do not have to stretch anything to understand that 'teasing' a person about their name is a very, very irritating thing.

(Whilst we're at this point - does anyone else see the 'Hate-away' link?)

The exchange is earthy - intimations of sex (all but missing from Two Gentlemen) are here:

KATE.
Asses are made to beare, and so are you.
PET.
Women are made to beare, and so are you.

which is as clear as can be a reference to 'the getting of children'.

But there is also a great 'naturalism' in the exchange - they go on to talk of 'swaine' (don't forget the closeness of that word to swine - as in swine-herd); of buzzing bees and buzzards catching turtle doves that are too slow; of waspes with stings, wasps with tongues and tongues in "Taile' (which is too gross for the delicate sensibilities of this blog to explain).

To remind you:

PET.
Alas good Kate, I will not burthen thee,
For knowing thee to be but yong and light.
KATE.
Too light for such a swaine as you to catch,
And yet as heauie as my waight should be.
PET.
Shold be, should: buzze.
KATE.
Well tane, and like a buzzard.
PET.
Oh slow wing'd Turtle, shal a buzard take thee?
KAT.
I for a Turtle, as he takes a buzard.
PET.
Come, come you Waspe, y'faith you are too angrie.
KATE.
If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
PET.
My remedy is then to plucke it out.
KATE.
I, if the foole could finde it where it lies.
PET. Who knowes not where a Waspe does weare his sting? In his taile.
KATE.
In his tongue?
PET.
Whose tongue.
KATE.
Yours if you talke of tales, and so farewell.
PET.
What with my tongue in your taile. Nay, come againe,
good Kate, I am a Gentleman,

(Playshakespeare)

... and Petruccio claims no allegiance with courts, courtly love and such - he is a plain, honest Gentleman!

The speed of the movement of the images - sexual innuendo and the sheer energy needed to say these lines contrast remarkably from a similar early exchange in Two Gentlemen:

SP.
Twenty to one then, he is ship'd already,
And I haue plaid the Sheepe in loosing him.
PRO.
Indeede a Sheepe doth very often stray,
And if the Shepheard be awhile away.
SP. You conclude that my Master is a Shepheard then, and I Sheepe?
PRO. I doe.
SP. Why then my hornes are his hornes, whether I wake or sleepe.
PRO. A silly answere, and fitting well a Sheepe.
SP. This proues me still a Sheepe.
PRO. True: and thy Master a Shepheard.
SP. Nay, that I can deny by a circumstance.
PRO. It shall goe hard but ile proue it by another.
SP. The Shepheard seekes the Sheepe, and not the sheepe the Shepheard; but I seeke my Master, and my master seekes not me: therefore I am no Sheepe.
PRO. The Sheepe for fodder follow the Shepheard, the Shepheard for foode followes not the Sheepe: thou for wages followest thy Master, thy Master for wages followes not thee: therefore thou art a Sheepe.
SP. Such another proofe will make me cry baa.

The slowness of this, the teasing out of an intellectual thread, the silliness and the sound (all those s.s) suggest a very different approach ...

And yet ... if the same actor played Speed and Kate - do we get a deliberate contrast made, do we see Speed's wit behind Kate, and Kate as just another 'Act' on the World's Stage?

If she is - then it is the soldier she is playing rather than the lover. She is about to move on to the 'justice' - and that is where Petruccio is heading too. In the final act, Katerina does give judgement - on her sister and the widow ... but possibly on all mankind too.

But it flows both ways - Kate is in Speed too - he is the wild cat, who has been domesticated.

Speed is swinged into submission - in Shakespeare's Shrew, that doesn't happen to Kate; although the threat is there ... if she hits, he will hit back (so much for courtly love); Equal rights: Equal fights! I am not happy, by the way, with those productions where he does hit her - doesn't fit my view of him.

If the parts were played by the same 'boy', what a remarkable flexibility as an artist he must have had - and a strength in his personality, and an intellect?

Dare we suggest that Shakespeare was writing the part for the actor?

And, if Kate and Speed doubled - who did Petruccio double? Valentine or Proteus?

Technorati Tags: Shakespeare, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Taming of the Shrew, Speed, Kate

Powered by ScribeFire.