What do you think?
Rate this book
The Taming of the Shrew
Love and marriage are the concerns of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew . Lucentio’s marriage to Bianca is prompted by his idealized love of an apparently ideal woman. Petruchio’s wooing of Katherine, however, is free of idealism. Petruchio takes money from Bianca’s suitors to woo her, since Katherine must marry before her sister by her father’s decree; he also arranges the dowry with her father. Petruchio is then ready to marry Katherine, even against her will.
Katherine, the shrew of the play’s title, certainly acts much changed. But have she and Petruchio learned to love each other? Or is the marriage based on terror and deception?
The authoritative edition of The Taming of the Shrew from The Folger Shakespeare Library, the trusted and widely used Shakespeare series for students and general readers,
-Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play
-Newly revised explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages facing the text of the play
-Scene-by-scene plot summaries
-A key to the play’s famous lines and phrases
-An introduction to reading Shakespeare’s language
-An essay by a leading Shakespeare scholar providing a modern perspective on the play
-Fresh images from the Folger Shakespeare Library’s vast holdings of rare books
-An up-to-date annotated guide to further reading
Essay by Karen Newman
The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, is home to the world’s largest collection of Shakespeare’s printed works, and a magnet for Shakespeare scholars from around the globe. In addition to exhibitions open to the public throughout the year, the Folger offers a full calendar of performances and programs. For more information, visit Folger.edu.
Katherine, the shrew of the play’s title, certainly acts much changed. But have she and Petruchio learned to love each other? Or is the marriage based on terror and deception?
The authoritative edition of The Taming of the Shrew from The Folger Shakespeare Library, the trusted and widely used Shakespeare series for students and general readers,
-Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play
-Newly revised explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages facing the text of the play
-Scene-by-scene plot summaries
-A key to the play’s famous lines and phrases
-An introduction to reading Shakespeare’s language
-An essay by a leading Shakespeare scholar providing a modern perspective on the play
-Fresh images from the Folger Shakespeare Library’s vast holdings of rare books
-An up-to-date annotated guide to further reading
Essay by Karen Newman
The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC, is home to the world’s largest collection of Shakespeare’s printed works, and a magnet for Shakespeare scholars from around the globe. In addition to exhibitions open to the public throughout the year, the Folger offers a full calendar of performances and programs. For more information, visit Folger.edu.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1593
3061 people are currently reading
74504 people want to read
About the author
William Shakespeare
27.8k books47.1k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 6,016 reviews
January 24, 2016
We get it Bill, you hate women.
April 12, 2023
Huh. This certainly didn't age well, did it?
And I get it. You can't really judge an old ass play by today's moral standards.
Except you kind of can.
So. Kate is kind of a screechy bitch who doesn't want to get married. Her father (idiotically) proclaims that he won't allow his younger daughter, Bianca, who is beautiful & chill, to get married until someone takes Kate off of his hands.
Along comes Petruchio, who doesn't give a shit how awful Kate is as a human being, he just wants her fat dowry.
Meanwhile, there's this whole side story about the suitors who are fighting over Bianca.
It includes Shakespeare's prerequisite switcheroo of two people who each pretend to be the other, ushering in hijinks that could only happen back in the days before the internet & photo IDs.
Lucentio: Hey, I've got an idea, Tranio! Let's go 10 miles down the road, and I'll pretend to be a Latin tutor so I can get close to the hot chick. Then you pretend to be me and work on her daddy!
Tranio: Fantastic idea, boss! Can't think of a thing that could go wrong!
Of course, Bianca isn't the shrew, so this really isn't about her or the idiots who love her for her docile beauty. This is about Kate.
Poor, feisty, doomed Kate.
I know this is supposed to be a comedy, but Petruchio is fucking awful. Just the worst. He kind of tricks Kate's dad into thinking that Kate actually wants him, makes a complete ass of himself at the wedding, and then drags his new bride off for a honeymoon on the Isle of Stockholm Syndrome.
At which point, Petruchio doesn't allow Kate to eat or sleep until she becomes so hungry and woozy she agrees with whatever nonsensical thing comes out of his mouth.
TA-DA! HE WINS!
Kate is no longer a shrew.
She comes when he calls, destroys articles of clothing she likes when he tells her they are ugly, and even gives an impassioned speech to the other (less biddable) wives - scolding them for not being grateful & obedient to their lord and masters.
I may or may not have thrown up a bit during that part. <--I'll let you decide
It all ends blissfully with Petruchio getting patted on the back by the other men whilst on his way to get laid. Those other poor saps are now looking at their wives sideways, because thanks to a lack of zzz's and nutrients, Petruchio now has the most subservient woman of them all.
Huzzah!
And don't we all love a good Happily Ever After?
Best part is that this is a play within a play.
Yes, this adorable story is actually being acted out to benefit an assy practical joke.
At the beginning of the story, there's this lord who runs across a drunk hobo. Ok. He's actually a tinkerer, but anytime you fall asleep outside due to alcohol, I say it's hoboesque enough to earn you the label.
Anyway. I guess because this rich Renaissance frat boy didn't have anything better to do, so he decided to it would be hi-larious to get this guy they found in the ditch to believe he's a crazy nobleman who only thinks he's a boozy bum. The lord and his servants then go through some elaborate shit to pull off the world's most tasteless prank, including having his page dress up like a noblewoman and make out with this guy.
I just...
What the fuck, Shakespeare?!
I listened to this as the full-cast audio version, which I absolutely recommend as a lot of fun.
And I get it. You can't really judge an old ass play by today's moral standards.
Except you kind of can.
So. Kate is kind of a screechy bitch who doesn't want to get married. Her father (idiotically) proclaims that he won't allow his younger daughter, Bianca, who is beautiful & chill, to get married until someone takes Kate off of his hands.
Along comes Petruchio, who doesn't give a shit how awful Kate is as a human being, he just wants her fat dowry.
Meanwhile, there's this whole side story about the suitors who are fighting over Bianca.
It includes Shakespeare's prerequisite switcheroo of two people who each pretend to be the other, ushering in hijinks that could only happen back in the days before the internet & photo IDs.
Lucentio: Hey, I've got an idea, Tranio! Let's go 10 miles down the road, and I'll pretend to be a Latin tutor so I can get close to the hot chick. Then you pretend to be me and work on her daddy!
Tranio: Fantastic idea, boss! Can't think of a thing that could go wrong!
Of course, Bianca isn't the shrew, so this really isn't about her or the idiots who love her for her docile beauty. This is about Kate.
Poor, feisty, doomed Kate.
I know this is supposed to be a comedy, but Petruchio is fucking awful. Just the worst. He kind of tricks Kate's dad into thinking that Kate actually wants him, makes a complete ass of himself at the wedding, and then drags his new bride off for a honeymoon on the Isle of Stockholm Syndrome.
At which point, Petruchio doesn't allow Kate to eat or sleep until she becomes so hungry and woozy she agrees with whatever nonsensical thing comes out of his mouth.
TA-DA! HE WINS!
Kate is no longer a shrew.
She comes when he calls, destroys articles of clothing she likes when he tells her they are ugly, and even gives an impassioned speech to the other (less biddable) wives - scolding them for not being grateful & obedient to their lord and masters.
I may or may not have thrown up a bit during that part. <--I'll let you decide
It all ends blissfully with Petruchio getting patted on the back by the other men whilst on his way to get laid. Those other poor saps are now looking at their wives sideways, because thanks to a lack of zzz's and nutrients, Petruchio now has the most subservient woman of them all.
Huzzah!
And don't we all love a good Happily Ever After?
Best part is that this is a play within a play.
Yes, this adorable story is actually being acted out to benefit an assy practical joke.
At the beginning of the story, there's this lord who runs across a drunk hobo. Ok. He's actually a tinkerer, but anytime you fall asleep outside due to alcohol, I say it's hoboesque enough to earn you the label.
Anyway. I guess because this rich Renaissance frat boy didn't have anything better to do, so he decided to it would be hi-larious to get this guy they found in the ditch to believe he's a crazy nobleman who only thinks he's a boozy bum. The lord and his servants then go through some elaborate shit to pull off the world's most tasteless prank, including having his page dress up like a noblewoman and make out with this guy.
I just...
What the fuck, Shakespeare?!
I listened to this as the full-cast audio version, which I absolutely recommend as a lot of fun.
April 17, 2018
Oh well, Shakespeare! What do you expect me to make of this, Sir? Me, being a Kate, but not starved, tortured, and humiliated into obedience, submission, complete surrender?
How shall I read this play, that made me literally feel a knot in my stomach, that filled me with nausea, anger, and sadness? My first reaction was to think:
“Thank you, Sir, that’s enough. I’ll have none of this anymore, you may be my literary hero, but this is TOO MUCH!”
Then all those other authors came to mind, those brilliant authors who wrote about misogyny, colonisation and taming of human minds, and I reconsidered. If I read Shakespeare’s taming of Kate as a moral play, I have to reject it with disgust, regardless of what the customs of the time were. But as a parable on how to break a spirit, it is quite unsurpassed in its cruelty and effectiveness, and as such, it holds a truth that still, unfortunately, is quite unchallenged in many parts of society.
At the beginning of the play, Kate is a “wild-cat”, a falcon that cherishes her own way of living and thinking and speaking, and fears no man. She doesn’t know the treacherous power of the falconer, who uses her talents to tame her, as Petrucchio himself puts it: “My falcon now is sharp”. Chinua Achebe, in the title for his classic novel Things Fall Apart, chose a a line from a poem by Yeats to allude to the same kind of relationship between European colonisers and free African men, with a similar end result of complete breakdown of the falcon’s way of life after being forced to surrender to the game of the falconer:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Survival of the cruellest and most ruthless players, the rule seems to be. It is extremely painful to follow Kate’s path from an educated, strong-willed, thinking young woman to a brainwashed “puppet”, similar to the alternative Nora in Ibsen’s rewritten ending of A Doll's House: forced to surrender.
“Why, sir, I trust I may have leave to speak;
And speak I will; I am no child, no babe:
Your betters have endured me say my mind;
And if you cannot, best you stop your ears.
My tongue will tell the anger of my heart;
Or else my heart, concealing it, will break:
And rather than it shall, I will be free
Even to the uttermost, as I please, in words.”
Wouldn’t those have been wonderful last words for a strong heroine, standing her ground? Better than what came after her ordeal, in any case, a sermon held in front of her husband, who celebrates and cashes in money after betting that he can prove that he has broken his wife’s spirit completely, spoken as an appeal to the other men and women in the play as well. Kate now is claiming women should love the masters that force their will upon them:
“Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband…”
She adopts this attitude, of missionary female submission, after going through an episode where Petrucchio makes her claim that the sun is the moon or whatever else he calls it. This brainwashing method calls to mind the horrible torture in Orwell’s 1984, where citizens are pushed to the point of accepting whatever falsehood Big Brother chooses to sell as truth of the day. If Big Brother says 2+2=5, then that is true. Period. Neither Orwell nor Shakespeare leave it at that, though. The taming is not complete until Winston whispers in the end: “I love Big Brother”, and that is precisely what Kate does as well. Having been pushed over the edge, she accepts, and embraces, her prison and loves her jailer. The Spanish Inquisition worked with similar methods.
So, what do I make of this piece? I hate it. And I admire Shakespeare for putting abuse of power on stage so clearly. For his female characters are strong falcons, they are intelligent and free in their own chosen life style. But they break under cruel torture and horribly unjust social conditions, just like any human being does. Achebe’s Okonkwo is a proud man, but he breaks under the superior weapons of the European usurpers. Winston is a rebel, but Big Brother has better tools of control.
I will close the review with an echo of Kate’s words when she was still a bird outside the cage, free to use her words to speak her mind. As long as those words are not erased from the play, but hold their position in the history of Kate, she will never completely surrender:
“Why, sir, I trust I may have leave to speak;
And speak I will; I am no child, no babe:
You betters have endured me say my mind;
And if you cannot, best you stop your ears.
My tongue will tell the anger of my heart;
Or else my heart, concealing it, will break:
And rather than it shall, I will be free
Even to the uttermost, as I please, in words.”
And Nora, keep running from A Doll's House!
How shall I read this play, that made me literally feel a knot in my stomach, that filled me with nausea, anger, and sadness? My first reaction was to think:
“Thank you, Sir, that’s enough. I’ll have none of this anymore, you may be my literary hero, but this is TOO MUCH!”
Then all those other authors came to mind, those brilliant authors who wrote about misogyny, colonisation and taming of human minds, and I reconsidered. If I read Shakespeare’s taming of Kate as a moral play, I have to reject it with disgust, regardless of what the customs of the time were. But as a parable on how to break a spirit, it is quite unsurpassed in its cruelty and effectiveness, and as such, it holds a truth that still, unfortunately, is quite unchallenged in many parts of society.
At the beginning of the play, Kate is a “wild-cat”, a falcon that cherishes her own way of living and thinking and speaking, and fears no man. She doesn’t know the treacherous power of the falconer, who uses her talents to tame her, as Petrucchio himself puts it: “My falcon now is sharp”. Chinua Achebe, in the title for his classic novel Things Fall Apart, chose a a line from a poem by Yeats to allude to the same kind of relationship between European colonisers and free African men, with a similar end result of complete breakdown of the falcon’s way of life after being forced to surrender to the game of the falconer:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Survival of the cruellest and most ruthless players, the rule seems to be. It is extremely painful to follow Kate’s path from an educated, strong-willed, thinking young woman to a brainwashed “puppet”, similar to the alternative Nora in Ibsen’s rewritten ending of A Doll's House: forced to surrender.
“Why, sir, I trust I may have leave to speak;
And speak I will; I am no child, no babe:
Your betters have endured me say my mind;
And if you cannot, best you stop your ears.
My tongue will tell the anger of my heart;
Or else my heart, concealing it, will break:
And rather than it shall, I will be free
Even to the uttermost, as I please, in words.”
Wouldn’t those have been wonderful last words for a strong heroine, standing her ground? Better than what came after her ordeal, in any case, a sermon held in front of her husband, who celebrates and cashes in money after betting that he can prove that he has broken his wife’s spirit completely, spoken as an appeal to the other men and women in the play as well. Kate now is claiming women should love the masters that force their will upon them:
“Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
Even such a woman oweth to her husband…”
She adopts this attitude, of missionary female submission, after going through an episode where Petrucchio makes her claim that the sun is the moon or whatever else he calls it. This brainwashing method calls to mind the horrible torture in Orwell’s 1984, where citizens are pushed to the point of accepting whatever falsehood Big Brother chooses to sell as truth of the day. If Big Brother says 2+2=5, then that is true. Period. Neither Orwell nor Shakespeare leave it at that, though. The taming is not complete until Winston whispers in the end: “I love Big Brother”, and that is precisely what Kate does as well. Having been pushed over the edge, she accepts, and embraces, her prison and loves her jailer. The Spanish Inquisition worked with similar methods.
So, what do I make of this piece? I hate it. And I admire Shakespeare for putting abuse of power on stage so clearly. For his female characters are strong falcons, they are intelligent and free in their own chosen life style. But they break under cruel torture and horribly unjust social conditions, just like any human being does. Achebe’s Okonkwo is a proud man, but he breaks under the superior weapons of the European usurpers. Winston is a rebel, but Big Brother has better tools of control.
I will close the review with an echo of Kate’s words when she was still a bird outside the cage, free to use her words to speak her mind. As long as those words are not erased from the play, but hold their position in the history of Kate, she will never completely surrender:
“Why, sir, I trust I may have leave to speak;
And speak I will; I am no child, no babe:
You betters have endured me say my mind;
And if you cannot, best you stop your ears.
My tongue will tell the anger of my heart;
Or else my heart, concealing it, will break:
And rather than it shall, I will be free
Even to the uttermost, as I please, in words.”
And Nora, keep running from A Doll's House!
October 31, 2016
I really don’t buy the irony. Here is a play by a very young Shakespeare trying to appeal to the masses; here is a play that purposely appeals to the misogynistic beliefs of its early audiences, and I really don’t like it.
This is what should have happened at the end:
Katherine:
I’m a Shrew; I’m a woman who stands up
For herself and for her sisters alike
I have a voice; I will not be tamed by
Men who think themselves overlords!
Instead we have a rather meek speech in which a broken woman who has been deprived of sleep and food agrees to live under her husband’s thumb. Some may call this the comedy element, but I just can’t see it in that light. I didn’t find anything funny about the situation. Thankfully, Shakespeare learnt to do much better.
This is what should have happened at the end:
Katherine:
I’m a Shrew; I’m a woman who stands up
For herself and for her sisters alike
I have a voice; I will not be tamed by
Men who think themselves overlords!
Instead we have a rather meek speech in which a broken woman who has been deprived of sleep and food agrees to live under her husband’s thumb. Some may call this the comedy element, but I just can’t see it in that light. I didn’t find anything funny about the situation. Thankfully, Shakespeare learnt to do much better.
March 9, 2022
شرسة؟ام متمردة
عصبية؟ ام غيورة
سيئة الأدب؟ام تعيسة
خشنة ؟ام خائفة من العنوسة
نمرة؟ ام مستقلة
انها المواجهة الأزلية بين الانوثة و الذكورة..المباراة الصريحة الابدية التي لا غالب فيها و لا مغلوب..و لكي نبتلعها يغلفها لنا شكسبير بالكوميديا🍬
اذا اردت حقا ان تفهم كاثرين بعيدا عن تنميطها يجب ان تجيب على كل ما سبق من أسئلة فلو كانت تلك هي طباعها الاصيلة لما تغيرت و لو بقلع الضروس
. .قدم شكسبير للأدباء مفتاح درامي أبدي للبطلة سليطة اللسان غليظة التصرفات ذات المزاج الناري ..عندما تلتقي بمن يغامر و يقبل الزواج منها دون ان يراها. .
بيتروشيو مجرد شاب صياد ثروات مستغل اناني مادي مصمم على ان يصبح سيدا لزوجته و ارادته حديدية
بذكاء فطري عرف ان الحرمان من الطعام و النوم يروضون الوحوش فما بالنا بفتاة ثرية جميلة لم تألف الحرمان؟ الجوع جعلها تدعو الشمس🌞 قمرا. .و العجوز جميلا !!إنها الطاعة العمياء اذن
بيتريشو شخصية مثيرة للجدل و غلفه شكسبير بكل ما هو بغيض في نوع من الرجال الذين يبررون قسوتهم وسيطرتهم على المرأة و وقتها ومواردها و ممتلكاتها : بالحب ..لا و كأن هذا لا يكفي هو مقتنع أنه انقذها من مصيرها كعانس !! اذا فهو يعمل لصالحها
و من محاسن الصدف حقا انني لا أحب ريتشارد بيرتون و لا رشدي اباظة ..لا ل�� يحدث ابدا..لذلك🌟🌟 فالنجوم الناقصة في صحتك🍸 يا بيتريشو
عصبية؟ ام غيورة
سيئة الأدب؟ام تعيسة
خشنة ؟ام خائفة من العنوسة
نمرة؟ ام مستقلة
انها المواجهة الأزلية بين الانوثة و الذكورة..المباراة الصريحة الابدية التي لا غالب فيها و لا مغلوب..و لكي نبتلعها يغلفها لنا شكسبير بالكوميديا🍬
اذا اردت حقا ان تفهم كاثرين بعيدا عن تنميطها يجب ان تجيب على كل ما سبق من أسئلة فلو كانت تلك هي طباعها الاصيلة لما تغيرت و لو بقلع الضروس
. .قدم شكسبير للأدباء مفتاح درامي أبدي للبطلة سليطة اللسان غليظة التصرفات ذات المزاج الناري ..عندما تلتقي بمن يغامر و يقبل الزواج منها دون ان يراها. .
بيتروشيو مجرد شاب صياد ثروات مستغل اناني مادي مصمم على ان يصبح سيدا لزوجته و ارادته حديدية
بذكاء فطري عرف ان الحرمان من الطعام و النوم يروضون الوحوش فما بالنا بفتاة ثرية جميلة لم تألف الحرمان؟ الجوع جعلها تدعو الشمس🌞 قمرا. .و العجوز جميلا !!إنها الطاعة العمياء اذن
بيتريشو شخصية مثيرة للجدل و غلفه شكسبير بكل ما هو بغيض في نوع من الرجال الذين يبررون قسوتهم وسيطرتهم على المرأة و وقتها ومواردها و ممتلكاتها : بالحب ..لا و كأن هذا لا يكفي هو مقتنع أنه انقذها من مصيرها كعانس !! اذا فهو يعمل لصالحها
و من محاسن الصدف حقا انني لا أحب ريتشارد بيرتون و لا رشدي اباظة ..لا ل�� يحدث ابدا..لذلك🌟🌟 فالنجوم الناقصة في صحتك🍸 يا بيتريشو
November 5, 2007
Lucentio: Hey, I'm Lucentio. Who's that hot girl?
Bianca: That would be me. And hotness is about all I have going for me. Because I only have about 5 lines.
Lucentio: Wanna have sex get married?
Baptista: I'm her father, you whippersnapper. Get in line. She can't get married until her older sister does.
Lucentio: Who's that?
Katherina: ROAR! GNASH! GNARL! I don't want to get married, but I live in Elizabethan England so I must. I also have a violent streak and beat up my sister all the time because she's a wuss.
Lucentio: Damn. Guess I'll disguise myself then, because this is a Shakespeare comedy.
Petruchio: WAASSSSSSUP???!?!?!?!!?
Hortensio: Hey buddy!
Petruchio: My dad's dead, yo. I need a rich woman. You know any?
Hortensio: Well, there's this shrew I know. I'm trying to get with her sister. I figure the best way to get with her is through disguise, like that other guy.
Petruchio: Enough about you. Where's the rich chick?
Baptista: She's right here! KATHERINE!
Katherina: WHAT?
Baptista: Marry this guy!
Katherina: NO!
Baptista: YES!
Katherina: FINE! I hate you! You just don't understand! And you like Bianca best!
Petruchio: Shut up! Hey, guess what. We got married offstage, and I dressed up like a jackass.
Katherina: This sucks.
Petruchio: Okay, let's go home. PS you don't get to eat or sleep.
Katherina: But I'm hungry and tired.
Petruchio: Too bad.
Katherina: AARHRGRGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lucentio: Remember me? I'm putting even more people in disguises! It's zany! Also, I totally married that chick in secret.
Bianca: Huh?
Lucentio: Shut up.
Petruchio: Here we are! We came back for your wedding.
Lucentio: Sweet! I see you tamed that shrew but good.
Petruchio: For reals.
Lucentio: But she still isn't as obedient as my wife.
Petruchio: You wanna bet?
Lucentio: You're on.
Hortensio: Me too! I got married too!
Lucentio: Whatever. Servant, call my wife.
Servant: She won't come.
Hortensio: Call my wife.
Servant: She won't come.
Petruchio: That's what she said! I mean, other servant, call my woman.
Katherina: Yeah?
Petruchio: Tell 'em about it.
Katherina: Women suck.
Petruchio: Kiss me, Kate!
CURTAIN
Okay, here's the deal. The Taming of the Shrew is a well-written and genuinely funny play that glorifies spousal abuse. You have to forgive a lot because of when it was written and how it was written, with the framing device and all that jazz. But it still draws laughs from brainwashing your wife. Uncool. As a theater practitioner, you have to make some decisions. Do you cut most the abuse? Do you change the intention of the final speech? Do you keep the blatant misogyny? Whatever you do, you end up with something either very far from what Shakespeare wrote or something very far from what we (in theory) believe today.
Bianca: That would be me. And hotness is about all I have going for me. Because I only have about 5 lines.
Lucentio: Wanna have sex get married?
Baptista: I'm her father, you whippersnapper. Get in line. She can't get married until her older sister does.
Lucentio: Who's that?
Katherina: ROAR! GNASH! GNARL! I don't want to get married, but I live in Elizabethan England so I must. I also have a violent streak and beat up my sister all the time because she's a wuss.
Lucentio: Damn. Guess I'll disguise myself then, because this is a Shakespeare comedy.
Petruchio: WAASSSSSSUP???!?!?!?!!?
Hortensio: Hey buddy!
Petruchio: My dad's dead, yo. I need a rich woman. You know any?
Hortensio: Well, there's this shrew I know. I'm trying to get with her sister. I figure the best way to get with her is through disguise, like that other guy.
Petruchio: Enough about you. Where's the rich chick?
Baptista: She's right here! KATHERINE!
Katherina: WHAT?
Baptista: Marry this guy!
Katherina: NO!
Baptista: YES!
Katherina: FINE! I hate you! You just don't understand! And you like Bianca best!
Petruchio: Shut up! Hey, guess what. We got married offstage, and I dressed up like a jackass.
Katherina: This sucks.
Petruchio: Okay, let's go home. PS you don't get to eat or sleep.
Katherina: But I'm hungry and tired.
Petruchio: Too bad.
Katherina: AARHRGRGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lucentio: Remember me? I'm putting even more people in disguises! It's zany! Also, I totally married that chick in secret.
Bianca: Huh?
Lucentio: Shut up.
Petruchio: Here we are! We came back for your wedding.
Lucentio: Sweet! I see you tamed that shrew but good.
Petruchio: For reals.
Lucentio: But she still isn't as obedient as my wife.
Petruchio: You wanna bet?
Lucentio: You're on.
Hortensio: Me too! I got married too!
Lucentio: Whatever. Servant, call my wife.
Servant: She won't come.
Hortensio: Call my wife.
Servant: She won't come.
Petruchio: That's what she said! I mean, other servant, call my woman.
Katherina: Yeah?
Petruchio: Tell 'em about it.
Katherina: Women suck.
Petruchio: Kiss me, Kate!
CURTAIN
Okay, here's the deal. The Taming of the Shrew is a well-written and genuinely funny play that glorifies spousal abuse. You have to forgive a lot because of when it was written and how it was written, with the framing device and all that jazz. But it still draws laughs from brainwashing your wife. Uncool. As a theater practitioner, you have to make some decisions. Do you cut most the abuse? Do you change the intention of the final speech? Do you keep the blatant misogyny? Whatever you do, you end up with something either very far from what Shakespeare wrote or something very far from what we (in theory) believe today.
September 4, 2016
It makes some people feel better to believe that the rampant misogyny in this play is supposed to be ironic. Well, whatever. I still don't much enjoy watching a woman having her spirit broken down until she's nothing but a shell of what she once was.
June 21, 2020
The gentle gentleman, William Shakespeare pokes glorious fun at customs, marriages , greed and scoundrels, especially pretentious men and women. .. A practical joke can be carried to the extreme, in the northern Italian city of Padua, in the time of the brilliant Renaissance, a poor intoxicated man ( a tramp in fact), strangely named Christopher Sly, is found by an amused nobleman, outside a filthy tavern, sleeping on the dirt in the street, people walking by ignoring the unfortunate human. Until this Lord has an idea, take him to his impressive mansion and pretend that the lush, is really the owner, exchange identities, the nobleman becomes a servant and Sly, the powerful aristocrat, a long illness had made him think, the dreams of a lowly situation in life, were correct . He awakes in his luxury, a miracle, after so many hard years the diluted man comes to his senses they say, everyone acts like this is the lord of the manor. Thrilled, after some effective persuasion, the truth of this he learns about a beautiful wife ( a boy dressed like a woman), begins ordering his smiling "servants" (barely keeping from laughing out loud), to get liquor of an inferior quality, which is not present, he has to receive a better drink, a costly wine never experienced by him. A troupe of actors arrive on site, to perform (Shakespeare loves a play in a play), the bored, sleepy Christopher , gives permission reluctantly to get this over with, as quickly as possible , he rather go to bed, there is a reason now to do so . The play begins, "The Taming of the Shrew", Baptista Minola, a very wealthy merchant, a widower , in the same city has two pretty , marriageable daughters, the calm, kind , charming Bianca, with many suitors, and her older sister Katherine, who does not have any... her sharp tongue, violent, and combative nature, keeps the frightened men, far far away. The father decrees that Katherine must marry first, causing much turmoil, the very generous dowry of both , still cannot get anyone to come forth, the shrew is too well known in town. Until Petruchio, a rich gentleman from Verona, comes to Padua, he wants more wealth and will marry for it, isn't afraid of difficulties, he has only an eye for the gold. Also the son of a well- to- do nobleman, from Pisa, Lucentio, studying at the famous university here sees Bianca, instant love , but the Katherine problem continues, no hope, he will not give up the prize, his feelings are too strong. Disguises himself as a teacher, Minola needs one for his younger daughter, in order to be near Bianca, under an assumed name of Camibio, the mutual attraction is apparent to all, but the clueless father. Now if the brave or is it the foolish Petruchio, can somehow get Katherine to marry him, everyone will live presumably happily ever after , that is what fairy tales state. Would they mislead the public? An diverting satire not to be taken seriously.
August 23, 2019
Re-reading the play this time, I liked it a little better than I thought I would. I predicted that the brutal treatment of Katharine by Petruchio would ruin the play for me, but it didn't. From the induction involving Christopher Sly, the text of "The Taming of the Shrew" is full of so many transformations (tinker to lord, page to lady, servant to rich young man, rich young man to teacher of grammar, rich suitor to music teacher, wandering scholar to prosperous merchant, etc.) as well as so many literary allusions to Ovid and other metamorphoses, that Kate's transformation from shrew into obedient wife seems just one more mythological marvel produced by the magic of the stage, with Petruchio as the play's protean Prospero.
But I'm making the play seem better than it is. It is a very slight entertainment indeed, a farce whose lack of even comic seriousness is one of the reason why its brutality and misogyny are relatively inoffensive.
March 4, 2025
Re-read 3/3/25:
I've been on a serious Shakespeare jag recently, thinking, finding clips online, and then, even introducing my daughter to more than just Hamlet. I just happened to show her a rom com by the name of 10 things I hate about you and she loved it. And then I told her it was based, loosely, on Taming of the Shrew. Amazed, she then didn't argue in the slightest when I asked if she'd like to read, then watch, the Globe version. (For those who don't know, you can watch great, classic versions of the original in the same stage that the originals were first displayed, with all the same feel, jacknapery, and fourth-wall-breaking goodness and bawdry songs and low-brow displays that were the delight of all, right alongside the poetry and high-wit.)
It was glorious.
And even though it's not QUITE the same as being there in person, it comes so much closer than those silly movies with expensive sets. We both laughed up a storm.
And, at least for me, I'm always finding new things to appreciate, on this, my 6th read. I can only hope I will continue to raise a Shakespeare nut. :)
Original Review:
As with all of Shakespeare's plays, there's always a different interpretation always handy at foot, be it a woman's duty to place her hand under her husband's foot or not.
As it is, though, I can both be supremely annoyed with a society that demands that women be always so obedient, culturally, and be wickedly satisfied that Kate and Petruchio have worked out a true meeting of the minds and wills in such a way as to transcend all other's expectations.
There's a little something for everyone in this classic comedy, whether or not you subscribe to the patriarchy or the matriarchy. Kate gets a lot out of the situation because she's discovered just how much power she really holds with the right partner who respects her, and Petruchio finds a mate that will always be his equal in wit and will. Is there another definition of happiness?
Ignore the setting if it upsets you. These men in this man's world, even Petruchio's methods of "taming" his wife. The method merely demonstrated his deeper positive qualities by the negative, just as Kate's shrewishness belied a razor sharp wit.
Don't we all have such depths and thorns?
I've seen this one done in many different Veins, now, and the one constant is this: There are no victors, merely endless combatants that sometimes sue for peace. It could be a true power struggle or perhaps it is just an eventual meeting of the minds. What do we prefer? That's interpretation. :)
I've been on a serious Shakespeare jag recently, thinking, finding clips online, and then, even introducing my daughter to more than just Hamlet. I just happened to show her a rom com by the name of 10 things I hate about you and she loved it. And then I told her it was based, loosely, on Taming of the Shrew. Amazed, she then didn't argue in the slightest when I asked if she'd like to read, then watch, the Globe version. (For those who don't know, you can watch great, classic versions of the original in the same stage that the originals were first displayed, with all the same feel, jacknapery, and fourth-wall-breaking goodness and bawdry songs and low-brow displays that were the delight of all, right alongside the poetry and high-wit.)
It was glorious.
And even though it's not QUITE the same as being there in person, it comes so much closer than those silly movies with expensive sets. We both laughed up a storm.
And, at least for me, I'm always finding new things to appreciate, on this, my 6th read. I can only hope I will continue to raise a Shakespeare nut. :)
Original Review:
As with all of Shakespeare's plays, there's always a different interpretation always handy at foot, be it a woman's duty to place her hand under her husband's foot or not.
As it is, though, I can both be supremely annoyed with a society that demands that women be always so obedient, culturally, and be wickedly satisfied that Kate and Petruchio have worked out a true meeting of the minds and wills in such a way as to transcend all other's expectations.
There's a little something for everyone in this classic comedy, whether or not you subscribe to the patriarchy or the matriarchy. Kate gets a lot out of the situation because she's discovered just how much power she really holds with the right partner who respects her, and Petruchio finds a mate that will always be his equal in wit and will. Is there another definition of happiness?
Ignore the setting if it upsets you. These men in this man's world, even Petruchio's methods of "taming" his wife. The method merely demonstrated his deeper positive qualities by the negative, just as Kate's shrewishness belied a razor sharp wit.
Don't we all have such depths and thorns?
I've seen this one done in many different Veins, now, and the one constant is this: There are no victors, merely endless combatants that sometimes sue for peace. It could be a true power struggle or perhaps it is just an eventual meeting of the minds. What do we prefer? That's interpretation. :)
April 6, 2022
Not the bard’s greatest work, Taming of the Shrew tends more towards gender stereotypes (plus a few anti-Semitic asides) and, to my view, lacked memorable monologues. The humor was occasionally ok but no belly laughs provoked for me. The play within a play idea was interesting, but William sort of left the ending hanging. I suppose I should seek some archival footage of stage or screen interpretations of this one.
On to Henry VI Parts 1-3!
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
On to Henry VI Parts 1-3!
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
August 20, 2017
Book Review
The Taming of the Shrew is one of William Shakespeare's earliest plays and comedies, produced in the mid-1590s. We read this play in 8th or 9th grade as one of the introductions to Shakespeare in an English course. I'd rank this somewhere in the middle in terms of his comedies as well as works in general. It's got several funny moments (ironic humor) but it's also a bit weaker in terms of style and hidden meanings among all the words and characters. The plot is strong, and copied by many in the last 420+ years. Two men want to date / marry two women; sisters, brothers or friends, doesn't really matter. But only if both girls are married at the same time, thus forcing the hand where 1 man must step up and "take one for the team."
Some argue the play is sexist. I won't debate that, only say it is over 400 years old and probably more forward-thinking than most others at the time. Not saying it's right or fair, tho. What does a man do when he agrees to marry the "shrewish" girl... especially when she won't have anything to do with him. Inject some humor, fiendish plot and sarcasm, of course. What makes this an interesting play is there is a lot of action and definition in the characters. There's enough to go around, unlike some of the other works where you can't quite tell which characters are important... and sometimes mix up a few. Much easier to stay focused here. But it's not as funny as you'd like it to be. I like plays with strong female characters. Katherine is strong but unfortunately has a few weak moments. And the ending doesn't fit for me.
But... as far his plays go, definitely worth a read!
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by. Note: All written content is my original creation and copyrighted to me, but the graphics and images were linked from other sites and belong to them. Many thanks to their original creators.
[polldaddy poll=9729544]
[polldaddy poll=9719251]
The Taming of the Shrew is one of William Shakespeare's earliest plays and comedies, produced in the mid-1590s. We read this play in 8th or 9th grade as one of the introductions to Shakespeare in an English course. I'd rank this somewhere in the middle in terms of his comedies as well as works in general. It's got several funny moments (ironic humor) but it's also a bit weaker in terms of style and hidden meanings among all the words and characters. The plot is strong, and copied by many in the last 420+ years. Two men want to date / marry two women; sisters, brothers or friends, doesn't really matter. But only if both girls are married at the same time, thus forcing the hand where 1 man must step up and "take one for the team."
Some argue the play is sexist. I won't debate that, only say it is over 400 years old and probably more forward-thinking than most others at the time. Not saying it's right or fair, tho. What does a man do when he agrees to marry the "shrewish" girl... especially when she won't have anything to do with him. Inject some humor, fiendish plot and sarcasm, of course. What makes this an interesting play is there is a lot of action and definition in the characters. There's enough to go around, unlike some of the other works where you can't quite tell which characters are important... and sometimes mix up a few. Much easier to stay focused here. But it's not as funny as you'd like it to be. I like plays with strong female characters. Katherine is strong but unfortunately has a few weak moments. And the ending doesn't fit for me.
But... as far his plays go, definitely worth a read!
About Me
For those new to me or my reviews... here's the scoop: I read A LOT. I write A LOT. And now I blog A LOT. First the book review goes on Goodreads, and then I send it on over to my WordPress blog at https://thisismytruthnow.com, where you'll also find TV & Film reviews, the revealing and introspective 365 Daily Challenge and lots of blogging about places I've visited all over the world. And you can find all my social media profiles to get the details on the who/what/when/where and my pictures. Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Vote in the poll and ratings. Thanks for stopping by. Note: All written content is my original creation and copyrighted to me, but the graphics and images were linked from other sites and belong to them. Many thanks to their original creators.
[polldaddy poll=9729544]
[polldaddy poll=9719251]
September 26, 2017
I was curious about the controversy generated by the dynamics between genders that academics and readers have discussed for years in this early romantic comedy, which brought some memorable moments that hilariously reminded me of Much ado about nothing.
Sarcasm, bickering and jocular scenes abound in this play, but there is an extra dose of provocative innuendo. Even the title is condemnable for its lack of political correctness, as it implies that Kate, the female protagonist and eldest daughter of the wealthy merchant Batista from Padua, is known by her sharp tongue and in need of “taming” in order to be marriageable.
In the course of a relatively short but quite action-ridden plot with numerous identity swaps and plays within plays, we observe the drastic evolution of a woman who morphs from a free individual whose words cut like the most sharp-edged sword to the perfect role model of a subjugated, submissive wife held captive in a patriarchal system ruled by fathers and husbands.
Kate’s younger sister Blanca is the female counterpoint to Kate’s unorthodox defiance. Blanca’s traditional, more malleable behavior attracts suitors from all kinds and a very humorous mess ensues with no lack of piquant exchanges that culminates in a double wedding and the apparent triumph of male supremacy.
The contempt in which the male characters treat their female equals in this play is nothing short of abhorrent, but as I advanced reading, I realized that the female characters are the only ones to evolve throughout the course of the story. Their psychological portraits are much more complex, their states of mind are more delineated, and the reader gets a sense of the double meanings that impregnates their monologues. Contrarily, the men are presented as gullible buffoons who lose their bearings in useless competition, their minds when sex and drinks appear on the scene and who can’t help bragging without never fully registering what is going on.
Therefore… I wonder. I wonder whether Shakespeare meant to present the battle between the sexes as literal as he made his characters speak in this comedy. Couldn’t it be possible that Kate’s last monologue, which closes the play, is in fact a declaration of silent war where words are replaced by play-acting?
“Why are our bodies soft, and weak, and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?”
The verses above suggest sneaky behavior, the kind of awareness fit for survival through cunning and constant scheming, using the female body as bait to ensnare and dominate while giving the false impression of complete subjugation.
I might be reading this wrong, but Shakespeare was an impudent teaser, and I see the female characters in this play rule their male peers… in words, intelligence and action.
So my advice: flip the coin and give this play a second reading!
Sarcasm, bickering and jocular scenes abound in this play, but there is an extra dose of provocative innuendo. Even the title is condemnable for its lack of political correctness, as it implies that Kate, the female protagonist and eldest daughter of the wealthy merchant Batista from Padua, is known by her sharp tongue and in need of “taming” in order to be marriageable.
In the course of a relatively short but quite action-ridden plot with numerous identity swaps and plays within plays, we observe the drastic evolution of a woman who morphs from a free individual whose words cut like the most sharp-edged sword to the perfect role model of a subjugated, submissive wife held captive in a patriarchal system ruled by fathers and husbands.
Kate’s younger sister Blanca is the female counterpoint to Kate’s unorthodox defiance. Blanca’s traditional, more malleable behavior attracts suitors from all kinds and a very humorous mess ensues with no lack of piquant exchanges that culminates in a double wedding and the apparent triumph of male supremacy.
The contempt in which the male characters treat their female equals in this play is nothing short of abhorrent, but as I advanced reading, I realized that the female characters are the only ones to evolve throughout the course of the story. Their psychological portraits are much more complex, their states of mind are more delineated, and the reader gets a sense of the double meanings that impregnates their monologues. Contrarily, the men are presented as gullible buffoons who lose their bearings in useless competition, their minds when sex and drinks appear on the scene and who can’t help bragging without never fully registering what is going on.
Therefore… I wonder. I wonder whether Shakespeare meant to present the battle between the sexes as literal as he made his characters speak in this comedy. Couldn’t it be possible that Kate’s last monologue, which closes the play, is in fact a declaration of silent war where words are replaced by play-acting?
“Why are our bodies soft, and weak, and smooth,
Unapt to toil and trouble in the world,
But that our soft conditions and our hearts
Should well agree with our external parts?”
The verses above suggest sneaky behavior, the kind of awareness fit for survival through cunning and constant scheming, using the female body as bait to ensnare and dominate while giving the false impression of complete subjugation.
I might be reading this wrong, but Shakespeare was an impudent teaser, and I see the female characters in this play rule their male peers… in words, intelligence and action.
So my advice: flip the coin and give this play a second reading!
April 4, 2017
Taming of the Shrew was, I think, one of Shakespeare’s better comedies, though not one of his better plays.
In fairness, I think I’d like to see this performed and I may enjoy it much more, and a wiser person than I has observed that plays are meant to be seen, not just read. I would perhaps amend that observation that to be fully appreciated, a play should be seen AND read. A clever producer could have fun with this antiquated misogyny.
This explores betrothal and arranged marriages more than romance and has some psychological and societal issues as well. I have read some other reviews that deal with misogyny, but I think that is unfairly focused on a sixteenth century playwright, Shakespeare described the times in which he lived, and in that time, Petruchio would have a more proprietary relationship with his wife.
Still, this makes for a very interesting contrast with our times. I liked the way the play began, and performed, as a play within a play. Entertaining, probably more entertaining and humorous when seen.
In fairness, I think I’d like to see this performed and I may enjoy it much more, and a wiser person than I has observed that plays are meant to be seen, not just read. I would perhaps amend that observation that to be fully appreciated, a play should be seen AND read. A clever producer could have fun with this antiquated misogyny.
This explores betrothal and arranged marriages more than romance and has some psychological and societal issues as well. I have read some other reviews that deal with misogyny, but I think that is unfairly focused on a sixteenth century playwright, Shakespeare described the times in which he lived, and in that time, Petruchio would have a more proprietary relationship with his wife.
Still, this makes for a very interesting contrast with our times. I liked the way the play began, and performed, as a play within a play. Entertaining, probably more entertaining and humorous when seen.
November 14, 2014
They say TV and video games are a bad influence, well, this play has been corrupting minds since 1590!
It's crap like this that makes people think that playing mind games with one another is the correct path to true love. It says that lying about who you are and what your intentions are, as well as flat out pretending to be something you're not, that is the way, says The Taming of the Shrew, to win love and warp a person into who you want them to be. Poppycock, I say!
Hold on please...
...
...
...
...just give me a sec. I'm almost off my high horse. *grunt* There we go!
The Taming of the Shrew is good, solid entertainment and nothing more. You have to look at it like that or otherwise rail against its inequities towards women. It is a play of its time and it's time was not a good one for women's rights.
So, as a play, this is fun. We have multiple deceptions, some for jest, some for love, and who can complain of entertainment filled with love and laughs? Few, I'm sure. This shouldn't be taken much more seriously than that. And as long as no one takes this thing seriously, it is harmless fun indeed.
If for no other reason, I appreciate this play for giving me a chance to say poppycock!
It's crap like this that makes people think that playing mind games with one another is the correct path to true love. It says that lying about who you are and what your intentions are, as well as flat out pretending to be something you're not, that is the way, says The Taming of the Shrew, to win love and warp a person into who you want them to be. Poppycock, I say!
Hold on please...
...
...
...
...just give me a sec. I'm almost off my high horse. *grunt* There we go!
The Taming of the Shrew is good, solid entertainment and nothing more. You have to look at it like that or otherwise rail against its inequities towards women. It is a play of its time and it's time was not a good one for women's rights.
So, as a play, this is fun. We have multiple deceptions, some for jest, some for love, and who can complain of entertainment filled with love and laughs? Few, I'm sure. This shouldn't be taken much more seriously than that. And as long as no one takes this thing seriously, it is harmless fun indeed.
If for no other reason, I appreciate this play for giving me a chance to say poppycock!
June 21, 2014
I’m not even kidding. This play is more violent than King Lear. True, nobody dies in it—after all, it is a comedy (although whether you find it funny or not is a different matter)—but it is violent nonetheless. You know that sick feeling that manifests itself in the pit of your stomach when watching scenes of domestic violence or otherwise abusive relationships in movies or on TV? Isn’t it funny then how dormant that feeling seems to be when watching instead scenes of bloodbath-laden homicide à la Quentin Tarantino? Well, maybe it’s just me, but that is what made this play so difficult for me to read. Not difficult in the sense that it’s Shakespeare and Shakespearean language is difficult—it is difficult, but again, that’s a different matter. I suppose in the end, I am just much less comfortable with people disrespectfully slapping each other around than I am with them thrusting swords into each other’s breast plates.
This play actually started off great. I loved the frame story here: a drunkard being beguiled into believing, upon waking from his alcohol-induced doze, that he had been asleep for years. But the fun ended there. Never before has my estimation of a book plummeted as quickly as it did while reading this play. I guess in the early 1600s a performance showcasing Ike Turner’s treatment of Tina would be super freaking hilarious, but I didn’t find it very funny, nor was I entertained enough by the other parts of the play to compensate for its cruelty.
Now I must locate my wife so that I might bid her, no entreat her, no COMMAND her in her wifely duties to remove this play from my presence!
This play actually started off great. I loved the frame story here: a drunkard being beguiled into believing, upon waking from his alcohol-induced doze, that he had been asleep for years. But the fun ended there. Never before has my estimation of a book plummeted as quickly as it did while reading this play. I guess in the early 1600s a performance showcasing Ike Turner’s treatment of Tina would be super freaking hilarious, but I didn’t find it very funny, nor was I entertained enough by the other parts of the play to compensate for its cruelty.
Now I must locate my wife so that I might bid her, no entreat her, no COMMAND her in her wifely duties to remove this play from my presence!
February 7, 2019
3.5★
Read Here
I'm meant to be going to a Pop Up Globe production of this play & I'm sure when I see it staged, it will all seem like Jolly Good Fun. & it was amusing in parts. But Katarina is extremely unlikeable, Petruchio's methods seem cruel & the ending was very abrupt.
Maybe I'll feel differently after I see this staged. I really enjoyed the Taylor/Burton film.
I'll keep you posted. 😊
Edit; A good time was had by all at the Pop Up Globe (well other than the shrinking wine glasses)
I've done a review on my shiny new blog!
https://wordpress.com/view/carolshess...
Read Here
I'm meant to be going to a Pop Up Globe production of this play & I'm sure when I see it staged, it will all seem like Jolly Good Fun. & it was amusing in parts. But Katarina is extremely unlikeable, Petruchio's methods seem cruel & the ending was very abrupt.
Maybe I'll feel differently after I see this staged. I really enjoyed the Taylor/Burton film.
I'll keep you posted. 😊
Edit; A good time was had by all at the Pop Up Globe (well other than the shrinking wine glasses)
I've done a review on my shiny new blog!
https://wordpress.com/view/carolshess...
January 4, 2021
though it's definitely not Shakespeare's best, I really liked it! it was quite funny (I strongly recommend that you pick an annotated edition, with full explanatory notes), but it also made me think (was Shakespeare ironic? is Katherine's final speech evidence that the shrew has been tamed, or has she simply learned how to outplay Petruchio, using his own tricks? what about Bianca and the Widow's outspoken disobedience in the final scene? so many things to consider!!)
June 3, 2025
The Taming of the Shrew may not deserve the rating I have given, but I had to anyway, for it was a disturbing reading experience. In the play, a spirited woman is "tamed" by her husband through cruelty and humiliation. He starves her, deprives her of sleep to "tame" her into submission and to teach her her duty as a wife. In so doing, she becomes a broken puppet, which the husband proudly celebrates, exhibiting her wife's newfound obedience to her family and thus humiliating her. If reading this was not bad enough, the action was justified in the name of love! I felt awful.
Irony, the time it was written, and dream against reality have been offered as defences for the play. However, they weren't adequate for me. Let me tell you why. Irony or not, this was misogyny and domestic abuse in its extreme. The unmistakable glorification of them was appalling.
"She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,
My household stuff, my field, my barn,
My horse, my ox, my ass...."
This is how the man sees the woman, not as a human, but as a beast or a thing that he can either make or break. And all this is done for love? Can you buy such hypocrisy? And being written over four centuries ago is no defence either, for things said and done in this play are NOT dated! Domestic abuse (in the scale it's expressed in the play), both physical and mental, happens around the world even today. Four centuries later, male chauvinism is still intact. The last defence, that it was a dream and not the reality, is also feeble. It was true that the play began as a story within a story where a prank was practiced on a drunken man, treating him like a lord and performing a play for him. The drunk, in his semi-conscious (dream-like) state, watches it. But at the end, no mention was made of this farce (not in the copy I read, at least). So, the only dream there was the dreadful dream I dreamt while reading it!
The irony (as I see it) was the fact that this was a comedy! To be fair, there were some comical elements in it, especially in some of the dialogues. But to call this a comedy was taking much liberty on women, in my opinion. I know I have written my review passionately. It also sounds feminist. But having represented women who suffered domestic abuse in my practice as a lawyer, I cannot read these kinds of stories passively. And so, I cannot offer an apology.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
Irony, the time it was written, and dream against reality have been offered as defences for the play. However, they weren't adequate for me. Let me tell you why. Irony or not, this was misogyny and domestic abuse in its extreme. The unmistakable glorification of them was appalling.
"She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house,
My household stuff, my field, my barn,
My horse, my ox, my ass...."
This is how the man sees the woman, not as a human, but as a beast or a thing that he can either make or break. And all this is done for love? Can you buy such hypocrisy? And being written over four centuries ago is no defence either, for things said and done in this play are NOT dated! Domestic abuse (in the scale it's expressed in the play), both physical and mental, happens around the world even today. Four centuries later, male chauvinism is still intact. The last defence, that it was a dream and not the reality, is also feeble. It was true that the play began as a story within a story where a prank was practiced on a drunken man, treating him like a lord and performing a play for him. The drunk, in his semi-conscious (dream-like) state, watches it. But at the end, no mention was made of this farce (not in the copy I read, at least). So, the only dream there was the dreadful dream I dreamt while reading it!
The irony (as I see it) was the fact that this was a comedy! To be fair, there were some comical elements in it, especially in some of the dialogues. But to call this a comedy was taking much liberty on women, in my opinion. I know I have written my review passionately. It also sounds feminist. But having represented women who suffered domestic abuse in my practice as a lawyer, I cannot read these kinds of stories passively. And so, I cannot offer an apology.
More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/
July 7, 2022
شرسة؟ام متمردة
عصبية؟ ام غيورة
سيئة الأدب؟ام تعيسة
خشنة ؟ام خائفة من العنوسة
نمرة؟ ام مستقلة
انها المواجهة الأزلية بين الانوثة و الذكورة ..المباراة الصريحة الابدية التي لا غالب فيها و لا مغلوب..و لكي نبتلعها يغلفها لنا شكسبير بالكوميديا🍬
اذا اردت حقا ان تفهم كاثرين بعيدا عن تنميطها يجب ان تجيب على كل ما سبق من أسئلة فلو كانت تلك هي طباعها الاصيلة لما تغيرت و لو بقلع الضروس
. .قدم شكسبير للأدباء مفتاح درامي أبدي للبطلة سليطة اللسان غليظة التصرفات ذات المزاج الناري ..عندما تلتقي بمن يغامر و يقبل الزواج منها دون ان يراها. .
بيتروشيو مجرد شاب صياد ثروات مستغل اناني مادي مصمم على ان يصبح سيدا لزوجته و ارادته حديدية
بذكاء فطري عرف ان الحرمان من الطعام و النوم يروضون الوحوش فما بالنا بفتاة ثرية جميلة لم تألف الحرمان؟ الجوع جعلها تدعو الشمس🌞 قمرا. .و العجوز جميلا !!إنها الطاعة العمياء اذن
بيتريشو شخصية مثيرة للجدل و غلفه شكسبير بكل ما هو بغيض في نوع من الرجال الذين يبررون قسوتهم وسيطرتهم على المرأة و وقتها ومواردها و ممتلكاتها : بالحب ..لا و كأن هذا لا يكفي هو مقتنع أنه انقذها من مصيرها كعانس !! اذا فهو يعمل لصالحها
من
و من محاسن الصدف حقا انني لا أحب ريتشارد بيرتون و لا رشدي اباظة ..لا لن يحدث ابدا..لذلك🌟🌟 فالنجوم الناقصة في صحتك🍸 يا بيتريشو
عصبية؟ ام غيورة
سيئة الأدب؟ام تعيسة
خشنة ؟ام خائفة من العنوسة
نمرة؟ ام مستقلة
انها المواجهة الأزلية بين الانوثة و الذكورة ..المباراة الصريحة الابدية التي لا غالب فيها و لا مغلوب..و لكي نبتلعها يغلفها لنا شكسبير بالكوميديا🍬
اذا اردت حقا ان تفهم كاثرين بعيدا عن تنميطها يجب ان تجيب على كل ما سبق من أسئلة فلو كانت تلك هي طباعها الاصيلة لما تغيرت و لو بقلع الضروس
. .قدم شكسبير للأدباء مفتاح درامي أبدي للبطلة سليطة اللسان غليظة التصرفات ذات المزاج الناري ..عندما تلتقي بمن يغامر و يقبل الزواج منها دون ان يراها. .
بيتروشيو مجرد شاب صياد ثروات مستغل اناني مادي مصمم على ان يصبح سيدا لزوجته و ارادته حديدية
بذكاء فطري عرف ان الحرمان من الطعام و النوم يروضون الوحوش فما بالنا بفتاة ثرية جميلة لم تألف الحرمان؟ الجوع جعلها تدعو الشمس🌞 قمرا. .و العجوز جميلا !!إنها الطاعة العمياء اذن
بيتريشو شخصية مثيرة للجدل و غلفه شكسبير بكل ما هو بغيض في نوع من الرجال الذين يبررون قسوتهم وسيطرتهم على المرأة و وقتها ومواردها و ممتلكاتها : بالحب ..لا و كأن هذا لا يكفي هو مقتنع أنه انقذها من مصيرها كعانس !! اذا فهو يعمل لصالحها
من و من محاسن الصدف حقا انني لا أحب ريتشارد بيرتون و لا رشدي اباظة ..لا لن يحدث ابدا..لذلك🌟🌟 فالنجوم الناقصة في صحتك🍸 يا بيتريشو
March 7, 2017
"I am ashamed that women are so simple
To offer war where they should kneel for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey."
-- William Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, Act V, 2
The second play in my First Folio journey is 'The Taming of the Shrew'. The obvious discussion surrounding this play has to be Shakespeare's views, as expressed in this play, of women. I think any defense of Shakespeare's attitudes are silly. Shakespeare was a contradiction, especially towards women. Some of his best characters and lines are delivered by women. They are often strong, strong-willed, intelligent, cunning, etc., but he also obviously falls/dips into the attitudes of his time (late 16th century). I am less concerned with Shakespeare's attitudes towards women than I am about Trump's or the Duggars and that ilk. Actually, I probably side more with Harold Bloom, who thought the bard clearly preferred women to men (excepting Hamlet and Falstaff) on this issue.
The other piece that might get overlooked in Shakespeare's second play is how early in his career Shakespeare is completely bending the structure of his plays. This one is basically a play within a play (later to be repeated in Hamlet and others) and most of the players in the play in a play are playing parts. Oooo Meta. So, while I'm not thrilled with some of the attitudes (and I think those are more of his characters' attitudes and not his) the dialogue and characters are great. The play within a play, however interesting served no great purpose that I could figure out.
Reading this play alarms me not because of any attitudes it expresses, but because in almost 400+ years, many haven't moved that far FROM those sexist attitudes. So, as far as Kate is concerned. I'm with HER!
There were also several nice lines, specifically:
- "And melancholy is the nurse of frenzy."
- "Affection is not rated from the heart."
- "That being mad herself, she's madly mated."
- "And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily but eat and drink as friends."
To offer war where they should kneel for peace,
Or seek for rule, supremacy, and sway,
When they are bound to serve, love, and obey."
-- William Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew, Act V, 2
The second play in my First Folio journey is 'The Taming of the Shrew'. The obvious discussion surrounding this play has to be Shakespeare's views, as expressed in this play, of women. I think any defense of Shakespeare's attitudes are silly. Shakespeare was a contradiction, especially towards women. Some of his best characters and lines are delivered by women. They are often strong, strong-willed, intelligent, cunning, etc., but he also obviously falls/dips into the attitudes of his time (late 16th century). I am less concerned with Shakespeare's attitudes towards women than I am about Trump's or the Duggars and that ilk. Actually, I probably side more with Harold Bloom, who thought the bard clearly preferred women to men (excepting Hamlet and Falstaff) on this issue.
The other piece that might get overlooked in Shakespeare's second play is how early in his career Shakespeare is completely bending the structure of his plays. This one is basically a play within a play (later to be repeated in Hamlet and others) and most of the players in the play in a play are playing parts. Oooo Meta. So, while I'm not thrilled with some of the attitudes (and I think those are more of his characters' attitudes and not his) the dialogue and characters are great. The play within a play, however interesting served no great purpose that I could figure out.
Reading this play alarms me not because of any attitudes it expresses, but because in almost 400+ years, many haven't moved that far FROM those sexist attitudes. So, as far as Kate is concerned. I'm with HER!
There were also several nice lines, specifically:
- "And melancholy is the nurse of frenzy."
- "Affection is not rated from the heart."
- "That being mad herself, she's madly mated."
- "And do as adversaries do in law,
Strive mightily but eat and drink as friends."
September 26, 2019
When I was a student of English literature, I obviously read all of Shakespeare's plays (and more than once). Since then, I have reread some of them, but not this one. I tend to prefer his tragedies to his comedies. I'm pretty sure I read The Taming of the Shrew more than once, but not in the last few years. It is not one of his plays that I reread regularly, but I do have fond memories of reading it. In fact, this is a play I would recommend everyone to read, if for nothing else than for its cultural significance. This is a play that has inspired so many movies and public discourse, that it can be considered a part of our modern culture. The Taming of a Shrew continues to be an inspiration to many. In many ways, it is such a puzzle. There are so many ways in which one can read and interpret it.
The Taming of the Shrew is not exactly my favourite play by Shakespeare, but I do like that it still makes me think and ponder its meanings. Moreover, it is certainly an interesting play. What I find so fascinating about it is the fact I can't figure out a proper reading for it. Every time I read it, I feel like I'm reading a different play. What was Shakespeare really trying to say? Was he being ironic when he wrote it or did he mean it in earnest? Did he really believe that women need to be obedient to be good or was it just clever satire?
The Taming of the Shrew is not exactly my favourite play by Shakespeare, but I do like that it still makes me think and ponder its meanings. Moreover, it is certainly an interesting play. What I find so fascinating about it is the fact I can't figure out a proper reading for it. Every time I read it, I feel like I'm reading a different play. What was Shakespeare really trying to say? Was he being ironic when he wrote it or did he mean it in earnest? Did he really believe that women need to be obedient to be good or was it just clever satire?
February 12, 2024
just watch 10 things i hate about you
January 29, 2016
The Taming of the Shrew is definitely not the late 16th century proto-feminist masterpiece you’ve been hankering for, but what it lacks in positive portrayals of the “fairer sex,” is overshadowed by the bounding leaps of comic gusto on display in every line of verse. Simply put, TTotS is a caustic farce of the war between the sexes (the “merry war” that, due to inbreeding and lack of imagination, would eventually devolve into the barely functioning aborted mutant that is the modern day RomCom) that revels in its own irreverence and indecency. A wealthy Neapolitan nobleman is cursed with a total babe of a daughter, Bianca, with the unfortunate caveat of an unruly, acerbic older daughter—the Shrew of the title, Kate. While he would love to just go ahead and toss Bianca to the suitors who sniff at her skirts like a pack of TexAveryesque wolves, there’s no way in hell he’s going to let her get married and end up stuck with the unmarriageable Kate for the rest of his life. Luckily, Petruchio, who is in town visiting one of his friends, Hortensio—a suitor of Bianca—has no problem at all with immediately marrying someone solely for money marrying Kate. And you’d better believe he’s going to break his wife of any bad attitude she thinks she’ll be having with him. What follows is a fast-paced comedy characterized by its charming cruelty and bawdy wit. Scholars agree that this is most likely Shakespeare’s second play to be written and performed, and already the Bard of Avon’s preternatural talents are on full display. Everything you love in a Elizabethan Comedy is here, folks: disguises, sarcastic servants, snarky banter, a play within a play, puns at a machine gun pace, dimwitted fools, malapropisms and, of course, convenient marriages. Go ahead and leave your contemporary conventions and social sensitivities (which are obviously essential and important, so don’t give me any shit, thanks) at the door, and settle-in for some old-fashioned, mean-spirited laughs.
Misogyny doesn’t get any more fun than this! (Someone please quote me on this.)
Misogyny doesn’t get any more fun than this! (Someone please quote me on this.)
December 2, 2023
На первый взгляд, эта комедия может показаться антифеминистичной, прямо указывающей женщине на ее роль в семье и необходимости покорно подчиниться мужу.
Но я выражу свое мнение по поводу этой пьесы в многоголосый хор трактовок. Катарина знает, что она красива и богата, но она, очевидно, достаточно умна, чтобы согласиться на брак с первым предложившим руку и сердце благородным и богатым женихом, малознакомым, ибо тогда браки совершались скоро, и узнать своего избранника почти не было шансов. К тому же она понимает, что зачастую за богатством и титулами прячутся посредственность или глупость, а еще и многие другие пороки, которые она рискует узнать только после свадьбы. Она не хочет выходить замуж. Ей ничего не остается делать в этом патриархальном обществе, как бунтовать, что она и делает, пытаясь отпугнуть любого, кто к ней попытается приблизиться. Бьянка же покорна своей судьбе, она тиха, мила и делает то, что должна делать девушка на выданье, изображая из себя идеальную будущую жену и стараясь выглядеть в выгодном свете. Не так ли ведут себя большинство девушек до свадьбы? Стратегия Бьянки – не отпугнуть женихов и выбрать из них одного самого-самого – богатого, титулованного, и решение она принимает больше на основании внешних данных, богатства одежды и имущества, которое она получит во владение, вступив в этот брак. Она совершенно точно ни одного из них не любит, ответив на вопрос Катарины, что та может выбрать любого – лишь бы открыть ей дорогу к замужеству. Гениальность Шекспира в том, что он видит эти два принципиально разных поведения девушек на выданье, и большинство поступает, как Бьянка.
Конфликт разрешается тем, что отец, понимая, что он скорее всего будет обречен остаться со старшей дочерью в старых девах, и будучи не в состоянии самостоятельно найти для нее подходящего жениха, решает поставить условием выдать замуж младшую дочь только после того, как выдаст замуж непокорную старшую, рискуя остаться с двумя старыми девами. Женихи заинтересованы в том, чтобы доступ к руке и сердцу Бьянке был открыт, находят неординарного человека. Сами они посредственные и ни одному из них не приходит в голову побороться за сердце Катарины. Они слишком мелки для нее.
Времена были таковы, что, если жених сказал, что поладил с ней, то у невесты не спрашивают согласия. «Так вот отцовская забота ваша —Меня за полоумного просватать, Разбойника, нахала, грубияна, Что наглостью рассчитывает взять!» Петруччо умен, он сразу понимает «Она сварлива так, для виду только».
Петруччо демонстрирует абсурдность ее поведения, что иногда граничит с нахальством, ведя себя абсурдно и довольно по-хамски. Катарина разбивала лютню о голову ни в чем неповинного учителя музыки, кидалась вещами, Петруччо же опаздывает на свадьбу, одетый в бедное платье. На уговоры переодеться, он отвечает: «Она со мной венчается, не с платьем.» Во время церемонии в церкви он чертыхается, пинает священника, в общем ведет себя неадекватно, как вела себя Катарина, протестуя против замужества. О реакции Катарины, Шекспир пишет скупо «Она тряслась». Поэтому, здесь – широкое поле для предположения. Она увидела, как нелепо выглядели ее выходки. Это позволило остановить их хотя бы на людях. Он собирается сразу после церемонии ехать к себе домой. Катарина не хочет, она полна собственного достоинства и свободолюбива. «Прошу к столу пожаловать, синьоры. Из женщины не трудно сделать дуру, Когда она боится дать отпор.» Петруччо не отказывает ей прямо: «Они пойдут к столу, как ты велела. Прошу повиноваться новобрачной,», но говорит ей прямо в соответствии с варварскими законами того времени «А ты теперь имущество мое: Мой дом, амбар, хозяйственная утварь, Мой конь, осел, мой вол — все что угодно.» Катарина молча уходит с ним, поскольку понимает, что ее сопротивление бесполезно. По дороге (скорее всего подстроено Петруччо) Катарина упала с оступившейся лошади в грязь. Петруччо набросился на слугу, Катарина еле оттащила его от слуги. Голодной и замерзшей Катарине не дают поесть под предлогом, что мясо подгорело. Петруччо не дает ей спать. Слуги говорят, что он «Он ее бьет ее же оружием.», потому что единственное, как она может бунтовать - только неадекватным поведением. Честно сказать, здесь сомнительна правильность и этичность такой мужниной стратегии, и может ли женщина полюбить человека за такое поведение? Но в народе есть поговорка «Клин клином вышибают». Катарина в недоумении: «Я голодна, смертельно спать хочу, А спать мешают бранью, кормят криком, И самое обидное — что он Любовью это смеет объяснять,» Его методы укрощения похожи на методы дрессировки собак – еду после благодарности, показывает хорошие наряды, но отбраковывает и предлагает одеть, что есть. Она готова на все, лишь бы получить еду, сон и одежду. В дороге он провоцирует нелепые споры, она сначала возражает, потом понимает, чтобы доехать побыстрее, лучше согласиться. Говоря иначе, он приучает ее, что согласия с ним достичь она сможет лаской, а не протестом. Она понимает, что споры ни к чему не ведут, лучше согласиться, и продолжать движение.
Петруччо ведет себя, как мужлан, не стесняется в выражениях, даже в гостях, веля жене привести других дам: «Тащи-ка их сюда. А не пойдут —Пинками их гони без церемоний! Ступай и приведи обеих к нам.»
Он излагает тот средневековой идеал супружества, основанный на власти мужа: «Сулит оно любовь, покой и радость, Власть твердую, разумную покорность, Ну, словом, то, что называют счастьем.» Покорность разумная – что это такое? Катарина демонстрировала ранее непокорность, называемое строптивостью. Покорность неразумная – это покорность, основанная на страхе, бездумная покорность. Покорность разумная – это понимание, на чьей стороне власть, и подчинение власти, примерно также, как сотрудники подчиняются начальству или как она в монологе сказала «Как подданый обязан государю».
Повторюсь, это средневековой идеал модели семьи. Этим и объясняется монолог Катарины: «Муж — повелитель твой, защитник, жизнь, Глава твоя.» Вплоть до двадцатого века женщины не могли заработать себе на хлеб (но, очевидно, все же выполняя неоплачиваемыю работу по дому, в том числе богатые дамы, управляя домом), и семейная модель выглядела так, как описывает Катарина. «В заботах о тебе Он трудится на суше и на море, Не спит ночами в шторм, выносит стужу, Пока ты дома нежишься в тепле, Опасностей не зная и лишений. А от тебя он хочет лишь любви, Приветливого взгляда, послушанья —Ничтожной платы за его труды. Как подданный обязан государю, Так женщина — супругу своему.»
И только когда женщины стали работать в массовом порядке, семейная модель изменилась, и там, где сильнее всего неравенство в оплате труда мужчин и женщин и вклад в семейный бюджет со стороны женщины меньше, там сильнее сохраняется патриархальная модель семьи, там мужчины продолжают вести себя, как главы.
Поэтому логика слов Катарины понятна, но от этого подчинения мужу (в силу отсутствия собственных доходов) она не перестала быть умнее, сильнее характером, независимее, чем она была до замужества. Этот монолог не о том, что у мужчины должна быть власть в семье над женщиной. Этот монолог о том, как достичь согласия в семье в конкретных условиях бесправия женщин, когда она не зарабатывает, а муж работает. В наши времена работающая Катарина прочитала бы монолог о том, как ладить в семье бесконфликтно на условиях равенства мужа и жены.
Но я выражу свое мнение по поводу этой пьесы в многоголосый хор трактовок. Катарина знает, что она красива и богата, но она, очевидно, достаточно умна, чтобы согласиться на брак с первым предложившим руку и сердце благородным и богатым женихом, малознакомым, ибо тогда браки совершались скоро, и узнать своего избранника почти не было шансов. К тому же она понимает, что зачастую за богатством и титулами прячутся посредственность или глупость, а еще и многие другие пороки, которые она рискует узнать только после свадьбы. Она не хочет выходить замуж. Ей ничего не остается делать в этом патриархальном обществе, как бунтовать, что она и делает, пытаясь отпугнуть любого, кто к ней попытается приблизиться. Бьянка же покорна своей судьбе, она тиха, мила и делает то, что должна делать девушка на выданье, изображая из себя идеальную будущую жену и стараясь выглядеть в выгодном свете. Не так ли ведут себя большинство девушек до свадьбы? Стратегия Бьянки – не отпугнуть женихов и выбрать из них одного самого-самого – богатого, титулованного, и решение она принимает больше на основании внешних данных, богатства одежды и имущества, которое она получит во владение, вступив в этот брак. Она совершенно точно ни одного из них не любит, ответив на вопрос Катарины, что та может выбрать любого – лишь бы открыть ей дорогу к замужеству. Гениальность Шекспира в том, что он видит эти два принципиально разных поведения девушек на выданье, и большинство поступает, как Бьянка.
Конфликт разрешается тем, что отец, понимая, что он скорее всего будет обречен остаться со старшей дочерью в старых девах, и будучи не в состоянии самостоятельно найти для нее подходящего жениха, решает поставить условием выдать замуж младшую дочь только после того, как выдаст замуж непокорную старшую, рискуя остаться с двумя старыми девами. Женихи заинтересованы в том, чтобы доступ к руке и сердцу Бьянке был открыт, находят неординарного человека. Сами они посредственные и ни одному из них не приходит в голову побороться за сердце Катарины. Они слишком мелки для нее.
Времена были таковы, что, если жених сказал, что поладил с ней, то у невесты не спрашивают согласия. «Так вот отцовская забота ваша —Меня за полоумного просватать, Разбойника, нахала, грубияна, Что наглостью рассчитывает взять!» Петруччо умен, он сразу понимает «Она сварлива так, для виду только».
Петруччо демонстрирует абсурдность ее поведения, что иногда граничит с нахальством, ведя себя абсурдно и довольно по-хамски. Катарина разбивала лютню о голову ни в чем неповинного учителя музыки, кидалась вещами, Петруччо же опаздывает на свадьбу, одетый в бедное платье. На уговоры переодеться, он отвечает: «Она со мной венчается, не с платьем.» Во время церемонии в церкви он чертыхается, пинает священника, в общем ведет себя неадекватно, как вела себя Катарина, протестуя против замужества. О реакции Катарины, Шекспир пишет скупо «Она тряслась». Поэтому, здесь – широкое поле для предположения. Она увидела, как нелепо выглядели ее выходки. Это позволило остановить их хотя бы на людях. Он собирается сразу после церемонии ехать к себе домой. Катарина не хочет, она полна собственного достоинства и свободолюбива. «Прошу к столу пожаловать, синьоры. Из женщины не трудно сделать дуру, Когда она боится дать отпор.» Петруччо не отказывает ей прямо: «Они пойдут к столу, как ты велела. Прошу повиноваться новобрачной,», но говорит ей прямо в соответствии с варварскими законами того времени «А ты теперь имущество мое: Мой дом, амбар, хозяйственная утварь, Мой конь, осел, мой вол — все что угодно.» Катарина молча уходит с ним, поскольку понимает, что ее сопротивление бесполезно. По дороге (скорее всего подстроено Петруччо) Катарина упала с оступившейся лошади в грязь. Петруччо набросился на слугу, Катарина еле оттащила его от слуги. Голодной и замерзшей Катарине не дают поесть под предлогом, что мясо подгорело. Петруччо не дает ей спать. Слуги говорят, что он «Он ее бьет ее же оружием.», потому что единственное, как она может бунтовать - только неадекватным поведением. Честно сказать, здесь сомнительна правильность и этичность такой мужниной стратегии, и может ли женщина полюбить человека за такое поведение? Но в народе есть поговорка «Клин клином вышибают». Катарина в недоумении: «Я голодна, смертельно спать хочу, А спать мешают бранью, кормят криком, И самое обидное — что он Любовью это смеет объяснять,» Его методы укрощения похожи на методы дрессировки собак – еду после благодарности, показывает хорошие наряды, но отбраковывает и предлагает одеть, что есть. Она готова на все, лишь бы получить еду, сон и одежду. В дороге он провоцирует нелепые споры, она сначала возражает, потом понимает, чтобы доехать побыстрее, лучше согласиться. Говоря иначе, он приучает ее, что согласия с ним достичь она сможет лаской, а не протестом. Она понимает, что споры ни к чему не ведут, лучше согласиться, и продолжать движение.
Петруччо ведет себя, как мужлан, не стесняется в выражениях, даже в гостях, веля жене привести других дам: «Тащи-ка их сюда. А не пойдут —Пинками их гони без церемоний! Ступай и приведи обеих к нам.»
Он излагает тот средневековой идеал супружества, основанный на власти мужа: «Сулит оно любовь, покой и радость, Власть твердую, разумную покорность, Ну, словом, то, что называют счастьем.» Покорность разумная – что это такое? Катарина демонстрировала ранее непокорность, называемое строптивостью. Покорность неразумная – это покорность, основанная на страхе, бездумная покорность. Покорность разумная – это понимание, на чьей стороне власть, и подчинение власти, примерно также, как сотрудники подчиняются начальству или как она в монологе сказала «Как подданый обязан государю».
Повторюсь, это средневековой идеал модели семьи. Этим и объясняется монолог Катарины: «Муж — повелитель твой, защитник, жизнь, Глава твоя.» Вплоть до двадцатого века женщины не могли заработать себе на хлеб (но, очевидно, все же выполняя неоплачиваемыю работу по дому, в том числе богатые дамы, управляя домом), и семейная модель выглядела так, как описывает Катарина. «В заботах о тебе Он трудится на суше и на море, Не спит ночами в шторм, выносит стужу, Пока ты дома нежишься в тепле, Опасностей не зная и лишений. А от тебя он хочет лишь любви, Приветливого взгляда, послушанья —Ничтожной платы за его труды. Как подданный обязан государю, Так женщина — супругу своему.»
И только когда женщины стали работать в массовом порядке, семейная модель изменилась, и там, где сильнее всего неравенство в оплате труда мужчин и женщин и вклад в семейный бюджет со стороны женщины меньше, там сильнее сохраняется патриархальная модель семьи, там мужчины продолжают вести себя, как главы.
Поэтому логика слов Катарины понятна, но от этого подчинения мужу (в силу отсутствия собственных доходов) она не перестала быть умнее, сильнее характером, независимее, чем она была до замужества. Этот монолог не о том, что у мужчины должна быть власть в семье над женщиной. Этот монолог о том, как достичь согласия в семье в конкретных условиях бесправия женщин, когда она не зарабатывает, а муж работает. В наши времена работающая Катарина прочитала бы монолог о том, как ладить в семье бесконфликтно на условиях равенства мужа и жены.
September 19, 2017
I think it can go undisputed how misogynistic this is, but in a way, its ability to anger me was impressing? Idk. The content sucked, but I think it sucked for a reason. I don't think Shakespeare hates women and thinks they're inferior to men, yet I wish this had more of a comeback arc. I loved when Katharina was sassy and angry and at the end of the book she ended up so subdued, and I was waiting for her to snap back, but she never did. I'm disappointed.
May 4, 2018
حقيقة الأمر لم أتوقع أن تكون المسرحية بهذه الروعة وهذه الفكاهة العجيبة , دائماً ما تطاردني أعمال شيكسبير فأتوانى عن القراءة له وهذه المرة جربت حظي مع هذه المسرحية التي لم أسمع بها كثيراً كباقي مسرحياته الشهيرة, ورب ضارة نافعة , هذه المسرحية لها عنوان آخر أكثر شهرة وهي " ترويض الشرسة " ولكن وجدت ترويض النمرة أكثر جاذبية وكذلك الترجمة الأدبية الراقية التي زادت من إعجابي بأجواء المسرحية وهزليتها ..
مسرحية شيكسبيرية أكثر من رائعة , بموضوعها الطريف وشخصياتها الغربية وأجوائها الساحرة والتي ذكرتني بـ تاجر البندقية..
مسرحية شيكسبيرية أكثر من رائعة , بموضوعها الطريف وشخصياتها الغربية وأجوائها الساحرة والتي ذكرتني بـ تاجر البندقية..
May 17, 2017
This is a deeply troubling and often frankly misogynistic play, and I'm not here to defend those aspects of it. However I saw a version of it years ago that turned the misogyny on its head in a way that I thought was interesting, and perhaps truer to the many levels on which Shakespeare worked. It was a "Shakespeare in the Park" production, in New York, starring Morgan Freeman and Tracey Ullman, and you can imagine how fantastic that was. The best part was how they did the end of the play--that long, troubling speech by Kate where she prostrates herself before Petruchio and declares her obedience. What the director of that production realized, brilliantly, is that the speech goes on way, way too long! In fact, it becomes self-parody, a way for Kate to mock Petruchio with the words he wants to hear. Tracey Ullman played it to perfection. She kept pausing in the speech, goading Morgan Freeman into thinking she was done, and then she piled on some more, and then kept pausing and piling on until it was clear she was making fun of him, thereby undermining everything she was saying. It was utterly brilliant and has become my "gold standard" for how to perform--and understand--the play.
April 9, 2022
this book is a product of its time, and by that I mean its extremely sexist
June 25, 2020
I like shalespearre - love Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream and Richard III. But this one os horrible.
A man takes a spirited girl and brutally crushes her , even starving her into submission!
and at the end gives a speech justifying it and how women should obey their husbands. How sickening!
Not a lesson we should promote!
This and The Merchant of Venice (anti-semitism) are the only Shakespeare plays I refuse to have anything to do with,.
A man takes a spirited girl and brutally crushes her , even starving her into submission!
and at the end gives a speech justifying it and how women should obey their husbands. How sickening!
Not a lesson we should promote!
This and The Merchant of Venice (anti-semitism) are the only Shakespeare plays I refuse to have anything to do with,.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 6,016 reviews