LITERARY HISTORY.

The first known edition of this play, or rather we should say, of Shakespeare's version of it, is that published in the first Folio. In 1631, an edition in Quarto was published, the title of which is as follows:

"A wittie and pleasant | Comedie | Called The Taming of the Shrew. | As it was acted by his Maiesties | Seruants at the Blacke Friers and the Globe. | Written by Will. Shakespeare. | LONDON, | Printed by W. S. for John Smethwicke, and are to be sold at his Shop in Saint Dunstones Church- | yard vnder the Diall: | 1631."

The Cambridge editors add, however: "From a minute comparison of this Quarto edition with the first Folio, extending to points which are necessarily left unrecorded in our notes, we have come to the conclusion that the Quarto was printed from the Folio." Mr. Collier's conjecture that this Quarto was printed long before 1623, perhaps as early as 1607 or 1609," and that the title-page was "struck off long subsequent to the printing of the body of the comedy to which it is attached," is perfectly refuted by the result of the examination of Capell's copy by the said editors, from which it appears that the paper, on which the title was printed, "forms part of the first quire, and has not been inserted."

In 1594, was published (anonymously) in Quarto:

"A Pleasant Conceited | Historie, called The taming of a Shrew. | As it was sundry times acted by the Right Honorable the Earle of Pembrook his seruants. | Printed at London by Peter Short and | are to be sold by Cuthbert Burbie, at his shop at the Royall Exchange, | 1594."

This was reprinted in 1596, and again, in 1607, by N. Ling. It appears from the records of Stationers' Hall that, on the 22nd January, 1607, Burby the publisher transferred to Ling his right to this play, to Romeo and Juliet, and to Love's Labour's Lost. It was shortly after this transfer that Ling brought out the third Quarto mentioned above. It would appear, then, as Stokes has pointed out in his Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays (p. 34) that Burby, Ling, and Smethwicke most probably thought, in 1607, that "The Taming of a Shrew" was Shakespeare's play. Mr. Stokes arrives at the conclusion (p. 35) "that, as far back as May, 1594," it ". was believed to be Shakespeare's in some sense." However this may be, it seems pretty evident that Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew was the result of a somewhat hasty rewriting and reconstruction of the old play first published in 1594; some hints being taken from Gascoigne's Supposes, a translation of Ariosto's I Suppositi, a comedy first published in 1524, and, as appears from Allacci (Drammaturgia, Edn. 1755, columns 745,746; 933), republished eight times between that date and 1598.

How much of the present play was written by Shakespeare, and at what date, has been a matter of learned dispute amongst students of Shakespeare. I must refer the reader to Mr. Fleay's paper, and the discussion thereon, in the New Shakspere Society's Transactions, 1874 (Part I., pages 85-129); also to Macmillan's Magazine, November, 1875; and to the Shakespeare Manual (1876), in which Mr. Fleay further explains his views as set forth in the paper above alluded to. Mr. Grant White, in his Introduction to this play (Riverside Shakespeare, Vol. I. p. 607), repeats his opinion that, in this play, "three hands at least are traceable: that of the author of the old

play, that of Shakespeare himself, and that of a colaborer." I cannot see the necessity for this hypothesis. The occasional, or, we may say, frequent irregularity of the metre, and the presence of lines which, both in rhythm and construction, differ from those which we know to be Shakespeare's own, do not seem to me to prove anything more than what we know to be the fact; namely, that Shakespeare based his play upon a previous one, taking therefrom, in this case, most of the situations and some portion of the dialogue. That he greatly improved upon his original any one, who reads the Quarto of 1594 and the present play, can find out for himself; but that he did not exercise so much care as usual with regard to the metre, except in certain passages, is plain; and it may be that much of the verse, so called, is not intended to be verse at all. Nor do I see any proof of the existence of a third hand in this play, in the fact that the Prince of Cestus becomes a simple merchant; or that the period and scene of the play are both changed. What seems most probable is, that Shakespeare touched up and added to the old play, altering the names of the characters, the scene, &c. at an early period, perhaps before 1594; and that subsequently he polished some of the more important passages: but that the play with him was never one of his favourite children, even of adoption; and that the MS., left by him in his own theatre, was more full of mistakes and of oversights than is the case with those plays in which he took far greater interest and pride.1 The first allusion to this play, or perhaps to

1 As an instance of the remarkable carelessness, with which this play was constructed and written by Shakespeare, Mr. Daniel points out that Hortensio, "by gaining access to Bianca as Licio, drops out of the competition for her hand, and neither Baptista, Gremio, nor Tranio appear to be at all surprised at his absence:" also that, in act iii. sc. 2, every reader must be struck by the sudden knowledge which "Tranio (the supposed Lucentio) manifests of Petruchio's manners and customs." It does not appear from the play that either Lucentio, or Tranio, who assumes Lucentio's character, could possibly have known him before they met him at Padua. In act i. sc. 2 (towards the end) Tranio treats Petruchio as a stranger. It is evident that Shakespeare transferred to Lucentio the familiarity with Petruchio which really belonged to Hortensio. Tranio's speeches (in the assumed character of Lucentio) would not have been out of place in the mouth

the old play on which it is founded, is given in Sir John Harington's Metamorphosis of Ajax, 1596. "Read the Booke of Taming a Shrew, which hath made a number of us so perfect, that now every one can rule a shrew in our countrey, save he that hath hir." "Booke" here is used in much the same sense as we talk nowadays of the book of the play. In Rowlands' "Whole Crew of Kind Gossips," 1609, quoted by Ingleby (Centurie of Prayse, p. 85), occurs the following allusion :

The chiefest Art I have I will bestow About a worke cald taming of the Shrow. Another allusion-at least to the Inductionis to be found in Sir Aston Cockayn's poems, 1659, quoted by Malone (Var. Ed. vol. v. p. 352): Shakspeare your Wincot-ale hath much renown'd, That fox'd a beggar so (by chance was found Sleeping) and there needed not many a word To make him to believe he was a lord: But you affirm (and in it seem most eager) "T will make a lord as drunk as any beggar. Bid Norton brew such ale as Shakspeare fancies Did put Kit Sly into such lordly trances: And let us meet there (for a fit of gladness) And drink ourselves merry in sober sadness.

As to the source from which the Induction was taken, it was, most probably, derived immediately from an anecdote in an old collection of short comic stories in prose, printed in 1570, "sett forth by maister Richard Edwards, mayster of her Majesties revels" (see Malone, Var. Ed. vol. v. p. 353); but the story was one which, whether founded on any historical circumstance or not, was common amongst vari

of Hortensio; but they are very much out of place in his. (See New Shak. Soc. Transactions, 1877-9, Part II., pp. 164, 165.) I do not think there is much force in Mr. Daniel's first objection. Hortensio, certainly, had an intelligible object in obtaining access to Bianca in the character of Licio; nor is it necessary that his absence should have been noticed by any of the other characters; but there is no doubt that the careless haste, with which Shakespeare reconstructed and rewrote the old play, made him forget that he had made Hortensio a parallel to Polidor (who is the intimate of Ferando in the old play); and that he neglected to explain, in any way, the apparent familiarity which exists, in act iii., between Tranio and Petruchio. In making Hortensio disguise himself as a musician, Shakespeare's dramatic instinct was quite right; as he, by that means, obtained a much more effective situation than that in the old play, where only Valeria (Polidor's servant) disguises himself as a musician.

ous nations.

We may instance the wellknown tale of The Sleeper Awakened, in the Arabian Nights; the story of the Emperor Charles V. recorded by Staunton; and a similar story of Philip the Good of Burgundy, referred to by Malone (ut supra), is narrated by Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy (p. 174). An anecdote of a Tartar prince, taken from Marco Polo, which contains a similar idea, is also quoted by Burton (p. 391).1 Beaumont and Fletcher wrote a comedy called The Woman's Prize, or the Tamer Tamed, which is a sequel to this play, and not, I believe, intended in the least degree to ridicule it in it Petruchio is tamed by his second wife. Tranio and Bianca are introduced, but no other characters from Shakespeare's play.

STAGE HISTORY.

This play, in its old shape at least, seems to have been a great favourite. Mr. Stokes says that "one other company at least (Lord Nottingham's) ran a series of plays upon a similar. line, viz., Dekker's Patient Grissel, 1597, in which he was assisted by Haughton and Chettle; and Medicine for a Curst Wife, which he brought out alone soon afterwards; indeed the last-named play has (but on insufficient grounds) been conceived to be Dekker's edition of The Taming of a Shrew."2 I do not see how there could be any connection between a play founded upon the subject of the Patient Griselda and the Taming of the Shrew, nor' is Mr. Stokes quite correct in his dates. The first record of Patient Grissel occurs in Henslowe's Diary (p. 96) under the date of "the 19 of december 1599," in the shape of a receipt for three pounds "in earnest of patient Grissell, by us, Tho Dekker, Hen Chettle, and Willm Hawton;" while the first entry in the Diary (p. 224) referring to A Medicine for a Curst Wife relates to a sum lent "to geve unto Thomas Dickers, in earneste of a comody called a medyson for a curste wiffe, 19 of July 1602," which would be some time after the production of Shakespeare's version of The Taming of a Shrew. This latter play, however, of

1 The references are to Edn. 1676. The former tale is in part 2, sect. 2, memb. 4; the latter in part 3, sect. 4, memb. 1, subs. 2. Ut supra, p. 35.

Dekker's (which was never printed) was, most probably, upon the same subject as Shakespeare's comedy, whether it was another version of the same old play, or not. It is evident, therefore, that the subject of this play was a popular one, since no less than three companies, the Earl of Pembroke's, Lord Nottingham's, and Shakespeare's, must have produced plays on this same subject between 1594 and 1602. On the 11th June, 1594, Henslowe's diary records the performance of "the tamynge of a shrowe" (p.36). This was, probably, the old play. On the next evening, by a curious coincidence, another old play which we know was at least touched up by Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, was performed. In Sir Henry Herbert's Office Book, quoted by Malone (Var. Ed. vol. iii. p. 234), appears the following entry: "On tusday night at Saint James, the 26 of Novemb. 1633, was acted before the King and Queene, The Taminge of the Shrew. Likt." This must have been Shakespeare's play. In Pepys' Diary on 9th April, 1667, we find the following: "To the King's house, and there saw 'The Tameing of a Shrew,' which hath some very good pieces in it, but generally it is but a mean play; and the best part 'Sawny,' done by Lacy; and hath not half its life, by reason of the words, I suppose, not being understood, at least by me." And again on 1st November, 1667: "My wife and I to the King's playhouse, and there saw a silly play, and an old one, 'The Taming of a Shrew.'" This must have been Lacy's alteration of Shakespeare's play, called 'Sauny the Scot,' (referred to below). Downes records [Edn. 1789 (p. 57)]: "Between these operas" (viz. The Prophetess or Dioclesian, by Betterton, and the Fairy Queen, a mangled version of Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream) "there were several other plays acted, both Old and Modern; As, Bury Fair, Wit Without Money, The Taming of a Shrew, &c." This was after James II. came to the throne, probably about 1686; but, according to Genest, Lacy's adaptation, "Sauny the Scot," was played on 9th April, 1667. The name was evidently suggested by Sander,3

3 This name is spelt, in the Quarto of 1594, variously Sander, Sanders, Saunder, and Saunders. Probably it was the name of the actor who played the low comedy part.

the name of the character in the old Taming of a Shrew, which Shakespeare elaborated into Grumio. Sander is a dull dog; and if Sauny the Scot was no livelier, the mutilation of Shakespeare's play must have been an unnecessary labour. "Sauny the Scot" was revived at Drury Lane, 1698, when the part of Sauny was played by Bullock, Margaret the Shrew by Mrs. Verbruggen, and Biancha by Mrs. Cibber. This precious work was published in that year, 1698. From the account of it given by Genest, it must have been a very poor and rather vulgar production.

No performance of this play seems to have taken place till 1754; when a version in three acts was played, on 18th March, for Mrs. Pritchard's benefit. This was probably the same version, substantially, as that produced on 21st January, 1756, in conjunction with a mangled adaptation of Winter's Tale, for both of which mutilations of Shakespeare Garrick was responsible. On the latter occasion Woodward played Petruchio; Yates, Grumio; and Mrs. Clive, Katharine. Between Woodward and Mrs. Clive there seems to have been no very friendly feeling; and the actor, entering thoroughly into his manager's idea of degrading Shakespeare's play as much as possible, so exaggerated the violence of Petruchio that he threw the actress down at the end of the second act, and even, so it was said, ran a fork into her hand. It is not to the credit of the taste either of English managers, or of English audiences, that this farcical version of Shakespeare's comedy, perpetrated by his great admirer, Garrick, should have held the stage ever since. It appears from Genest that, in conjunction with the mutilation of the Winter's Tale, it was performed twelve times during the season of 1756. This Garrickisation of Shakespeare's play, known as Katharine and Petruchio, seems to have been given, chiefly on the occasion of benefits, several times between 1757 and 1760. On 13th March, 1788, for John Kemble's benefit, it was reproduced, with Kemble and Mrs. Siddons in the parts of Petruchio and Katharine. This was, most probably, the only occasion on which the great tragic actress condescended to enact this rôle; it must have been a very interesting performance.

On the 25th June, 1810, the play was produced under the title of Taming of a Shrew. Kemble was Petruchio; Mrs. Charles Kemble was Katharine: again on the 16th September, 1812, on which occasion Young played Petruchio. An opera by Reynolds, founded on this play, was produced at Drury Lane on the 14th May, 1828. This appears to have been the first time in which Shakespeare's title, Taming of the Shrew, was restored. Genest puts at the beginning of the entry, "not acted eighty years;" and adds that the original play, in all probability, had not been acted since the Restoration. I cannot find any previous record of the performance of this opera, which was certainly not Shakespeare's original play, and presumably not Garrick's adaptation. On this occasion Wallack played Petruchio; Harley, Grumio; and Braham, Hortensio.

A very interesting performance of Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew, including the Induction, was brought out under the superintendence of Mr. J. R. Planché, in the season of 1846-47, principally with a view to the fact of Mrs. Nisbett (then Lady Boothby) having returned to the stage; which seems to have suggested the idea of the revival to Mr. Planché. There were only two scenes given; the first, the outside of the ale-house on the heath; the second, the Lord's bed-chamber, in which the strolling players were supposed to act; the scenery being indicated, as in the time of Shakespeare, merely by written placards, affixed to the tapestry at the end of the apartment. The appearance of the stage is thus described to me by one of the best of our old actors, the only survivor, I believe, of the original cast: "The Lord and his servants were

1 Mr. Howe, the Hortensio on the above occasion, to whose kindness I am indebted for the details I have given above. There are two discrepancies between Mr. Howe's and Mr. Planché's accounts of this curious revival. Mr. Howe thinks it was about 1843-44; but he is evidently wrong. He assigns the part of Grumio to Keeley: he also says that when the piece was given again, about two years afterwards, Lambert took Strickland's place; Buckstone that of Keeley. Mr. Planché does not mention Keeley, but only Buckstone in the part of Grumio: both agree that, on its first production, the revival was a great success; but Mr. Howe says that, on the second occasion, it was not so.

seated on the left-hand corner of the stage in the first entrance: Sly and his party on the right hand. A large drapery of maroon-coloured curtains looped up, with inner curtains of tapestry, stretched completely across the stage; there was a division in the centre of the latter through which the various characters made their exits and entrances. At the beginning of each scene, one of the troupe of actors removed the old placard, and hung a fresh one denoting the place in which the action was to be represented."

The cast included Webster as Petruchio; Keeley, and afterwards Buckstone, Grumio; Howe, Hortensio; Strickland, Sly; with Mrs. Nisbett, Katharine, and Mrs. Seymour, Bianca. Mr. Planché says: "No such Katharine as Mrs. Nisbett had been seen since Mrs. Charles Kemble had acted it in the pride of her youth and beauty. Strickland justified all my expectations. As powerful and unctu-· ous as Munden, without the exaggeration of which that glorious old comedian was occasionally guilty." The difficulty of getting rid of Christopher Sly, at the end of the comedy, was thus ingeniously overcome by Mr. Planché: "At the end of each act no drop scene came down, but music was played while the servants brought the bewildered tinker wine and refreshments, which he partook of freely. During the fifth act he appeared to fall gradually into a heavy drunken stupor, and when the last line of the play was spoken, the actors made their usual bow, and the nobleman, advancing and making a sign to his domestics, they lifted Sly out of his chair, and as they bore him to the door, the curtain descended slowly upon the picture. Not a word was uttered, and the termination, which Schlegel supposes to have been lost, was indicated by the simple movement of the dramatis persone, without any attempt to continue the subject." Since then the play—generally, if not invariably, under the title of Katharine and Petruchio-has been represented many times; the version used being Garrick's adaptation, with as many vulgarisms and as much low pantomime business added, as the ingenuity of the various managers or actors could invent.

CRITICAL REMARKS.

The Taming of the Shrew is the one of Shakespeare's plays most devoid of serious interest, not excepting The Comedy of Errors. It is more straggling in construction, and contains less ingeniously devised situations than the latter play; the characters in it, however, are more varied, and are treated with greater power of delineation. It must be confessed that the female characters of this play are not very interesting or sympathetic. Bianca has not much individuality; the widow is almost a nonentity; and Katharina, though immensely superior to her prototype in the old play, is not a character that ever can hope to enlist the serious interest, or the deeper sympathies of an audience. The chief value of this play is that it gives us a better example, than any other included in Shakespeare's dramatic works, of his wonderful power of giving life to dead bones. Nothing can be more "weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable" than the old play from which this is so ingeniously adapted. One cannot help asking one's self the question, after reading carefully The Taming of a Shrew, and then reading, with equal care, The Taming of the Shrew, whether the creative power, shown by Shakespeare in such an adaptation, is not almost greater than that which, in many cases, belongs to originality in the accepted sense of the term. An original play is indeed a rare thing; and some of the plays so called are the least original; for the dramatist must take his characters from some types in history or in real life; and it depends solely upon the amount of the author's power, in analysing the springs of action and the emotions of human nature, whether the characters so derived are mere dummies; or whether they seem to us living men and women, in whose fate we are interested, and with whose joys or sorrows we can vividly sympathize. The dramatist who could take The Taming a Shrew, with its commonplace dialogue, its shallow characters, and its ill-managed story, and could produce from such poor materials the lively and lifelike comedy before us, need not be ashamed of acknowledging that he was indebted to something else than