Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
Upper Secondary School Teacher Training in English Language and Literature
Bc. Martina Andrisová
Adapting Characters from Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew for the late 17th and 18th Century English Stage
Master’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph.D.
2019
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
...... Bc. Martina Andrisová Author’s signature
“Some people can’t believe in themselves until someone else believes in them first.” – Good Will Hunting (1997) I would like to thank everyone who has ever believed in me. Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1 1. Historical Background ...... 5
1.1 17th-Century Theatre and Adaptations in England ...... 6
1.2 18th-Century Theatre and Adaptations ...... 14
2. John Lacy’s Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew (1667) ...... 26
2.1 John Lacy ...... 26
2.2 Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew ...... 28
2.3 Character Analysis ...... 33
2.3.1 Sauny ...... 33
2.3.2 Margaret ...... 39
2.3.3 Petruchio ...... 49
2.3.4 Winlove ...... 58
2.3.5 Woodall ...... 61
2.3.6 Geraldo ...... 65
3. David Garrick’s Catharine and Petruchio (1754) ...... 69
3.1 David Garrick ...... 69
3.2 Catharine and Petruchio ...... 73
3.3 Character Analysis ...... 77
3.3.1 Catharine ...... 77
3.3.2 Petruchio ...... 82
3.3.3 Bianca’s suitors ...... 87
3.3.3.1 Hortensio ...... 88
3.3.4 Grumio ...... 89
Conclusion ...... 92 Works Cited ...... 98
Primary sources ...... 98
Secondary sources ...... 98
Summary ...... 104 Resumé ...... 106
Introduction
The Restoration era and the 18th century represent important periods in British literary history when dramatic works of William Shakespeare were rewritten. The phenomenon of adapting Shakespeare’s plays started in 1660, with the restoration of the monarchy and the subsequent re-opening of the theatres. Each period applied different techniques in adapting Shakespeare and expressed different attitudes towards the Bard. Harring-Smith suggests that “every age has reshaped Shakespeare’s works to reflect current values and concerns” and so “the stage history of Shakespeare’s plays can offer an index to [British] theatrical and cultural history” (3).
However, it is important to note that adaptations and revisions of dramatic works in general were not peculiar specifically to these two periods. England has had a long tradition of theatrical adaptations and many Elizabethan plays, including some of
Shakespeare’s, “were indebted to previous dramatic treatments” (Sorelius 145).
Moreover, since the authors had little control over their texts prior the year 1710, when they were “formally recognized as legitimate copyright-holders by Queen Anne’s Act for the Encouragement of Learning” (Kewes 31), it was not difficult to adapt the earlier texts.
Some literary critics, such as Dryden, even encouraged playwrights to use older dramatic works as the basis for their own plays (Kewes 57). “He [also] conceives of plots as the common property of all writers, and points to the examples of Shakespeare and Fletcher whose plots were not originally of their own making” (Kewes 57). Hence, Restoration and the 18th-century adapters only continued with the tradition of adapting earlier materials.
Although Restoration and 18th-century adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays were widely overlooked by the critics for a long period of time due to their supposedly inferior nature in relation to their source texts, “[m]any scholars now examine how Shakespeare
1 has been appropriated to accommodate, not only the changing tastes of audiences, but also the wider cultural and national concerns” (Cunningham 10). The most prominent examples of such studies are Odell’s Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving (1920),
Spencer’s Shakespeare Improved (1927), Taylor’s Reinventing Shakespeare (1989),
Dobson’s The Making of the National Poet (1992), and Marsden’s The Re-Imagined Text
(1995), to name a few. The main intention of the thesis is, therefore, to contribute to the already established discussion of the change of theatrical aesthetics and its influence on early Shakespeare’s plays.
The thesis discusses a Restoration and an 18th-century adaptation of Shakespeare’s early comedy The Taming of the Shrew (1623), namely John Lacy’s Sauny the Scot; or,
The Taming of the Shrew (1667) and Catharine and Petruchio by David Garrick (1754).
Shakespeare’s early comedy The Taming of the Shrew has been chosen because, as
Haring-Smith points out, “[t]he ambiguities in the text … allow it to act like a chameleon, changing its colors to match the expectations of different ages” (3). And so, the play is a perfect example of a source text for the adaptation. Both Sauny the Scot and Catharine and Petruchio, too, were important plays that were staged in their respective periods, both of them being written by adapters who were also playwrights, actors and managers and whose abilities were praised by many critics of their times.
The main aim of the thesis is to explore the changes in theatre aesthetics during the Restoration and 18th century and the influence of these changes on the delineation of characters in the overmentioned adaptations. The thesis is divided into three chapters. The first one offers the historical background and period criticism of Shakespeare, which provide the context necessary for the analysis. This chapter is further divided into two subchapters, one focused on the Restoration period, the other on the 18th century. The main purpose of the chapter is to place the said adaptations in a context and examine and
2 explain the changes in theatre that occurred in the respective periods. All the observations provided in this chapter are further employed in the analysis itself.
The second and the third chapters are dedicated to the two adaptations of The
Taming of the Shrew. Chronologically, the second chapter is focused on Lacy’s Sauny the
Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew, while the third chapter deals with Garrick’s Catharine and Petruchio. Both chapters include biographical information about the adapters and some crucial historical and critical material concerning the two adaptations that are necessary for the analysis, which follows in the subsequent subchapters.
The thesis employs two methods to analyse the selected characters: (1) comparative analysis which is used to compare the original Shakespearean characters with their Restoration and 18th century counterparts, and (2) historical criticism,1 which takes into consideration the contexts in which the adaptations were written. The thesis does not employ any theory of adaptation because it is mainly applicable to the contemporary adaptations, and so it is not that effective with the Restoration and the 18th century adaptations which were produced in a different time and under different circumstances.
The main aim of the analyses in the second and the third chapters is to demonstrate that the change in theatre aesthetics in the late 17th and 18th centuries was closely intertwined with the way in which Shakespeare’s plays were adapted and it tries to determine how these changes are projected in the delineation of the characters in the respective plays. Both chapters are based on a close reading of the adaptations and the subsequent in-depth analyses of the dramatic characters in the play.
1 Encyclopaedia Britannica defines historical criticism as “based on the context in which a work was written, including facts about the author’s life and the historical and social circumstances of the time. This is in contrast to other types of criticism, such as textual and formal, in which emphasis is placed on examining the text itself while outside influences on the text are disregarded”. 3
The characters selected for the purpose of the analysis are the main characters of the taming plot (Margaret/Catharine and Petruchios) and certain minor characters, such as Bianc(h)a’s suitors, together with Petruchio’s servant Sauny/Grumio, who are the most obvious examples of the modifications that occurred in the adaptations. Although the remaining characters in the two adaptations do reflect signs of these alternations as well, the scope of the thesis is not extensive enough to analyse them.
4
1. Historical Background
When the Civil War broke out in England in 1642, the theatres were opened only sporadically. On 2 September 1642, the Long Parliament issued an edict which temporarily banned “performances of plays, claiming that ‘publike Sports doe not well agree with publike Calamities’ and condemning “publike Stage-playes’ as no more than
‘Spectacles of pleasure, too commonly expressing lacivious Mirth and Levitie’” (Taylor
7). Murray maintains that the “ban represents a culmination of the official disapproval that the players had recently been experiencing from an increasingly sensitive
Establishment; church, legislature, and king” who forbade theatre activities even before
(Viewing the Voice 15). On 22 October 1647, the temporary ban on theatre performances was made permanent (Taylor 8) and the theatres remained closed for the period of eighteen years till the restoration of the monarchy. As Taylor claims, “[t]he English monarchy and the English theatre fell together. And when they rose again, they rose together” (9). It would be, however, wrong to assume that there were no theatre performances during the Commonwealth whatsoever. The performances were still held, especially in private houses “and even city players tried to reestablish themselves”
(Murray, Viewing the Voice 15). Nevertheless, in 1647 and 1648 government issued acts
“declaring that players caught … in the act should be imprisoned and punished as rogues”
(Murray, Viewing the Voice 15).
While the playhouses in England were closed, the theatre throve in France, where the son and the successor of the beheaded Charles I, the later King Charles II, was exiled in the court of his cousin Louis XIV at Versailles. And when on 1 May 1660 both Houses
5 voted to restore the king to the throne, Charles did not only bring the old order and political stability with him,2 but French theatrical tradition as well.3
1.1 17th-Century Theatre and Adaptations in England
In August 1660, Charles II issued patents to Thomas Killigrew and Sir William Davenant, playwrights and courtiers of the Caroline era, “to erect two companies of players, consisting respectively of such persons as they shall chuse and appoint, and to purchase, builde, and erect, or hire at their charge, as they shall think fit, two houses or theatres ... for the representation of tragydies, comedyes, playes, operas, and all other entertainments of that nature, in convenient places” (qtd. in Odell 7). According to Odell, from that time till 1843, no one else could legally perform Shakespeare or other “legitimate” dramatists
(7). And so, as Johanson claims, the theatre was managed and influenced by the state and aristocracy since the king was the one giving theatre patents and licenses and Lord
Chamberlain could censor the performed plays (8). Moreover, the theatre managers were courtiers and the King himself suggested changes and scenarios to the playwrights and had numerous affairs with the actresses (Taylor 16).
The two companies that came to existence were the King’s Men, which belonged to Killigrew and its members were experienced actors from Caroline era, and the Duke’s
Men, the company of Davenant, which consisted of mainly inexperienced actors (Taylor
14; Clark 275). Both of these troupes originally resided in roofed tennis courts (Langhans
2) and only later did they move to new buildings (Canfield XIV). Since there were only
2 The notion of political stability in the Restoration period, however, is more complex and somewhat questionable. According to Murray, for instance, this period was far from being stable and settled, since it demonstrated “‘continuous forms of resistance, dissent, and control’ inherited from ... the interregnum, and even seeing Charles himself, the ‘least marmoreal of kings’, as setting the tone for the crises of authority in his own reign” (Shakespeare Adaptations XVII-XVIII) 3 “During his time at the court of Versailles he would have witnessed sophisticated dramatic offerings, including the performance by women of female roles on the public stage. Changeable scenery would also have operated as early as 1662” (Murray, Shakespeare Adaptations XX). 6 two theatre companies in London, there existed a strong rivalry between them. This competition affected the design of the theatre buildings and innovations implemented in them. Some of these were: interaction between audience and company members, new auditorium and seating system, moveable and elaborate scenery,4 use of various machines
(e.g. the witches in Macbeth were flying above the stage) (Canfield XIV), new stage
(Taylor 16), and the “increased use of music and spectacle” (Owen 4).5
However, the managers did not only attract audience by perfecting the theatre and the stage, but by the repertory as well. When the theatres were opened, there were no new plays written and so, the companies had to recycle older pieces from the previous periods, especially from the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras (Canfield IX). According to Clark,
“the King’s Men obtained the rights to the plays of the former King’s Company, including most of Shakespeare’s … those of Beaumont and Fletcher” (274) and “almost all of Ben
Johnson’s plays” (Marsden, “Improving Shakespeare” 21-22), while Davenant was initially left with the rights to two old plays and he could produce his own works (Clark
274).6 However, if one looks at the historical records, one may see that the older plays were more popular than the new ones because “[i]n the three years following the resumption of regular theatrical activity in 1660, the London companies … performed more than eighty old plays but only nine new ones” (Taylor 24).
From the old plays, the most popular were the ones written by the “happy triumvirate”7 of Beaumont and Fletcher, Shakespeare and Johnson (qtd. in Clark 275).
And although each of them excelled in different spheres, as Richard Flecknoe notes,
“Shakespear excelled in a natural Vein, Fletcher in Wit, and Johnson in Gravity and
4 The first one to use the scenery to attract audience to his playhouse, was Davenant. To keep up with the competition, Killigrew had to equip his playhouse with scenery soon afterwards (Langhans 3). 5 For more detailed description of the changes, see chapter “Great Innovations” in Hazelton Spencer’s Shakespeare Improved, 32-61. 6 According to Spencer, this was granted to him by the special right (40). 7 The term was coined by William Winstanley in 1687 (Clark 275). 7 ponderousness of Style” (qtd. in Dobson, National Poet 30), Shakespeare was not the most appreciated of the trio.8 As Dobson says, “Shakespeare is imagined the worst as an artless rustic, at best as an archaic father-king” (National Poet 13). It was Beaumont and
Fletcher whose works were most popular with the audience because “[t]heir wit was characterized by innuendo and double entendre which was typical for the era[.] … Their handling of themes of honour, nobility, self-sacrifice and the competing moral claims of love and friendship … was … successful in the theatre” (Clark 284-85). Even Dryden appreciated their works more because “there is a certain gaiety in their comedies and pathos in their more serious plays which suits generally with all men’s humors.
Shakespeare’s language is likewise a little obsolete, and Ben Johnson’s wit comes short of theirs” (177).
Furthermore, “Johnson’s plays were seen as ‘regular’ and ‘correct’ in their plotting. His espousal of neo-classical principles in both his theory and his theatrical practice appealed to the tastes of the time” (Clark 288). That is the reason why “his plays were never adapted or ‘improved’, perhaps because, as Dryden said, ‘in his works you find little to retrench or alter’” (Clark 289). That, however, cannot be said about
Shakespeare whose plays “had to be altered in order to make them marketable” (Marsden,
Re-Imagined Text 13). That is the reason why Davenant asked for the rights for
Shakespeare’s plays which “were to be made ‘fitt’ for his company of actors” (Murray,
Viewing the Voice 10). The Duke’s Men thus “became most active in producing
Shakespeare”9 (Spencer 40) in adapted ways and, as Murray notes, they made the plays
“politically, socially, and even critically acceptable” (Viewing the Voice 16).
8 “Of Shakespeare’s work, twenty-eight plays were put on in some form or other; of Beaumont and Fletcher’s, thirty-nine, in 342 separate revivals, and of Jonson’s, eight” (Clark 275). 9 According to Murray, “Davenant received fifteen of Shakespeare’s plays by two patents, and used all of them, eleven as adaptations; Killigrew received twenty-one, and only used five of them – and these were adapted” (Shakespeare Adaptations XXIV).
8
One may say that there were two main impulses for adapting Shakespeare. The first one is linked to the fact that the theatre managers wanted to please the audience.
Scheil asserts that “Shakespearean adaptations … were shaped by and crafted for [the] environment of increased consumerism and financial motivations” (21-22). That explains why the Restoration playwrights were deeply concerned with the tastes of their audience.
These changes to the plays, however, did not necessarily mean that they became more refined or improved. And even Dryden admitted, “I confess I have given too much to the people in it [audience], and am asham’d for them as well as for my self, that I have pleas’d them at o cheap a rate” (qtd. in Maguire 94). Owen claims that sometimes the playwrights just wanted “to increase entertainment-value. This was done by adding music and spectacle. … Sometimes [it] is increased by adding sex and violence … to satisfy audience taste for sexual titillation” (148-49). And since the Restoration period is typical of “the development of the sexual ‘marketplace’”, the playwright used to make
“numerous references in the drama to homosexuality, sadomasochism, and voyeurism, as well as libertinism and prostitution” (Owen 1). Playwrights also tried to incorporate audience’s tastes for pity, horror and sensation (Owen 149).
Many of the changes that occurred in adaptations of Shakespeare and other authors are also connected to the innovations of the Restoration stage, for example “the addition of elaborate scenery and special effects, or the revision of characters so that they conformed to popular dramatic types” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 13). According to
Corman, the popular character types of the period are “young lovers, blocking parents, witty servants, fools, gulls, bullies, cast mistresses, whores, cuckolds, unhappy wives” who are “in search of limited number of goals (courtship, seduction, cuckolding, gulling)”
(56). Marsden adds that “[a]lmost every play focuses on a love story; where no love story is present in the original plays, new plots are created” (Re-Imagined Text 34). Hence, the
9 attention is focused on domestic realm. The plays, however, do not only focus on love stories; some of them even incorporate contemporary politics, especially during the
Exclusion Crisis between 1678 and 1682 (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 16).
As to the comedic plots popular in the period, Scheil mentions several: “shrew- taming, transformation, and tempest plots” and “[l]ow comedy was alluring and was often expanded in these plays” (217). The plays are usually set in London and they reinforce the values of the town (Corman 59), hence emphasise the contrast between the country and the city.
Another important change that occurred in the post-1660 theatre is the introduction of actresses to the English stage.10 Although “[a]ctresses had long been performing in other parts of Europe” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 162), England used boy actors to play female roles in public theatres up until 1642. The use of women performers was soon made obligatory by the patent issued by the King in 1662 (Gay 157).
According to the patent, actresses were “useful and instructive representations of humane life” (qtd. in Murray, Shakespeare Adaptations XXIII). This led to important alterations in adaptations as well. Women’s parts were enlarged (Dobson, “Adaptations” 45), added and adapted (Murray, Shakespeare Adaptations XXIII). However, the initial instructive idea of having women on stage swiftly changed to a more corrupted one. Actresses were soon viewed as sexual objects and “spectatorship becomes a form of voyeurism”
(Quinsey 8). That is the reason why playwrights often added the so-called “breeches parts” in which women were dressed in male clothes and thus displayed their legs (Taylor
19). They also “added potential for the display of ‘real’ sexuality … hence … the addition of rape or near-rape scenes to Shakespeare’s texts” (Gay 158).
10 The companies, however, did not use actresses right after the re-opening of theatres. Killigrew “began with males playing the woman’s roles” (Langhans 2). 10
As Owen mentions, “another impulse for adapting Shakespeare came from a desire for refinement and decorum” (149). This impulse came from the early literary critics, who were usually playwrights themselves and viewed Shakespeare as “the greatest
English poet, perhaps the greatest poet of all time” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 48-49).
Dryden, one of the first literary critics, wrote that “[Shakespeare] was the man who of all
Modern and perhaps Ancient Poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul [that is, poetic greatness]” (176). However, “[d]espite their admiration for Shakespeare’s genius, writers also admitted that his works were far from perfect and that his beauties were offset by a variety of ‘faults’” (Marsden, “Improving Shakespeare” 22).
One of the most serious faults was Shakespeare’s language, as Dryden writes,
Yet it must be allow’d to the present Age, that the tongue in general is so much
refin’d since Shakespear’s time, that many of his words, and more of his Phrases,
are scarce intelligible. And of those which we understand some are
ungrammatical, others course …; and his whole stile is so pester’d with Figurative
expressions, that it is as affected as it is obscure. (qtd. in Owen 153)
The language which Shakespeare uses is, therefore, archaic, obscure and, since he overuses metaphors, it does not seem to be natural from the point of view of the
Restoration audience. Marsden argues that the obscurity of Shakespeare’s texts may create ambiguities which “posed a threat to the precarious world view of an age tripped of philosophic and social assurance. … If drama was to instruct … wrongly, [people] could upset the moral, political, and social order” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 67).
Hence, the reason for refinement of Shakespeare’s plays.
The main changes concerning Shakespeare’s language are the following:
“[a]rchaisms are replaced by the restoration’s smoother tongue; puns are omitted; extravagant passages are pared down and their diction simplified; and, inevitably, the
11 metaphors are literalized, eliminated, or conflated into simple similes” (Marsden, Re-
Imagined Text 67). And so, the critics and playwrights try to purify and modernise
Shakespeare’s language to fit the Restoration era. Marsden claims that, at the time,
Shakespeare’s text
was not considered sacred because it did not represent an embodiment of his
genius. This genius lay instead in his ability to represent general nature, to portray
universal characters and to move an audience; these virtues, it was felt, would not
be altered if the poetry were rewritten in a more modern idiom, or if the offensive
puns and quibbles were quietly edited out. (Re-Imagined Text 151)
The fact that the language was altered caused further changes in Shakespeare’s plays though. Linguistic simplifications led to the simplification of the characters themselves since their speeches were changed (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 18). These changes usually lead to the creation of flat characters, who are either good or bad
(Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 24). As Marsden says, “[g]ood characters may act badly – but always with a good reason which the adapter carefully explains, while villains behave badly because of their inherent ill nature” (Re-Imagined Text 25). This simplification of characters to either good or bad is also closely connected to poetic justice, thus the moral element of the play: “the bad must be punished and the good vindicated” (Owen 150).
The language was, however, not the only problematic issue; Shakespeare was also criticised for not respecting Aristotelian “unities”, which were viewed as an important set of rules for creating effective drama11. Although these unities originated in Aristotle’s
Poetics, they heavily influenced contemporary French critics. They were three: “[t]he unity of action meant that there should be a single serious action of magnitude to the play.
11 Although “[t]he unities of time, place, and action were prized highly by the Restoration” (Walsh 230), the critical view on the usage of the unities differed greatly even in the Restoration period. For further details, see “The Rules of Art” in The Impact of Restoration Critical Theory on the Adaptation of Four Shakespearean Comedies by Jaquelyn W. Walsh, 17-59. 12
… The unity of place stipulated a single setting. The unity of time limited the play to a representation of at most twenty-four hours” (Wheatley 70). Sorelius remarks that although the unities “were considered to apply to comedy and tragedy alike”, they were even more important for the comedy typical for the Restoration because “[i]n comedy speed and economy were all-important, whereas the pulse of tragedy was slower.
Laughter, a much more short-lived thing than fear and pity, had to be continuously sustained and given new nourishment. Thus the rule of time applied particularly to the comic genre” (87).
Although Shakespeare did not obey these rules, some critics did not condemn him for that, some even defending him, as for example Dryden, who argued that the application of these rules leads to the fact that all the plays were alike, and the variety vanished from the plays (Dryden 171-72). What the critics condemned, though, were his
“improbable plots on petty subjects” (Murray, Viewing the Voice 18). The fervent critic of Shakespeare’s plots was, for example Thomas Rymer with his well-known essay “A
Short View of Tragedy” (1693). In his essay, Rymer writes that “[w]ith us a Black-a- moor might rise to be a Trumpeter; but Shakespear would not have him less than a
Lieutenant-General. With us a Moor might marry some little drab, or Small-coal Wench:
Shake-spear, would provide him the Daughter and Heir of some great Lord, or Privy-
Councellor: And all the Town should reckon it a very suitable match” (91-2). He continues to argue that Shakespeare’s characters are not natural since, for example
Othello, although being a general, does not behave like one. Moreover, he sees his plots as absurd: “So much ado, so much stress, so much passion and repetition about an
Handkerchief! Why was not this call’d the Tragedy of the Handkerchief? What can be more absurd” (139). He concludes by saying that the main aim of Shakespeare is “to delude our senses, disorder our thoughts, addle our brain, pervert our affections, hair our
13 imaginations, corrupt our appetite, and fill our head with vanity, confusion, Tintamarre, and Jingle-jangle” (146). And so, one may notice that not only Shakespeare’s language is seen as unnatural but his plots as well.
Shakespeare’s plays were, therefore, changed to suit new theatres and the innovations in them, new audience and society (Taylor 20), hence, to suit the Restoration period itself. However, the end of the 17th century introduced Jeremy Collier, a critic who published the well-known essay “Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage”
(1698), which criticises the tradition of Restoration drama. He describes the theatre as offensive, ignorant, lewd and far from religious and the characters as immodest and full of vice. Collier’s criticism was very popular because he managed to express the feelings of many people towards the theatre of the period. It is, therefore, highly possible that it had an impact on the further development of theatre in the 18th century when the important changes occurred on English stage and when the attitudes towards Shakespeare and his texts rapidly changed as well.
1.2 18th-Century Theatre and Adaptations
Towards the end of the 17th century, the King’s company collapsed (1682), merged with the Duke’s company and they formed one single United Company. The new company performed at Drury Lane theatre and was led by the actor Thomas Betterton (Langhans
5; Taylor 54). Since “[f]rom 1682 to 1694 London had only one theatre and one company of actors; the lack of competition depressed standards and diminished the opportunities for new actors” (54), as Taylor claims. The United Company did not last long, and it broke into two companies again in 1695. Taylor asserts that,
both halves claimed Shakespeare, but no sustained rivalry developed; and from
1707 through the 1730s Drury Lane had a virtual monopoly on serious drama,
14
while its competitors devoted themselves to opera or popular pantomime. Covent
Garden, opened in 1732, for several years emphasized musical theatre; but by the
early 1740s the two theatres were in direct competition for the same actors and
audiences. (117-18)
Although the United Company broke into two, according to Langhans, “they struggled to survive under Queen Anne” (5). He explains that the Queen had little interest in theatre (5) and Scheil adds that she preferred concerts as means of entertainment (21).
The same may be said about the reign of William and Mary who ruled before Anne. They
“tolerated drama” (Taylor 54), but “demonstrated minimal support” (Scheil 21). Hence, the theatre was not that popular as in the Restoration era and enjoyed only an “unstable royal support” (Scheil 21).
It was not only the lack of support on the part of the monarch that caused the decline of the theatre towards the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century. The important literary personae were not in favour of theatres either. For example, “Swift and Pope … boycotted the theatre [and] Defoe actively campaigned for its suppression” (Taylor 62). In his famous edition of collected Shakespeare’s plays
(1723-25), Pope even blamed the theatre “for obscuring Shakespeare’s genius, which he proposed to restore by removing ‘those almost innumerable Errors’” (Taylor 83). Pope was not the only one and not even the first one who proposed to edit Shakespeare. And so, one may agree with Taylor who says that “[t]he center of English culture was shifting from performance to print – and Shakespeare went with it” (62).
The interest in editing Shakespeare in the early 18th century demonstrates an important shift from the need to adapt his “corrupted” plays to the focus on his genuine and original text.12 “The stream of editions began with Nicholas Rowe in 1709, followed
12 Marsden claims that although the editors wanted to present a genuine Shakespeare’s canon, they did not preserve much of his original text and changed large parts of it (Re-Imagined Text 68). 15 by Alexander Pope (1723), and Lewis Theobald (1734)” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text
68).13 Pope admits the corruption of the Folio, blames the first publishers and “ignorant players who copied and published the plays” for the errors in Shakespeare’s text and claims that Shakespeare is not responsible for these flaws (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text
69). Such an “assumption establishes the editor, not the text, as the ultimate source of authority, and it allowed Pope as editor to take great liberties with the text” (Marsden,
Re-Imagined Text 69). Theobald, in contrast, did not agree with Pope’s statement. He claimed that “only evidence from Shakespeare’s text … can authorize corrections and amendments” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 70). That is the reason why it is Theobald who is seen as the first editor who was in search for Shakespeare’s genuine text14 and who seriously tried to correct it. He is also among the first to emphasise textual sanctity which was, according to Marsden, “absent in previous approaches to Shakespeare” (Re-
Imagined Text 70). Scheil even suggests that Rowe’s and Pope’s editions “allowed playwrights and audience members to look at Shakespeare in new ways that previously had not been available” (202). And so, these editions of Shakespeare’s plays had an impact on the theatre as well.
Although the antipathy towards the theatre changed with the ascension of the
Hanoverians to the throne and theatre houses started to prosper again, this was a new era, and theatregoers and their tastes differed from that of the Restoration. Not only did the new audience show a little interest in “the sexual and social comedy … of the 1660s and
1670s” (Taylor 55), but even “the authorities had issued new instructions that ‘Obsenityes
13 These were later followed by “Sir Thomas Hanmer, 1744; William Warburton, 1747; Samuel Johnson, 1765; Edward Capell, 1768; Edmond Malone, 1790 - and numerous revisions of previous editions by George Steevens and Isaac Reed” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 68). 14 “His genuine text is for the most part, religiously adhered to, and the numerous faults and blemishes, purely his own, are left as they were found. Nothing is altered but what by the clearest reasoning can be proved a corruption of the true text; and the alteration, as restoration of the genuine reading” (qtd. in Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 70). 16
& other Scandalous matters’ be deleted from plays. … There was even talk of again closing the theatres, as in 1642. The theatres must either make themselves palatable to middle-class Protestant taste or close” (55). That is the reason why the tone of playwrighting changed rapidly “from sexually erect to morally upright” (55). The audience also had higher expectations of the performance. As Taylor claims the play became a “part of the ‘whole show’ preceded, interrupted, and followed by other performances – music, dancing, puppets, pantomimes, juggling, acrobatics, overtures and afterpieces” (56). Audiences strove for “greater visual spectacle” in bigger theatres
(Langhans 5).
The new era, however, did not only have a great impact on the contemporary theatre as such but it also altered the attitudes towards Shakespeare. And since
Shakespeare was seen in a different light, so were his works. Hence, the playwrights and adaptors of the period treated his plays differently than those in the Restoration. Marsden maintains that the new adaptations of Shakespeare were very sporadic during the first forty years of the 18th century and that they “rarely achieved any lasting success” (Re-
Imagined Text 75).15 The situation changed around 1740, when “the adaptation of
Shakespeare’s plays became common in the theatre” and when the “major changes in attitudes toward Shakespeare and the increasingly important role ‘Shakespeare’ played in the definition of Britain’s cultural identity” were reflected in the new adaptations (Re-
Imagined Text 75). Dobson adds that “[f]rom this period onwards, Shakespeare’s texts are no longer simply modernized but are instead retrospectively and unobtrusively corrected, his antiquated style imitated by adaptors as they strive to polish his now venerable works into native classics” (National Poet 14). Shakespeare’s adaptations, thus markedly differed from the Restoration ones and one of the main reasons for this change
15 However, she claims that his unaltered works were staged instead and that they were “often advertised as ‘not acted’ in many years” (Re-Imagined Text 30). 17 was Shakespeare’s new status, that of a national hero and an “Antient” (qtd. in Dobson,
National Poet 117).
Dobson says that “Shakespeare has been converted from vulgar showman to otherworldly philosopher” (National Poet 119); he became “a cultural phenomenon a marketing device, a product line, a measuring standard, a marker of quality, a model entrepreneur, and more” (Woo 18-9). According to Ritchie, this shift occurred because of
“a general reconsideration of English national identity” in the 18th century (67).
Shakespeare was even “used as a tool to construct national identity” (67). And since this period was characterised by anti-French sentiments, “England began to define itself in stark contrast and opposition to everything French” (67).16 Marsden maintains that,
“Shakespeare was seen as the defender of decency and associated with the defining traits of the British national character; he represented the ‘manly genius’ of an earlier, more purely British age. Reviving his plays was thus a patriotic act as well as evidence of good taste” (Re-Imagined Text 76). Shakespeare’s text was, thus, perceived as sacred (120) and
Shakespeare himself was “established as the ‘great Original’ behind all of his texts”
(Dobson, National Poet 133). And since the sanctity of his text was contrary to “the concept of adaptation, which by definition changes the text” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text
120), “[t]he number of new adaptations declined during the last decades of the century”
(Re-Imagined Text 77). Playwrights wanted to do “as little Injury to the Original as possible”, they emphasised unaltered text as Shakespeare wrote it and they wanted to bring “more of [Shakespeare’s] rich Scenes to light” (Re-Imagined Text 77). Cibber even stated that “meddling with Shakespeare represents an unpatriotic act” (Re-Imagined Text
31). Even David Garrick, a great Shakespearean actor, adaptor, and theatre manager, wrote in his “Prologue” to The Winter’s Tale and Catharine and Petruchio, “‘Tis my
16 Hence, “a tension with the interest in French-influenced neoclassic theory” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 48). 18 chief Wish, my Joy, my only Plan, / To lose no Drop of that immortal Man!” (Re-
Imagined Text 54-55).
David Garrick is perceived as the one who managed to restore and revive the original and authentic Shakespeare and his arrival to theatrical scene has been “considered a major point of transformation for adaptations of Shakespeare” (Scheil 201). However,
Scheil is right to point out that the “[i]nterest in Shakespeare’s original plays began before
Garrick’s debut on the English stage” (210) and that Garrick’s contributions to bardolatry17 were highly dependent on the “environment already created in the 1720s and
1730s” (Scheil 214).
Ritchie states that, towards the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century, “women were central to promoting Shakespeare as a cultural figure worthy of serious attention” (2). Not only was “[t]he first critical essay on Shakespeare written by a woman, Margaret Cavendish” (Ritchie 2),18 but women also influenced the repertory of
London theatres to a large extent. Shakespeare’s women readers in late 1730s publicly supported “Shakespeare’s status as an English classic” (Taylor 93) and, when the
Shakespeare Ladies Club (1736) was formed in London, the members of the club
“campaigned actively for two theatrical seasons, persuading the London theatre managers to put more Shakespeare plays on the stage” (Ritchie 143). Their efforts were successful because “[i]n these two years the proportion of London performances devoted to
Shakespeare rose from 14 to 22 percent” (Taylor 93)19. Even Garrick “acknowledged the
17 According to Harrison in his The Language of Theatre, the word “bard” was first used in reference to Shakespeare by Garrick himself who said about Shakespeare “For the bard of all bards was a Warwickshire Bard” (26). “Bardolatry” is, therefore, “a conflation of bard and idolatry” and it is a “term for a worshipper of Shakespeare” (Harrison 26). 18 She was interested in Shakespeare’s representation of female characters in his plays and the essay had a great impact on 18th-century critics (Ritchie 2). 19 Taylor even makes an important observation, “[s]ince these women were encouraging the performance of plays that had not been produced in decades, their knowledge of them could have come only from reading” (93), which leads him to a conclusion that “[i]n the seventeenth century the popularity of Shakespeare’s plays with audiences had stimulated the publication of reading editions... [while i]n the eighteenth century, their popularity with readers stimulated new productions” (94). 19 impact and achievement of the Shakespeare Ladies Club in a speech delivered at the 1769
Jubilee: ‘It was You Ladies that restor’d Shakespeare to the Stage, you form’d yourselves into a Society to protect his Fame, and Erected a Monument to his and your own honour in Westminster Abbey’” (Ritchie 155). And so, it was an impact of the women that helped
Garrick to build up on Shakespeare’s renown and prestige.
Despite this fact, it is Garrick who has been seen as one of the main promoters of
Shakespeare in this period. He is perceived as “a canny manipulator of pop culture and the mass media of his day” (Woo 2). Woo claims that he used “mass marketing and commodification of Shakespeare” as a mechanism for the growth of bardolatry (2). She even adds that “[a]nother step Garrick took to both increase and capitalize upon the hunger for Shakespeare was to begin including Shakespeare’s name on playbills. Until then, mention of the playwright was seldom done” (Woo 35) and the names of the actors performing in the play were more important that the playwright himself. Moreover,
Garrick was also crowned Shakespeare’s “rightful avenger” in an anonymous poem published in The London Magazine in 1750, in which his interest in authentic Shakespeare based solely on his sheer respect for the Bard is emphasised (Rosenthal 332). In the poem,
Shakespeare’s ghost addresses Garrick:
To thee, my great restorer, must belong
The task to vindicate my injur’d song,
To place each character in proper light,
To speak my words and do my meaning right,
To save me from dire impending fate,
Nor yield me up to Cibber and to Tate:
Retrieve the scenes already snatched away,
Yet, take them back, nor let me fall their prey:
20
My genuine thoughts when by thy voice exprest,
Shall still be deemed the greatest and the best;
So by each others aid we both shall live,
I, fame to thee, thou, life to me, shalt give. (Rosenthal 333)
Shakespeare’s ghost, thus, considers Garrick to be his great restorer, the one who brings his intended meaning to light. He even praises Garrick as a performer of his plays and is grateful that it is Garrick who literally rescues his plays from the playwrights such as
Cibber and Tate. And so, one may agree with Rosenthal’s statement that Garrick
“attempted to construct his relationship with Shakespeare as a personal rather than a financial commitment” (332).
The excerpt from the speech of Shakespeare’s ghost quoted above, in which the ghost wishes his original texts to be brought to audience, can be applicable to the playwrights in the 18th century in general. The attitude towards Shakespeare changed and the competition between playwrights and respective playhouses “was increasingly expressed not in terms of including ‘new scenes’ or song and dance numbers, but rather in terms of who could restore the most Shakespeare to the stage” (Marsden, “Improving
Shakespeare” 31). Although as much of the original text was appreciated as possible, the adaptations did not cease to appear. They differed from their Restoration counterparts; nevertheless, the main aim of the playwright was still a desire to entertain the audience
(Cunningham 20). One must, however, remember that the audience changed, and with it, its tastes. Cunningham claims that it was a secondary task for a playwright to adjust language and staging (33) but what was more important was to exclude “bawdry, and sexual imagery … and references to hell, heaven and damned spirits are minimised”
(142). And so, while the audience rejected these typical Restoration features of adaptations, they approved of and requested “the domestic details of family life”
21
(Marsden Re-Imagined Text 87). That is the reason why the playwrights emphasised
“domestic virtues” (98), “characters’ feelings and interactions at the personal and family level” (Cunningham 75). Shakespeare, thus, became sentimentalised and moral not only through the adaptations but performances of the actors as well (Ritchie 176). As Marsden says, “emotion was drama’s central action” and the audience wanted to sympathise with the characters (“Improving Shakespeare” 34). Garrick knew it and that is the reason why he is described as “a master at devising acting opportunities that would provoke emotion in the spectator” (Cunningham 75). Hence, “the facial expressions, gestures and movements of the actors were equally important as words they uttered” (Cunningham
75).
Besides sentimentalising, domesticating Shakespeare and making his plays more moral, another typical feature of 18th-century adaptations are heavy cuts. Marsden argues that the plays adapted between 1754 and 1763 were “severely reduced to one, two, or three acts” (Re-Imagined Text 77). She continues that although several parts of the original text were cut, “additions were made in large blocks, usually in the form of new scenes inserted between previously existing Shakespearean scenes. Shakespeare’s diction was rarely changed, and in plays that had been previously adapted, large segments of the original play were restored” (77).
As to Garrick’s adaptations, they “show greater respect than Shakespeare’s for the unities of place and time. [They] also reduce … the number of bodies on stage”
(Cunningham 153). Hence, since Garrick tried to obey the neoclassical rules used mainly by the French, it may be said that he “had ‘too politely frenchified’ the play[s]”
(Cunningham 153).
Although Shakespeare was criticised for not obeying neoclassical rules in the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century, by the mid-18th century, the debate
22 concerning the unities and Shakespeare had changed. Critics started to perceive the rules as “harmful restraints” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 108), which “make … one plot much like another, and … flatten variety and passion into mere declamation” and the plots were not natural but highly artificial (Re-Imagined Text 109). One may even see that the tension between the two nations, British and French, is interconnected with the debate about the unities. Marsden emphasises this by claiming that “[t]he French need rules because they cannot handle freedom, whereas the opposite characteristic defines their British neighbours: ‘the dramatic poetry of this country is like our constitution, built upon the bold basis of liberty’” (Re-Imagined Text 109). Moreover, since Shakespeare became a national poet and an “ancient”, he was even treated like one by the critics. They acknowledged the fact that “[t]he ancients wrote for their time [and so,] English poets and critics must write for their own. Trying to mingle the two involves a break with nature”
(108). That means that, when analysing Shakespeare, the critics took into consideration when and what he wrote and so they were interested in the context and the historical period in which he lived and composed his plays. This approach to Shakespeare was rather uncommon for the critics of the previous years. As Johnson’s says, “Every man’s performances, to be rightly estimated, must be compared with the state of the age in which he lived, and with his own particular opportunities” (16).
This new attitude towards Shakespeare led to the fact that the “critics find
Shakespeare’s genius dependent on his words” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 117). Since
“the Correctness of the Text … is equally necessary to the right understanding him”, the
“capital offense” for these critics lied in “mutilating Shakespeare’s words” (Re-Imagined
Text 117). And so, to “truly understand Shakespeare’s brilliance; in order to understand his works, a critic must ‘know more minutely his very words and genuine expressions’”
(Re-Imagined Text 118). That is the reason why the playwrights preferred to save large
23 portions of the original Shakespeare in their adaptations and why some writers even imitated his style.
The most famous debate on Shakespeare in the 18th century is Samuel Johnson’s
“Preface” to his edition of Shakespeare’s plays (1765). Johnson’s criticism is different from that of other mid-century critics and according to Marsden, it is “closer to the form and sentiments of the age of Dryden” (Re-Imagined Text 123). This may be seen in his discussion on Shakespeare’s faults. First of all, Johnson criticises Shakespeare’s neglect of morality: “He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is so much more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose” (9). And so,
Shakespeare violates “the Horatian maxim that art should both entertain and instruct”
(Markley 229). Some of his works, thus, in Johnson’s words, “presented the ‘wrong’ moral” (4) because “he carries his persons indifferently through right and wrong, and at the close diminishes them without further care” (9). Johnson then continues to point out that Shakespeare’s plots are “loosely formed” (9). He also mentions Shakespeare’s violation of the unities (except that of action) but he defends him, claiming that “There is no reason why a mind thus wandering in ecstasy should count the clock, or why an hour should not be a century in that calenture of the brains that can make the stage a field. The truth is, that the spectators are always in their senses, and know, from the first act to the last, that the stage is only a stage, and that the players are only players” (13). According to Johnson, the most important unity is that of action and the rest of them “arise evidently from false assumptions” (15). For him, “the greatest graces of a play are to copy nature, and instruct life” (16).
That is what he praises about Shakespeare. He calls him “the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirror of manners and of life” (3). He applauds the naturalness of his characters, “His persons act and speak by the influence of those
24 general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion” (3). According to Marsden, the praise for Shakespeare’s characters was not a new phenomenon because it had already existed in the Restoration criticism. She, however, says that the attitudes of the mid-18th century critics were different because they emphasised the importance of the character and “created a new dramatic unity – the unity of character” (Re-Imagined Text 112). The unity of character is described as “the single greatest means of representing nature and can even induce moral instruction” (Re-Imagined Text 112). Griffith adds that Shakespeare’s “accurate depiction of human nature … [is] central to the success of his drama” (qtd. in Ritchie
89).20
Shakespeare, thus, gained a new status in the 18th century – that of a national poet and his works were considered to be classics and were even treated in that way. That is a great shift from the Restoration period, which perceived Shakespeare’s plays as corrupt and in need of improvement. Shakespeare’s genius resides in his words and that is the reason why the playwrights tried to preserve as much original as possible. This phenomenon, which praises the original Shakespeare, continues in the following centuries. Shakespeare and his works have become more revered, whereas the adaptations of his plays have been condemned by the critics.
20 Marsden explains why: “By creating a consistent and thus realistic character, the playwright allows the audience to identify with the play’s action in an immediate and emotional way... . This concept of identification allowed critics to redefine the classical concept of pity and fear (catharsis), which in the Poetics arose from a realization of the plot, as a function of character, so that our pity is engaged for the persons represented, and our terror is upon our own account. This response ... cannot be achieved by plot, no matter how beautifully structured” (Re-Imagined Text 112). 25
2. John Lacy’s Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew (1667)
When theatres were reopened in 1660, the London theatrical scene mirrored the reign of
King Charles II. Sexual and social comedies were popular with audiences and the plays were usually characterised by lewdness, immorality and ribaldry. Since the theatres wanted to be secured financially and the spectators and the monarch himself were interested in the aforementioned features of the drama, the main purpose of theatres was not to stage the quality plays but to attract audiences to the playhouse by giving them what they wanted. Moreover, the popularity of actors increased in the Restoration period.
Spectators were no longer interested in the playwright, as in the Renaissance period; their attention was shifted towards the actors. Scheil even points out that “[a] popular actor could … secure success for a play” (23), which is the reason why theatre managers tried to cast popular actors. One such actor of the Restoration period was John Lacy (1615–
1681) whose adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, in Scheil’s words,
“demonstrates the power a popular actor had over the theatrical offerings, and the lasting success a play can create when it provides such a star role for a comic actor” (24).
The first part of the present chapter, therefore, presents John Lacy and his relations to the Restoration theatre. The second part summarises his adaptation of Shakespeare’s
Taming of the Shrew, Sauny the Scot. And since one of the instrumental features of the
Restoration drama is its use of character types, the last part of the chapter is devoted to the character analysis. It tries to show that Lacy transformed Shakespeare’s characters in order to fit these typical character types of the Restoration drama.
2.1 John Lacy
John Lacy was originally a dancing master (Spencer 15), who later became a successful actor in Killigrew’s company, famous especially for his comic roles. He is described as
26 having had a “great range as a comedian” (Spring 30) and having been “a great favourite with Charles II” (Haring-Smith 11). His acting genius was praised by many critics. The
English politician and avid theatregoer Samuel Pepys maintains that “Lacy’s acting could redeem any performance” (qtd. in Scheil 39) and views his role in The French Dancing
Master (1666) as “the best in the world” (qtd. in Spencer 15). Cooper describes the actor as “the greatest comedian of the Pepys decade” (qtd. in Spring 27) and Langbaine declares that Lacy “perfom’d all Parts that he undertook to a miracle, inasmuch that I am apt to believe, that as this Age never had, so the next, never will have his Equal, at least not his
Superiour” (Spring 27-28).
Lacy, however, was not only an actor in the King’s Company, he was also a co- manager, shareholder, author of original dramatic pieces and adapter (Spring 28). His original and adapted plays share several elements. Typical features of his style of writing are: (1) low comedy, which was often seen as vulgar (Spring 41); (2) dialect humour;
Scheil describes him as “a specialist in ethnic stereotypes” (42); (3) physical comedy
(Scheil 175); (4) the comedy of character types, through which he tries to convey social criticism of human follies (Spring 18); and (5) his preference for rustic characters (Spring
30).
He was not significantly influenced by contemporary criticism because he himself was very critical of the contemporary critics’ approach to adaptations: “…if you go about to persuade them but to cut a play or poem shorter, they are so concerned, that every line you cut is valued at a joint, and every speech a limb lopped off” (qtd. in Spring 36).
Hence, as a co-manager and shareholder in the King’s Company, he was more interested in the demands of his audiences because the theatregoers were the ones who paid for the performances and, thus, were the source of his income. He even expresses the purpose of his plays in the dedicatory Epistle to the play The Dumb Lady (1672): “Yet I have this to
27 say, that I have had my ends upon poetry, and not poetry upon me; for if poetry had gained its ends on me, it had made me mad, but that I having my ends on it appears in my getting money by it, which was shown plentifully on my poet’s days; but that I thank my friends for, and not the desert of my plays” (qtd. in Spring 35). One may see that the main purpose of Lacy is not the quality of his works but the money he could obtain for staging them.
And since he wanted his plays to be successful, he had to satisfy the tastes of the audiences.
Lacy had the same purpose in mind when adapting Shakespeare’s play The
Taming of the Shrew into Sauny the Scott: or, The Taming of the Shrew. Since the plague ravished the country, theatres were closed from June 1665 till late 1666. That means that the company suffered financially. Sauny the Scott was performed in 1667 and, according to Scheil it “helped ensure the viability of the King’s Company shortly after the theatres reopened” (38). She even adds that the company “depeneded on Lacy’s talents to create and perform in successful comedies” (38).
2.2 Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew
Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew was first performed by the King’s Company on Easter Tuesday, 9 April 1667, at Theatre Royal. The play in five acts was produced by
Thomas Killigrew and the title role was played by John Lacy, the adapter himself (Spring
177). This performance is recorded in Samuel Pepys’s Diary: “To the King’s house, and there saw The Taming of a Shrew, which hath some very good pieces in it, but generally 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” (qtd. in Odell 40).
Pepys expresses mixed feelings upon seeing the play and even his short review of the play contains several contrasts. For example, he says that the play has “some very good
28 pieces in it” but is “a mean play” at the same time and although “the best part” (40) of the play was Sauny, he did not understand a word he said.
Critical reception of the play expressed similar attitudes towards Lacy’s adaptation. Arthur Bedford voices his opinion on Sauny the Scot in his Serious
Remonstrance (1719):
it [the play] is full of most dreadful Oaths, and horrid Curses. The name of GOD
is ridiculed by a paltry Footman, almost as often as he speaks. The Alterations
seem to be made In the Devil’s Name, according as it is expressed in the Play
itself. The pretended reformation shews us to be ripe for utter Destruction; and he
who will compare this Performance with the Original, will find it ten times more
the Child of Hell than the first. But the Moral in either is good for nothing. The
Original in Shakespear is free from Cursing; but it is frequently added in the other
by way of Improvement. … The Original hath no praying to the Devil, no
Ejaculation in his Name, and no drolling upon an Article of our Faith, like the
other. Grumio in Shakespear is but once uncivil to his Mistress, which seems to
be by his Master Petruchio’s Order. He makes use of the Name of GOD but twice,
and (these things excepted) is seldom out of Character. (qtd. in Spencer 325)
His main objections are, therefore, to the language of the adaptation, which stresses vulgarity, immorality and blasphemy. Bedford is not the only one who dared to criticise the play though. From the 18th century onwards, Shakespeare has become a national poet and a phenomenon, and people has come to prefer originals to the adaptations which were seen as something inferior to Shakespeare. Hazelton Spencer, an early 20th-century literary critic, for example, describes Lacy’s play as “a despicable adaptation of The
Taming of the Shrew” (15).
29
However, Scheil points out that, while the readers and spectators of the present time see the difference between the original and adaptation immediately, “there is no evidence that Restoration audiences distinguished between the original text of
Shakespeare and the ‘finishing strokes’ of Lacy” (39). This may be attributed to the fact that people did not have the opportunity to read original Shakespeare at the time because they did not have access to his plays (Hume 68).21 And so, “[i]n the early years of the
King’s Company, Lacy’s reputation was more important to advertise than Shakespeare’s association with the play” (Scheil 39).22
The dominance of Lacy’s Sauny the Scot over the original play may be proven by the number of Sauny’s productions. In the 17th century, it was the only adaptation of
Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew and, according to Hogan’s list of Shakespeare’s plays and adaptations performed in the first half of the 18th century, Sauny the Scot was the only adapted comedy by Shakespeare on London stages at the beginning of the 18th century. Other productions were either tragedies or comedies (1-85). From 1716 onwards, new adaptations of The Taming of the Shrew appeared, namely the two-act play The
Cobbler of Preston by Charles Johnson (1716), the one-act play The Cobbler of Preston by Christopher Bullock (1716), and the two-act ballad opera A Cure for a Scold by James
Worsdale (1735) (see Hogan 414). Although Sauny no longer dominated the stage after
1716, it remained in the repertory till 18 November 1736, when it was last produced.
After this point, it was permanently replaced by Garrick’s Catharine and Petruchio
(Haring-Smith 11).
Lacy’s alterations affect the play’s plot, its language and, of course, characters.
The adaptation omits the Induction and the Sly material completely and, although there
21 For more details, see Robert D. Hume’s “Before the Bard: ‘Shakespeare’ in Early Eighteenth-Century London”. 22 That might be the reason why Shakespeare’s name is omitted from the first printed edition of Sauny the Scot and why it is John Lacy who is named as the author of the play instead (Scheil 38). 30 are several additions to the plot, it follows the structure of the original play to a certain extent up until Act 5, which underwent serious revisions.23 Lacy also changes the locality of the play, which is no longer Padua but London, shifting the setting from Italy to
England. There might be several reasons for this change: (1) Since the use of various dialects is typical of Lacy’s comedy, he might have decided to use the Scottish stereotype which was popular at the time and thus he had to change the setting of the play, for it would have made no sense to have a Scotsman in Italy; (2) the English setting was favoured by the Restoration audiences because of the gradual growth of national pride and patriotism (especially in opposition to French); or (3) Lacy moved the action of the play to London “to match Fletcher’s Anglicized sequel” (Dobson, National Poet 23). This option seems to be highly possible because Fletcher’s plays were more popular with the
Restoration theatregoers than Shakespeare’s and so Lacy might have been inspired by
Fletcher’s material. Towards the end of the play, Petruchio even makes a reference to
Fletcher’s The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tam’d (1647), claiming that “I’ve Tam’d the Shrew, but will not be asham’d / If next you see the very Tamer Tam’d” (5.1.436 original emphasis).
Besides the changes in the plot, the alterations of the language are also worth mentioning. The most visible one is the conversion from poetry to prose, which may be connected to the Restoration need for “brevity, clarity, and simplicity” (Spring 16).
Spring also points out that “[a]s a method of achieving greater simplicity, Lacy sometimes converts a Shakespearean interrogative into a positive statement” (118). Moreover, Lacy changes the language to fit the Restoration idiom by reducing Shakespeare’s figurative expressions which were seen as ambiguous and unintelligible. For example, when
23 For exact changes in the plot structure, see Hogan p.414. 31
Petruchio explains Hortensio/Geraldo why he decided to come back to Padua,
Shakespeare’s Petruchio says,
Such wind as scatters young men through the world
To seek their fortunes farther than at home,
Where small experience grows. But in a few,
Signor Hortensio, thus it stands with me:
Antonio my father is deceased,
And I have thrust myself into this maze,
Haply to wive and thrive as best I may;
Crowns in my purse I have and goods at home,
And so am come abroad to see the world. (TS 1.2.49-57)
Petruchio’s lengthy and eloquent speech in Shakespeare’s comedy is turned into a brief and clear statement in Lacy’s adaptation: “A common Calamity to us young Men, my
Father has been Dead this four Months. … Hether I come to try my Fortunes, to see if good luck and my Friends will help me to a Wife” (Sauny 2.1-51-60).
What, however, does not fit the pattern of Restoration need for clarity, is Sauny’s dialect, which is difficult to understand. This fact is testified to by Pepys in the aforementioned entry to his diary. Hence, the language in this case is more confusing than clarifying. That shows that Lacy’s main interest in the eponymous character of Sauny
(see below) is to improve the character to fit his comic talents.
Yet Sauny is not the only character that undergoes a radical change. The alterations of the original play’s language and structure and the various additions affect other characters as well. And so, not only are the names of certain characters changed but their overall delineation is altered as well.
32
2.3 Character Analysis
2.3.1 Sauny
Sauny, a counterpart of Shakespeare’s Grumio, who is Petruchio’s servant, is elevated from a minor role in the original The Taming of the Shrew to one of the main characters in Lacy’s adaptation. One of the dominant features of Sauny which is visible and emphasised throughout the whole play is his Scottishness.
According to Scheil, Lacy used the Scottish comic element because “[r]elations between Scotland and England in the late seventeenth century were characterized by a long history of mutual mistrust and animosity” (“Importance of Theatrical Context” 72).
In his historical book A Modern Account of Scotland (1679), Kirke likens Scotland to a louse which “preys upon its own Fosterer and Preserver [England]” (2), describing
Scottish towns and people as “pestilentful and destructive” (4). And so, what Lacy did was to demonstrate the enmity between the two nations by mocking Scotland and its people. In doing so, he used a typical and very successful feature of his comedies, an ethnic stereotype, to emphasise the ridiculousness of Scots.
In Kirke’s work, Scottish people are described as “High and Dirty” (6) and are likened to their national symbol thistle: “the top … having some colour of a flower, but the bulk and substance of it, is only sharp, and poisonous pricks” (3). Kirke also claims that inhabitants of Scotland are “Straglers of the fallen Angels, who rested themselves on the Confines, till their Captain Lucifer provided places for them in his own Countrey”
(1). Scottish people are, therefore, representatives of negative attributes, which are also applied to the character of Sauny. He is mainly associated with uncleanness and dirt, voracious appetite, coarse language and disrespect for (English) authorities/his superiors.
Sauny is presented to audience in Act 2, Scene 1. Although he speaks with a
Scottish dialect throughout the whole play, the audience learns about his Scottish origin
33 indirectly before he even opens his mouth: At the very beginning of the scene, Petruchio scolds him for using Scottish: “Sirrah, leave off your Scotch, and speak me English, or something like it” (Sauny 2.1.1-2). From this scene on, his Scottishness is shown directly either by means of his dialect, apparel or actions.
From the very first interaction between Sauny and Petruchio, one is constantly reminded of Sauny’s uncleanness:
Petruchio. And thou need’st Scrubbing, I’ll say that for thee, thou Beastly Knave;
Why do ye not get your self Cur’d of the Mange?
Sauny. S’breed, Sir, I w’ud ne’a be cur’d for a Thousand Pund; there’s nea a Lad
in aw Scotland but Loves it. Gude, Sawny might hang himsel an it were not for
Scratting and Scrubbing. (Sauny 2.1.9-15)
Petruchio suggests that Sauny is dirty and needs scrubbing. Sauny not only refuses to wash himself but he also emphasises the uncleanness of Scottish people in general, thus confirming the stereotype. Scheil asserts that Sauny’s uncleanness is closely connected to his constant scratching, which “must have been a memorable part of Lacy’s interpretation” of Sauny, because even Lacy is portrayed scratching his wrist in the portrait of him (1675) painted by Michael Wright (“Importance of Theatrical Context”
74).24
Another contemporary Scottish stereotype presented in the character of Sauny is his voracious appetite, which is presented from the first scene in which Sauny appears.
Tranio asks Petruchio to go to a tavern with him and “Drink her [Bianca’s] Health” (Sauny
2.1.196-97). Sauny’s reaction is following: “Do, my Bearns; and I’se Drink with ye to
Countenance ye” (Sauny 2.1.198-99). Since audience is only getting to know Sauny, his reaction does not immediately point to his voracious appetite, but rather emphasises his
24 This painting was commissioned by Charles II and it depicts Lacy performing his most successful roles, Sauny from Sauny the Scot, Monsieur Device from The Country Chaplain and Scruple from The Cheats. 34 disrespect for his master and Tranio since he wants to drink with his betters. His relation to food and drink, however, does not stagnate but escalates from scene to scene.
In Act 3, Scene 1, when Petruchio decides to go home immediately after the wedding ceremony, Sauny’s only concern is with food, “Wun’s will ye nea eat your
Wadden Dunner, Sir?” (Sauny 3.1.214), which is followed by the desperate “They have nea ea’t their Wadden Dunner yet” (Sauny 3.1.224). Later, one learns that Sauny is not worried that his master and new mistress starve by abandoning the food. What worries him is the fact that he has to leave with them: “Gud, at ye woud speak to your Cuke to gi
Saundy a little Mutton and Porridge to put in his Wallet” (Sauny 3.1.252-54). He, thus, asks Margaret to demand food from their cook so that he can take it with him.
Sauny’s ravenous appetite culminates in the following scene, when he arrives at
Petruchio’s house. The very first thing he demands from Curtis upon his arrival home is food. He does not even greet him, “Saundy’s Hungry; Can’t you get a little Meat, Sir?”
(Sauny 3.2.2). In Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, Grumio does not exhibit any signs of hunger and immediately asks for fire as Petruchio ordered him to do so. In Lacy’s version, however, Sauny does his duty only when he is promised food. Moreover, his greeting with other servants is similar to that with Curtis because he demands meat and drink from each of them (Sauny 3.2.29-34), thus emphasising his great appetite.
Since Sauny only cares for his stomach, he forgets about Petruchio’s message and does not tell the servants to wait for their master and his bride in the park. That results in
Petruchio’s anger and Sauny’s late greeting of his master:
Petruchio. … Where’s that Foolish Knave I sent before.
Sauny. Wuns, Sir, Ise be sea hungry, and sea empty, ye may travell quite through
me, and nere faw your fingers, Sir.
35
Petruchio. You Mangy Rogue, Did not I bid you meet me in the Park, and bring
these Rascals with you?
Sauny. Gud, did ye, Sir; bo Ise sea hungry, Ise ha nea Memory. Deliver your
Message your sel, Sir. (Sauny 3.2.59-67)
When Petruchio rebukes him for his tardiness, Sauny uses his hunger as an excuse. This scene is depicted differently in The Taming of the Shrew, though. The reason for Grumio’s tardiness has nothing to do with hunger: “There were none fine but Adam, Rafe and
Gregory, / The rest were ragged, old, and beggarly” (TS 4.1.122-23). Hence, in this case, the servants are not representable to be seen by their master and his new wife.
Unlike Grumio, Sauny even eats the meat taken from Margaret under the pretext of being poisonous. Sauny declares, “Gud, Saundy will venture, Poyson and ’twill”
(Sauny 3.2.114). His desire for food is so strong that he is even willing to sacrifice his own life for it.
Sauny’s great appetite is, however, not only associated with food. There are several instances in which one may observe his great sexual appetite as well. Sauny expresses his desire for Bianca throughout the whole play: “she’s tea gued for any man but Saundy; Gud, Gin poor Saundy had her in Scotland, Wun’s, I’de sea Swing her about”
(Sauny 4.3.80-82). He even believes that he has a real chance of winning her and, when he talks about her, he usually uses sexual innuendos: “He’d ha ye make him her Piper,
Sir. Gued, ’at ye’d make Sawndy her Piper, wun’s ’Ide sea blea her Pipe” (Sauny 2.1.110-
11).
Bianca is not the only one who is reduced to a sexual object by Sauny. In the wager scene, when Petruchio asks Sauny to bring Margaret to him, the latter says, “I’se gar her gea wuth me, Sir, or I’se put my Durke to the hilt in her Weam” (Sauny 5.1.387-
88). Sauny also threatens that he will put his dagger in her womb if she disobeys him.
36
The dagger may represent his anger and hatred for her, but it may also be a symbol of his penis. Therefore, he threatens to use his great sexual appetite as means of his coercive power. Sauny’s sexual appetite and use of sexual innuendos are only small part of his vulgar behaviour, which is tightly connected to his usage of coarse language.
Coarse language is extensively used throughout the whole play and it is mainly spoken by Sauny. For example, Sauny uses the word “devil” 29 times, 13 of which are used in association with Margaret. In The Taming of the Shrew, it is other characters, not
Grumio, who associate Katherina with animal and devilish terms.25 In Lacy’s play, the use of the word is, however, reduced solely to Sauny. For example, upon his arrival to
Petruchio’s house, he describes her as a devil incarnate (Sauny 3.2.11-24). Sauny’s character in this scene is a complete opposite of Grumio who never calls Katherina a devil or talks vulgarly and badly about her. He only describes their journey back home to Curtis and emphasises Katherina’s misery and Petruchio’s shrewishness.
The word devil is not the only harsh word used by Sauny when talking about or to Margaret. He calls her a “dranken Swine” (Sauny 5.1.69-70) when she is abused by
Petruchio and a “Scauden Queen” (Sauny 5.1.65), a term used to address harlots according to Clark (Sauny 500). Sauny also threatens her that Petruchio will buy a whip to be used on her (Sauny 4.1.14-16). Sauny’s aversion to her is not only verbal but physical as well. His physical violence towards Margaret is not mentioned directly but
Geraldo’s reaction during the scene in which Sauny teases her with various names of meat
(Sauny 4.1.1-64) suggests that Sauny wants to strike her: “Why, how now, Sirrah, Will you strike your Mistriss? You Cowardly Rogue, strike a Woman? (Sauny 4.1.40-41).
Shakespeare’s Grumio does not dare to behave to Katherina in such a way; indeed, he is
25 For detailed analysis, see “Chapter 3: Renaming Katherina/Kate” in the present author’s BA thesis “‘My tongue will tell the anger of my heart’: The Search for Identity of Katherina/Kate in The Taming of the/a Shrew”, 29-39. 37 not even vulgar to her during the parallel scene – he is only teasing her because he was ordered by Petruchio to do so. Sauny, too, is given right to tell her whatever he wants by
Petruchio (Sauny 4.1.1-2) but Sauny apparently enjoys it and behaves in a roughish manner to her throughout the play. In the final act where Petruchio threatens to bury her alive, Sauny really wants to get rid of her: “We’ll mak her Dead” (Sauny 5.1.272).
Sauny is not only disrespectful to Margaret, but to his male betters as well. He refuses to take his cap off when he meets Beaufoy and he uses his Scottishness, and thus different traditions, as an excuse (Sauny 2.2.74-78). He also dares to scold Woodall for wanting to marry Bianca. While she is a young maiden (Sauny 2.1.115-26), he (Woodall) is “an Aud theif” (Sauny 2.1.116) and “an Aud Man” (Sauny 2.1.118). Sauny addresses him in such a harsh way standing right in front of him. In The Taming of the Shrew,
Grumio calls Gremio a “woodcock” (TS 1.2.158), meaning a simpleton, and an “ass” (TS
1.2.158), but he never says that directly to Gremio’s face, only to Hortensio.
Sauny is also disrespectful to his master and calls him (right in front of him) “false
Trundle Taile Tike” (Sauny 4.3.61-62), meaning low-bred dog (Sauny 498) and contradicts him all the time. For example, in the sun-moon scene (Sauny 4.3) which is important in transformation of Katherina from a shrew to an obedient wife in The Taming of the Shrew, Sauny disturbs their dialogue, calls Petruchio a liar and when Margaret joins
Petruchio, Sauny declares that they both are mad (Sauny 4.3.42-44).
According to Scheil, “Sauny divert[s] attention to himself” (“Importance of
Theatrical Context” 75) by his constant comments and interruptions of the action of the play. Although Scheil asserts that Sauny’s comments “are directed to the audience but unacknowledged by the other characters on stage” (“Importance of Theatrical Context”
70), it is not always the case. His comments and interruptions do influence the course of the play and so, even other characters are affected. This is perfectly visible in Petruchio-
38
Margaret encounters, where his remarks disrupt the dynamics of the original couple and transform the Shakespearean characters. Since Sauny becomes a part of crucial taming scenes, in which his original counterpart either does not appear or does not intervene (e.g.
Sauny 2.2.153-254, 4.3), his actions and coarse, vulgar, disrespectful and violent nature has an impact on Petruchio and Margaret. And since they have to keep pace with him, their characters subsequently have to be more violent than their Shakespearean counterparts.
2.3.2 Margaret
Shakespeare’s character of Katherina undergoes serious revision in Lacy’s adaptation.
While Hortensio states that Katherina is “young and beauteous” (TS 1.2.85), Geraldo, one of Biancha’s suitors, suggests that Margaret is ugly, claiming that “I shall come roundly to you, and wish you to a rich Wife, but her Face” (Sauny 2.1.66-67), as if he were pointing out that a shrewish wife cannot be a good-looking woman. Margaret is, therefore, not only ugly, but even more of a shrew than the original Katherina. She is, however, a much stronger character than her Elizabethan counterpart because she can endure a much higher level of physical violence and oppressive behaviour on the part of her husband.
Firstly, Margaret, just as Katherina in Shakespeare’s play, only uses verbal violence when she scolds both Woodall and Geraldo (Sauny 1.1.62-69). She does so in self-defence because they both offend her, and Woodall even suggests that she should be beaten if her family wants her to behave properly (Sauny 1.1.52-56). Later, however, she becomes violent towards her sister for no apparent reason, calling her “Proud Slut” (Sauny
2.2.1) and “Flattering Gypsie” (Sauny 2.2.9) and, unlike Katherina in The Taming of the
Shrew, Margaret demands jewellery and a fine neckerchief from her sister: “Must you be making your self Fine before your Elder Sister? You are the Favourite, you are, but I shall make you know your Distance; Give me that Necklace, and those Pendants. I’ll have that
39
Whisk too, there’s an old Handkercheif good enough for you” (Sauny 2.2.1-6). The fact that Margaret calls Biancha names and commands her sister to give up her valuables makes it clear that the former is jealous of the attention that is centred on the latter, as if she herself wanted to be like Biancha. That would explain why she wants her sister’s jewellery and fine clothes and why she leaves her with an old handkerchief. There is no equivalent of this situation in the original play. While Bianca vows to give Katherina anything she wants, Katherina refuses her valuables and demands Bianca’s honest answer to her question which suitor she likes the best (TS 2.1.1-9). Margaret, however, goes even further. She threatens to beat Biancha if she does not tell her which suitor she favours:
“Tell me, or I’ll beat you to Clouts, and Pinch thee like a Fairy” (Sauny 2.2.11-13).
Moreover, when Biancha admits that she does not like any of her suitors, Margaret assumes she lies and threatens to beat her again: “Huswife, you Lye; and I could find in my Heart to Dash thy Teeth down thy Throat” (Sauny 2.2.17-8). In the parallel scene in
The Taming of the Shrew, Katherina does not threaten to beat her sister; she simply states that she lies (TS 2.1.13).
Margaret will stop at nothing since she is not only aggressive to her younger and weaker sister, but she is not afraid to use verbal violence against Petruchio even in the wooing scene. She, for example, unlike Katherina, declares openly that Petruchio’s face sickens her and that he is not good enough for her: “I match’d to thee? What, to such a fellow with such a Gridiron face, with a Nose set on like a Candels end stuck against a
Mud wall, and a Mouth to eat Milk Porridge with Ladles? Foh, it almost turns my
Stomach to look on’t” (Sauny 2.2.187-91). She is, therefore, painting a rather unflattering picture of Petruchio. And what is more, she even dares to beat Sauny: “Marry, come up,
Abberdeen, take that (Hits him a box on the Ear), and speak next when it comes to your turn” (Sauny 2.2.194-96). Margaret beats Sauny because he interrupts their conversation
40 incessantly and by doing so, she expresses her view on Petruchio’s servant and sends out a clear message that she will not accept such behaviour in her presence. Since Grumio does not appear in the original wooing scene, this is solely an addition by Lacy.
Margaret, however, does not only use threats – she openly expresses rebellion.
This alternation may be ascribed to the transformation of an Elizabethan woman to the
Restoration one, which is explained by Singh: “In certain respects the position of a
Restoration woman has certainly improved. She is no more the obedient, silent and docile woman of the Elizabethan age. She has higher expectations from marriage and a new pride in her sex” (156). Spring adds that the alternation in the position of women had impact on certain elements of drama. He claims that, for example, the battle of the sexes was more acceptable for Restoration audience because women were more rebellious at the time because they began to have a more active part in the society (185).
Margaret’s rebellious nature is an important part of Lacy’s adaptation. Although she is decided to consent to the marriage with Petruchio only to “try if he can Tame me”
(Sauny 2.2.253-54), several lines later, she protests when her father agrees with the match:
“Why, Sir, de’ ye mean to Match me in spight of my Teeth?” (Sauny 2.2.283-84). And so, it seems as if she were either only pretending to be against the marriage or was opposing her father out of spite. Singh contends that
The treatment of the relationship between parents and children in Restoration
comedy offers a sharp contrast to that of Shakespeare’s. Shakespeare’s attempt
was to reconcile the points of view of parents and children … to restore the
affection between parents and children and thus to work for family solidarity. In
Restoration drama, the position is completely changed. The comedy of the period
especially, espouses the point of view of youth, and by and large treats the old
with contempt. (57)
41
Although Katherina’s immediate reaction to her father’s wish to marry her off to
Petruchio is disagreement, she soon accepts her fate and remains silent. Margaret, however, seems to be determined when she says, “As I live, I will not” (Sauny 2.2.289).
She even openly shows her scorn for her father when Petruchio does not arrive for the wedding on time: “Nay, you have us’d me finely, and like a Father: I must be forc’d to give my hand against my will, to a rude mad brain’d Fellow here, who Woo’d in hast, and means to Wed at Leisure. This comes of obeying you; if I do’t again, were you ten thousand Fathers, hang me” (Sauny 3.1.76-81). Her speech to her father closely follows the one that may be found in The Taming of the Shrew, except for the last sentence, which is added by Lacy. Lacy, therefore, emphasises the fact that it is her father’s fault that she may end up unmarried and, eventually, unmarriageable and she refuses to obey her father ever again since he has made a wrong decision based on obsolete traditional attitudes towards marriage. Singh ascribes this open rebellion of the young against the old generation to the rise of new aristocracy:
It is this aristocracy which set the tone of Restoration comedy. In their case the
assertion of individuality by children tended not to cement but to disrupt family
solidarity. Indeed the younger generation of this class was clearly in open
rebellion against the older generation, and it is this rebellion that is depicted in
Restoration comedy. This comedy is essentially subversive of conventional moral
values, and shows youth in revolt against all traditional modes of behaviour. (60)
Margaret is portrayed as a young spirited Restoration female protagonist, who is in opposition to the older generation, represented by her father Beaufoy.
Her father is, however, not the only male character who has to deal with
Margaret’s rebellious nature. Petruchio has to outmatch her incessantly. That may be the reason why his behaviour is drastically diverted from the Elizabethan Petruchio. Margaret
42 is shown secretly plotting against Petruchio: “Sure he will run himself out of Breath, and then it will be my turn” (Sauny 3.2.74-75). Moreover, her plotting corresponds with her actions. When Petruchio refuses to give her food, she is far from being cooperative and states her mind, “Say what you will, Sir, I’ll eat some of it; Did you bring me hither to
Starve me?” (Sauny 3.2.109-10). Despite Petruchio’s arguments, Margaret does not give up. She stands her ground and demands at least something small to eat (Sauny 3.2.17-18).
She goes even as far as to bribe Sauny with money to get food (Sauny 4.1.25-26), which proves that she is willing to go to any lengths to get what she wants.
She proves that it would not be easy to tame her even during the scene with the tailor when Petruchio teases her with the possibility of a new dress which is subsequently denied to her. She stands firm and does not want him to win the argument: “He shall not take it agen. What need you trouble your self about it, as long as it pleases me” (Sauny
4.1.122-24). Margaret makes it clear that Petruchio is not the one who should be concerned with her dress and points out to his ignorance in the field of fashion: “Come, come, all this is but fooling; you dont understand what belongs to a Gown. Say what you will, I’m resolv’d to have it; if it were an ugly one I wou’d wear it, and it were but to
Cross you” (Sauny 4.1.128-31). She opposes Petruchio more spiritedly than Katherina and is resolved to have the dress at any costs, even if it really were ugly only to infuriate her husband.
Shortly after Margaret’s statement that she will have “every thing I have a mind for” (Sauny 4.1.150-51), Lacy presents the audience with Margaret who conforms to her husband’s wishes. Lacy, however, places hints of her rebellion to her speeches to remind the spectators that she is not tamed or willing to conform but she does so only to have what she has a mind for (see 2.3.3).
43
The fact that she is far from being tamed and as rebellious as ever is reflected when she is at the safety of her father’s house. According to Singh, “marriage is a contract between man and woman and it is valid only as long as both fulfil the terms of the contract. If the man fails to do so, the woman is under no obligation to obey him. Indeed, as often happens in comedies of the period in such a situation, the woman has every right to rebel” (160). Since Petruchio broke his part of contract and abused her at his country house, Margaret has a right to rebel and rebel she does. She openly insults Petruchio in front of everyone, “Thou art no Man; thou coudst not have a Woman to thy Mother, thou paltry, Scurvy, ill condition’d fellow” (Sauny 5.1.84-86), and when she contradicts him, she uses references that demonstrate the difference between the country and the city,
You think you are in the Country but you are mistaken; the case is alter’d, I am at
home now, and my own disposer. Go, swagger at your greazy Lubber there, your
Patient Wife will make you no more Sport; she has a Father will allow her Meat
and Lodging. (Sauny 5.1.57-62)
…
No, good Squire of the country, you thought to have Tam’d me, I warrant, in good
time. Why, you see I am even with you: Your Quiet Patient Wife, that will go no
more in the Country with you, but will stay in Town, to Laugh at your Wise
Worship, and wish you more Wit. (Sauny 5.1.105-10)
…
No, Sir, I won’t say, ‘Pray let me not go’; but boldly, I won’t go. You force me if
you can or dare. (Sauny 5.1.117-18)
Margaret is clearly aware of the distinction between the country and the city, and she expresses the typical Restoration scorn for the country, mainly because she associates it with Petruchio, who, in a way, may be seen as a representative of the country fellow
44 because he is rough, harsh, aggressive and not eloquent. Since Margaret is originally from the city, she is aware of the distinction between her and Petruchio and thus refuses to go to the backward world of the country. This time, she does not plead anymore to be allowed to be at home – she is simply resolved to stay.
The roles of Margaret and Petruchio are switched, since Margaret is in the safety of her father’s house and it is she now who threatens him (Sauny 5.1.130-31, 5.1.134-35,
5.1.139-40, 5.1.143-45). Her threatening gradually intensifies and culminates with her declaration that “you shall know me to be the Master” (Sauny 5.1.147-48). Petruchio’s defence is too weak to match her rebellion and she even “[f]lys at him” (Sauny 5.1.154).
Margaret’s rebellious nature does not change even when Petruchio has the barber called to pull her tooth out in order to make her speak since she promised not to speak to
Petruchio for two months. Her spirits are, however, not so easily broken since she does not let Petruchio abuse her and strikes the barber (Sauny 5.1.212). Her rebellion is ultimately quashed by Petruchio’s brutality when he threatens to bury her alive. Upon this, she admits her defeat. Her speech of obedience is, however, far from being as powerful as that of Katherina because it is reduced from the original forty-four verses to the mere three lines of prose (Sauny 5.1.426-28).
Although, in the end, Margaret submits to Petruchio just as Katherina does in The
Taming of the Shrew, she differs from Katherina in the fact that she does not keep anything to herself and tries to let others know about her abuse by Petruchio from the very beginning, when he forces her to leave their wedding dinner: “Will none of you help me?” (Sauny 3.1.251) Margaret’s desperate call for help remains ignored and none of her relatives is willing to take her side. Despite the indifference of her relatives, Margaret tries her best to tell everyone about Petruchio’s brutal treatment of her in his country house. Firstly, she does so when they meet Sir Lyonell. Petruchio lies to him that Margaret
45 did not sleep and fasted on her own accord, but she opposes him, “Curse upon your
Excuse, and the Cause of it; I cou’d have eaten my Shooe-Soules, if I might have had ’em
Fry’d” (Sauny 4.3.64-66). She also confronts Petruchio in her father’s house where she swears to tell everyone how he treated her and promises to make his and his servants’ abuse of her known to everyone: “I’ll speak your Fame, and tell what a fine Gentleman you are, how valiantly you and halfe a Douzen of your Men got the better of a Single
Woman, and made her lose her Supper” (Sauny 5.1.98-101). She is, therefore, a strong character who is not afraid to go against her own husband who treats her badly and to demand justice.
Despite the fact that Margaret is depicted as a stronger, more aggressive and rebellious character than her Shakespearean counterpart, she is still perceived, and even deliberately portrayed, as a sexual object. Lacy does so by adding a bed chamber scene which is not to be found in The Taming of the Shrew. While Shakespeare uses a conversation between Petruchio’s servants for the audience to know that Petruchio is “In her [Katherina’s] chamber, / Making a sermon of continency to her” (TS 4.1.171-72),
Lacy decides to show his audience what is happening in their bedroom on the stage.
Petruchio wants Margaret to undress and when she asks him to dismiss his servants, he commands Sauny to take off her clothes (Sauny 3.3.1-9). Spring attributes the addition of the bedroom scene to the introduction of actresses on stage:
Shakespeare’s low comedy involving members of the opposite sex is largely
verbal, partially because he was writing for a single-sex theatre and partly because
poetry is his most affective dramatic weapon, whereas Restoration comedy of this
variety is largely situational, partially because dramatists were exploiting the
arrival of actresses and partly because their plays were dependent upon patronage
of a morally untidy Court. (69)
46
Shakespeare had to resort to verbal low comedy because he was writing for single-sex theatre and so the situational comedy with boy actors would not have the same effect on audience as the Restoration comedy which used women in female roles. Hence, as
Marsden says introduction of actresses created “a new climate for sexual display” (“Rape,
Voyeurism” 185).
Typical feature of Restoration drama was rape or near rape scenes, which were
“fundamentally voyeuristic, depending for their effect on the audience’s role as voyeurs and the actress’s function as object of their collective gaze” (Marsden, “Rape,
Voyeurism” 185). Although Lacy does not use this type of scenes in his play, the purpose of his bedroom scene is similar because Margaret is “presented as sexual object and thus the locus of voyeurism … [and] object of desire” (Marsden, “Rape, Voyeurism” 186).
Lara Mulvey, in her essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”,26 explains that “the woman displayed has functioned on two levels: as erotic object for the characters within the screen story, and as erotic object for the spectator within the auditorium, with a shifting tension between the looks on either side of the screen” (838). And so, it may be said that the character of Margaret functions on these two levels as well – the character as erotic object for Petruchio and his servants and the actress as erotic object for male members of the audience.
Although Margaret is depicted as a sexual object mainly because of the introduction of actresses on Restoration stage, Lacy probably makes use of this historical development to place emphasis on the concept of sisterhood as well. Despite Margaret’s
26 Although Mulvey addresses the issue of scopophilia in the cinematic experience, it can easily be applied to theatrical experience as well. Her own description of the cinema setting is very similar to theatre environment, “[T]he extreme contrast between the darkness in the auditorium (which also isolates the spectators from one another) and the brilliance of the shifting patterns of light and shade on the screen helps to promote the illusion of voyeuristic separation. Although the film is really being shown, is there to be seen, conditions of screening and narrative conventions give the spectator an illusion of looking in on a private world” (836).
47 mistreatment of her sister at the beginning, their relationship improves in the course of the play. Biancha expresses her hope to be friends with her sister, who responds that she
“was never Foes” with her (Sauny 4.4.241-42). Lacy even adds a scene before the wager scene, in which Margaret confesses to Biancha and discloses her plan to avenge herself
(Sauny 5.1.3-9). She even gives advice on men to Biancha and offers to teach her to be shrewish:
Thou art a Fool, Biancha. Come, Learn of me. Thou art Married to a Man too;
thou dost not know but thou mayst need my Councel, and make good use on’t.
Tthy husband bares thee fair yet, but take heed of going home with him, for when
once he has thee within his verge, ’tis odds he’ll have his freaks too; there’s no
trusting these Men. Thy temper is soft and easy; thou must Learn to break him, or
he’ll break thy Heart. … Trust him and hang him; they’r all alike. Come, thou
shalt be my Schollar. Learn to Frown and cry out for unkindness, but brave Anger.
Thou hast a tongue; make use on’t. Scould, Fight, Scratch, Bite, any thing. (Sauny
5.1.11-24)
Margaret is, therefore, not telling Biancha to be subdued and to submit to her husband, as
Katherina does in her speech of obedience; instead, she advises her younger sister to fight for herself because that is the only way to survive for a woman at the time. Her lesson to her sister is even much longer than her speech of obedience at the end of the play. One may also observe that Margaret’s lesson has a distinct effect on her sister’s behaviour:
When Winlove scolds Biancha for not coming when he called her, she states, “You have not known me long enough to venture so much upon my Duty; I have been my Sisters
Scholar a little” (Sauny 5.1.418-20). Biancha confronts her husband at the end, even though she was submissive and meek throughout the whole play. Margaret is, thus, such
48 a strong character that she even has a power to influence her sister’s behaviour and transform her from a mild character to a shrewish one.
2.3.3 Petruchio
As Lacy transformed Shakespeare’s Margaret to fit his taming plot better, he did the same thing to Petruchio who becomes much more aggressive and coarser than the original tamer. Spencer also observes this radical change in Shakespeare’s merry tamer: “The most serious of Lacy’s changes in character is the transformation of Petruchio from a madcap to a brute” (280). The main goal of the present subchapter is to trace the reasons for his change of behaviour produced by Lacy. It tries to prove that Petruchio uses harsher methods to tame Margaret not only because she is a bigger shrew than the original one but also because Lacy’s Petruchio is not as eloquent as Shakespeare’s character and because he is incessantly followed and accompanied by his servant Sauny, who interrupts his taming process all the time, hence it is not as effective as in The Taming of the Shrew.
One of the reasons for Petruchio’s harsher treatment of Margaret may be the fact that Lacy portrays him as a mercenary character and so he is more interested in the money which he will obtain with the marriage rather than the bride herself. He is, like the original
Petruchio, interested in the dowry provided by Beaufoy for his daughter. Petruchio states that the most important quality of a wife is her wealth: “If she be rich, I care not if she want a Nose or an Eye; anything with Money” (Sauny 2.1.69-71). Indeed, his response to
Geraldo’s “What Qualifications do you look for [in wife]?” (Sauny 2.1.62) is unequivocal: “Why, money, a good Portion” (Sauny 2.1.63). And so, since his lines are much coarser, as Spencer argues, “the good-humored avowal of his mercenary intentions becomes an unmanly boasting of his indifference” (276). Spencer’s assertion may be supported by the fact that “[i]n the Restoration age the situation is radically changed. Now the mercenary consideration becomes the chief motive for marriage amongst the upper-
49 class” (Singh 149). Hence, being placed in the context of the historical period, it would make sense for Lacy to do such a change. Spring, however, argues that original and
Lacy’s characters are both mercenary in the same way but “[t]he connotative value of
Shakespeare’s hyperbole … gives the impression of a ‘good-humored’ tamer, and the bluntness of the Restoration Petruchio suggests a less sympathetic character” (87). He concludes that “[t]his is an inevitable consequence in converting Elizabethan poetry to restoration prose” (87). Spring’s argument may be justified by Lacy’s rewriting of the wager scene, in which Petruchio does bet on his wife, but, unlike original Petruchio, he actually decides to give the money he wins to Margaret as a reward for her behaviour.
And so, as in The Taming of the Shrew, there is a hint that “financial considerations soon lose their relevance … [and] the burden of the play is to show how somewhat stubborn individuals can convert this marriage into a companionate one” (Singh 148-49). Singh’s statement is realised at the end of the play when Petruchio says, “I’ve Tam’d the Shrew, but will not be asham’d, / If next you see the very Tamer Tam’d” (Sauny 5.1.435-36).
Lacy may not only be referring to Fletcher’s comedy The Woman’s Prize, or the Tamer
Tamed but may be instead alluding to the possibility of companionate marriage or even more radical outcome – Petruchio’s submission.
Although Petruchio’s mercenary motives are ambiguous in Lacy’s version of the play, what is clear-cut is his aggression. One may observe in Petruchio’s character that he is inherently aggressive, and this is shown in his treatment of Sauny at the beginning of the play. When Sauny refuses to knock on the gate, the Restoration Petruchio beats him immediately. That is apparently his normal behaviour towards his servants. However, in The Taming of the Shrew, he tries to make Grumio do as he bids and then, according to the stage directions, he “wrings him by the ears” (TS 1.2.17.1); he, however, never beats Grumio before his wooing of Katherina. The aggression of Elizabethan Petruchio
50 is, therefore, ambiguous because even though he does not beat Grumio before the taming process, his servants do not express shock upon his arrival to the country house and his mistreatment of them as their counterparts do in Garrick’s version (see Chapter 3.3.2).
Servants are not the only ones who face the wrath of the Restoration Petruchio;
Margaret is a subject of his anger as well. His mistreatment of Margaret escalates in the course of the play. Firstly, he uses threats to force her to do what he wants. When Margaret refuses to consent to their marriage and he is unable to persuade her, he decides to threaten her: “Hold, get me a Stick there, Sauny. By this hand, deny to Promise before your Father,
I’ll not Leave you a whole rib; I’ll make you do’t and be glad on’t” (Sauny 2.2.237-39).
To this Margaret replies, “Why, you will not Murther me Sirrah?” (Sauny 2.2.240).
Petruchio is resorted to harm her physically if she does not agree to marry him in front of her father. There is no equivalent of such behaviour in Shakespeare’s play. It is true that
Shakespeare’s Petruchio says that he will strike Katherina if she strikes him (TS 2.1.222), but he says so in self-defence, never threatening to beat her only to make her conform to his demands. Lacy’s Petruchio, however, goes even further: “Come, leave your idle prating. Have you I will, or no man ever shall. Whoever else attempts it, his throat will I
Cut before he lyes one night with thee” (Sauny 2.2.245-48). He is resolved to marry her, and if he does not, no one will and so he threatens not only her, but other potential suitors of Margaret as well. One may, therefore, observe that, while the Elizabethan Petruchio manages to persuade Katherina’s relatives that she is willing to marry him even though she is not by using only his words, the Restoration Petruchio is far from being as eloquent as the original and is, thus, reduced to threats.
After the wedding, Petruchio’s threats to Margaret are transformed to abuse of his new bride. He asks Sauny to undress her, “Maids, hang Maids; I have no such vermine about my house. Any of these will do as well. Here, Sauny, come hither, Sirrah, and
51 undress your Mistress” (Sauny 3.3.5-7), even forcing Margaret to drink and smoke tobacco:
Petruchio. I mean to Teach thee to Drink; thou must Learn that, or thou’rt no Wife
for me. …
Margaret. I can’t Drink without Eating; ’twill make me sick.
Petruchio. Pish, Pish, that’s but a Fancy; Come, off with it, or thou shalt neither
eat nor drink this Month.
Margaret. Shall I go to Bed when I have drank it?
…
Petruchio. … Take it [tobacco], or no Sleep nor Meat, Peg, D’ye hear? (Sauny
3.3.36-55)
While Shakespeare’s Petruchio deprives Katherina from food and sleep because his taming process is inspired by the techniques for taming falcons and claims to do it all “in reverend care of her” (TS 4.1.193), in this scene, Lacy’s Petruchio does not withdraw sleep or food from Margaret for any of these reasons. He simply abuses her. He torments her with alcohol and tobacco so that he himself has fun by humiliating her in such a way.
Spencer comments on Shakespeare’s Petruchio that he “must be spirited and even rough; but his hearty good humor must flow repeatedly across footlights, so that his audience shall never forget that his harshness to Katherina is assumed, though for a definite purpose” (280). That is, according to Spencer, however, not the case of the Restoration adaptation of Shakespeare’s play: “Lacy’s Petruchio would not be tolerated on a modern stage, and that Restoration audiences thought his jocular brutality amusing is an impressive index to the taste of that refined age” (280).
Petruchio’s abuse of Margaret culminates in the last act of the play which Lacy completely rewrote. In the final act of Lacy’s version, Petruchio’s abuse of his wife
52 escalates to sheer brutality. When the couple arrives at Beaufoy’s house, Margaret rebels against Petruchio and even insults him, with him being, again, too weak and incapable of dealing with her. That is the reason why he fabricates a story that Margaret has toothache and tries to persuade everyone that her tooth has to be drawn: “Which Tooth is it? Wilt thou have it Drawn, Peg? … there is no Cure, but Drawing. What say’st thou? Wilt thou have it pull’d out? Well, thou shalt” (Sauny 5.1.184-87). Since Margaret promised not to talk to him, he tries to make her speak and provokes her with calling barber to pull out her tooth: “You must Draw that Gentlewoman a Tooth there. Prithee do it neatly, and as gently as thou can’st; … take care you don’t tear her Gums” (Sauny 5.1.203-5). This statement of Petruchio demonstrates that, at the time, it was very dangerous to have a tooth extracted but despite the fact Petruchio is willing to do it just to make Margaret speak.
When calling a barber does not help, he decides to be more radical and pretends that Margaret is dead and threatens to bury her alive in an aside when the two of them are alone: “Speak, or by this hand I’ll bury thee alive” (Sauny 5.1.231). When Margaret does not respond, he has the bearers called and asks them to bind her on the bier. Only when he promises to parade her body “through the Strand as far as St. James’s” does she speak
(Sauny 5.1.281-82). At this point in The Taming of the Shrew, Katherina is already tamed and co-operates with Petruchio, whereas in Lacy’s version, Margaret is as headstrong as she was at the beginning and since the Restoration Petruchio lacks his talent for words, he is reduced to brutality. Spring argues that “[e]xamples of this serious alternation of plot … suggest that Petruchio’s ‘taming’ is in no way successful, thereby depriving the drama of character development as well as thematic and structural unity” (166). Unlike his eloquent Elizabethan counterpart, Lacy’s Petruchio has to use threats, be abusive and brutal to subjugate Margaret.
53
He cannot even carry out the taming on his own. In the wooing scene, when
Margaret wants to leave, he commands Sauny to stop her twice (Sauny 2.2.214, 2.2.217), as if he were incapable of doing it on his own. What is, however, more important is the fact that he only manages to tame Margaret with the help of her relatives who participate in his taming process: “Father, Sister, Husband, Are you all Mad? Will you expose me to open shame?” (Sauny 5.1.292-93). These are Margaret’s first words after her promise of not speaking ever again. Hence, if it had not been for her close family members, who pretended to believe Petruchio’s claims of her toothache and death, she would not have been tamed. Margaret is, therefore, not tamed because of Petruchio’s abilities, but only because the whole family of hers decided to help her husband in the taming process. And so, Margaret’s transformation is a result of collective work rather than of a sole tamer.
What Lacy’s tamer lacks is not only eloquence, but also a uniform plan to tame his wife. He tries to persuade Margaret that things are what they are not too early even before the sun-moon scene,
Petruchio. … Come, Peg, … here’s an Excellent piece of Veal.
Margaret. Why, ’tis a Pullet.
Petruchio. Why, ’tis Veal, Art thou Mad?
Margaret. You won’t Perswade me out of my Sences. ’Tis a Pullet.
…
Petruchio. What an unhappy Man am I; my poor Dear Peg’s Distracted. I always
fear’d ’twould come to this. Take the Meat away, Curtis. (Sauny 4.1.54-64)
In the equivalent of this scene in The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio does not persuade
Katherina that the meat he brought is not pullet but veal, but instead, he asks Hortensio to eat the meat up (TS 4.3.52-53), pretends it was Katherina who ate it all (TS 4.3.61-62).
As Spring maintains,
54
In Shakespeare’s play, this is a carefully planned evolutionary process with
incidents strategically placed throughout the action to illustrate the progress of
Petruchio’s taming. It starts with Kate’s flat defiance in the first act and culminates
with the full force of her final advice to obstinate wives – at once the play’s longest
and most eloquent speech. This transformation constitutes the play’s thematic and
structural unity. (171)
And so, Shakespeare’s Petruchio is in a different phase of his taming process at this point.
Since Lacy’s Petruchio starts with stating that things are not what they really are too soon, he disrupts the continuity and the unity of Petruchio’s taming process. When Margaret sees that the meat is taken away from her because she does not agree with his claim that pullet is veal, she quickly learns the meaning behind his mad statements. She is, therefore, able to conform to what he wishes to hear only to get what she wants and, by doing so, she disrupts his taming strategy. When he declares that it is seven o’clock instead of two o’clock, she first disagrees with him, but when she sees that he would have delayed the journey till she does conform, she says, “Nay, Sir, that shant stop our Journey. ’Tis seaven, or two or nine, or what a Clock you please; pray, lets go” (Sauny 4.1.165-67, emphasis mine), to which he responds, “Very well, it is so. Get ready, quickly” (Sauny
4.1.169). In this example, it is apparent that Margaret agrees with Petruchio not because she is tamed, but only to set out home, since the important part of her utterance is “pray, lets go” (Sauny 4.1.166-67). The same pattern may be found even in Lacy’s rewriting of the sun-moon scene. Petruchio claims that the sun is the moon and Margaret firstly opposes him, but then conforms saying “Forward, I Pray, Sir, since we are come so far;
And be it Sun or Moon or what you please” (Sauny 4.3.13-14, emphasis mine). And when he says that “’tis the Blessed Sun” (Sauny 4.3.19), her response is the following, “Why,
Heaven be Blest for it; ’tis even what you have a mind to. Pray, let us forward” (Sauny
55
4.3.20-21, emphasis mine). Hence, it is possible to notice that each of Margaret’s utterances contain words such as “let’s go”, “forward” or “let us forward”, which emphasise the fact that she is not tamed but only wants to get what she wants by participating in Petruchio’s game. While Margaret only pretends to agree with him (since she always contradicts him before her agreement),27 Petruchio is blind enough to believe her words every time and cannot tell when she lies and when she means it. Even Spring points out that this change is a serious diversion from the original Shakespearean
“thematic, structural, and character development” and that Lacy uses it “merely as a means of increasing the sex antagonism and keeping the fable alive” (172).
Petruchio, therefore, disrupts the continuous flow of the original taming process.
It is, however, questionable whether the Restoration Petruchio even has any plan to tame his new wife, since both of his important speeches in which he outlines his plans for taming Katherina are omitted from Lacy’s play. While Shakespeare’s Petruchio clearly states his wooing technique before meeting Katherina (TS 2.1.168-79), Lacy substitutes the original soliloquy with Sauny’s whining about not being willing to live with “a
Scauding Quean” (Sauny 2.1.150) and his resolution to go back to Scotland in case of
Petruchio’s marriage. Lacy also omits Petruchio’s soliloquy in which he discloses his taming techniques (TS 4.1.177-200), and instead of the speech, the scene ends with a conversation between Sauny and Petruchio’s servants and the attention of the audience is directed to the fact that Sauny is “[a]s fow as a Piper” (Sauny 3.2.136). Hence, not only are the most important speeches of Petruchio omitted, but they both are replaced with
Sauny’s nonsense.
27 This element is not to be found in Shakespeare’s original because from the moment Katherina agrees with Petruchio during the sun-moon scene, no matter what Petruchio says, she immediately agrees with him and says as he says. When she pretends that Lucentio’s father is a woman, she even seems to be enjoying herself, whereas in Lacy’s adaptation, Margaret’s reaction to Petruchio statement of Sir Lyonell being a woman is the following, “Are you Mad? ’Tis an Old Man” (Sauny 4.3.33). 56
That is, however, not the only case of “Petruchio’s role [being] diminished in sake of expanding Sauny’s role” (Spring 77). Sauny steals Petruchio’s limelight even at the very beginning of the play when Petruchio asks about his horses being clean and fed but
Sauny starts talking about him and Scottish habits (Sauny 2.1.1-26) and so averts the attention from Petruchio to himself. Sauny is also the first of the two who meets Beaufoy and informs him that Petruchio wants to marry his daughter (Sauny 2.2.67-93), while in
The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio is capable of informing Baptista on his own.
In tandem with Petruchio’s limelight being stolen by Sauny, Sauny even disrupts
Petruchio’s taming of Margaret and, because of his incessant comments and interruptions, which continue from the wooing scene onwards, his taming is ineffective and Petruchio becomes an unsuccessful tamer. Instead of helping his master, Sauny disrupts his efforts.
For example, in the sun-moon scene, Sauny undermines the taming efforts of his master:
When Petruchio tries to persuade Margaret that the sun is the moon, Sauny reacts by saying, “S’breed, but I say nay, Sir. Out, out, a Lies” (Sauny 4.3.17); and when Petruchio pretends that Sir Lyonell is a woman, Sauny exclaims, “Why, i’th’ Deel’s Name, What mean ye? It’s nea bonny Lass, Sir; S’breed, it’s an aw faw Thefe” (Sauny 4.3.36-37). He protests even when Margaret joins Petruchio because she wants them to continue in their journey: “The Dee’l has built a Bird’s Nest in your Head. Gud, ye’r as mad as he; and he as Mad as gin he were the son of a March Hare, Sir” (Sauny 4.3.42-44). Although Sauny knows what is behind the actions of his master, he does not miss a chance to point out that Petruchio lies or to claim that he is mad. By doing so, he complicates Petruchio’s taming efforts. And so, while the Elizabethan Petruchio has to face only his shrewish wife, his Restoration counterpart has to deal with a wife who is more shrewish than
Shakespeare’s Katherina and his unruly servant Sauny as well.
57
2.3.4 Winlove
Winlove, Lacy’s equivalent of Bianca’s successful suitor Lucentio, has a “character- name”. In this particular case, it points out the fact that Winlove is the suitor who eventually manages to win love of Biancha. Although the usage of “character-names” began much earlier, they became very popular in the Restoration and were widely used in the comedies.
What makes Winlove a typical Restoration character is not, however, only his name. Restoration comedies usually show a great contrast between the country and the city, city being the popular one, while the country being detested. This aversion of the country and rural life is demonstrated by Winlove, too. He expresses his clear distaste for country life at the very beginning of the play: “I am quite weary of the Country Life; there is that Little thing the World calls Quiet, but there is nothing else; Clowns live and die in’t, whose Souls lye hid here, and after Death their Names. My Kinder Stars … have
Wing’d my Spirit with an Active Fire, which makes me wish to know what Men are Born for” (Sauny 1.1.1-6). Winlove is weary of his life with his father in the country because nothing happens there, it is too quiet for him and only unimportant people live there who after their deaths sink into oblivion. He, however, does not want to be like these people; he wants to become somebody. He craves for the hustle and bustle of the city because that is the place where he can learn how to be a man and where he would be free to do anything he wants.
Freedom and entertainment are his main reasons for coming to London: “I’ve forgot all I’d Learn’t at the University. Besides, take that at Best, it but Rough-casts us;
No, London is the Choisest Academy, ’tis that must Polish us, and put a Gloss upon our
Country-Studies; Hither I’m come at last, and do resolve to Glean many Vices” (Sauny
1.1.20-24). Winlove’s reasons for coming to London are, therefore, not virtuous – he
58 arrives at the city not to study but to enjoy himself. His desire to achieve vice and indifference to his studies distinguish him from Shakespeare’s Lucentio who, is happy to pursue his studies and wants to achieve virtue in Padua,
… for the time I study,
Virtue and that part of philosophy
Will I apply that treats of happiness
By virtue, specially to be achieved. (TS 1.1.17-20)
At this point, one may observe that Winlove is the exact opposite of the amorous
Shakespearean character rather than his equivalent. In his dissertation thesis, Spring asserts that “[b]y having Winlove come to London for an escapade and as means of escaping the boredom of country life, Lacy changes Lucentio into a Restoration figure”
(100). Hence, transforming Lucentio “into a character strongly similar to a Restoration rake” (Spring 95).
Not only does Lucentio’s character change to conform to the standards of
Restoration character types, but even his disguise of Bianca’s tutor changes from the teacher of classical languages to the teacher of French. This change probably occurred because of Lacy’s preference for the dialect comedy. The actor imitating a foreign language, or a different variety of English, provided a comic element which guaranteed the success with audience. In The Taming of the Shrew, “Cambio” is an Italian who knows classical languages, while Winlove’s “Mounsieur Mawgier” pretends to be of a different nationality. He tries to imitate French, speaks English with French accent and pretends not be able to use correct English grammar. Hence, he, unlike Cambio, provides another comic element of the play, comparable, for instance, with Fopling Flutter, the Francophile foppish character from Etherege’s The Man of Mode (1676).
59
Although Winlove is disguised as Lucentio is, it seems that Lacy tries to make his disguise less ambiguous and confusing to the audience, for example in the scene in which both Winlove and Geraldo try to woo Biancha in their disguise (Sauny 3.1). Lacy reduces the original Shakespearean wordplay in the scene: In The Taming of the Shrew, Lucentio reveals his identity to Bianca through his translation of Ovid’s Heroides, “Hic ibat, as I told you before; Simois, I am Lucentio; hic est, son unto Vincentio of Pisa; Sigeia tellus, disguised thus to get your love; hic steterat, and that Lucentio that comes a-wooing;
Priami, is my man Tranio; regia, bearing my port; celsa senis, that we might beguile the old pantaloon” (TS 3.1.31-36). Lucentio chooses to reveal his identity through a regular lesson of Latin and Bianca participates in his game. He, thus, remains in his character of a Latin teacher, Cambio. Winlove, on the other hand, reveals his identity directly, “Do not Believe I am a Frenchman; my Name is Winlove. He that bears my Name about the
Town, is my Man Tranio. I am your passionate Servant, and must live by your Smiles.
Therefore be so good, to give Life to my hopes” (Sauny 3.1.22-26). Winlove immediately abandons his role of a French teacher and acts as himself. He, therefore, makes it clear not only to Biancha but audience as well that he is not a French master.
Winlove also tries to clarify Geraldo’s disguise. While Lucentio has no idea that another teacher of Bianca is in disguise, Winlove states in an aside that he is sure that the music master is somebody in disguise who courts Biancha, “I am confident it is so: this must be some Person that has taken a Disguise, like me, to Court Biancha. I’ll watch him”
(Sauny 3.1.41-44). He, therefore, deduces from Geraldo’s behaviour that he only pretends to be a music master, whereas Lucentio only presumes that the music master may be in love with Bianca (TS 3.1.59-61). Hence, it seems as if Winlove were reminding the audience that Geraldo, too, is just another character in disguise and, by doing so, he reduces the ambiguity of the situation.
60
Just like other suitors of Biancha, Winlove is jealous when the disguised Geraldo tries to get in the way of his wooing. He even becomes aggressive, “Begar, Monsieur
Fideler, you be de vera fine troublesome Fellow; me wil make de great hole in your Head wid de Gittar, as Margaret did” (Sauny 3.1.8-10). He threatens to beat Geraldo, who tries to persuade Biancha to have his lecture first. Geraldo’s attempts to get closer to Biancha do not go unnoticed by Winlove and, as he sees a potential rival in the music master, he uses threats to intimidate him.
He applies the similar technique to Woodall as well after his, Winlove’s, secret marriage. Although Winlove and Biancha are already married, Woodall refuses to accept the fact and still tries to execute his plan and kidnap her. What Winlove does is to mock him severely, until Woodall becomes aware of the reality. What, however, makes
Winlove cruel, is the fact that he continues to ridicule and insult Woodall even after the latter finally accepts his loss.
2.3.5 Woodall
Woodall is the old suitor of Biancha, which makes him the counterpart of Shakespeare’s
Gremio. Shakespeare based the character of Gremio on commedia dell’arte figure called
“pantaloon” and even in the play itself Gremio is referred to as “the old pantaloon” by
Lucentio (TS 3.1.36). In the Italian commedia dell’arte, the pantaloon is “a cunning and rapacious yet often deceived Venetian merchant” (Britannica). He flirts with young girls who mock him, and if he is married, his wife cheats on him (Britannica; Hodgdon 185 fn. #176). The meaning of the term pantaloon changed throughout the time and, in
Elizabethan period, it “came to mean simply an old man” (Britannica).
The qualities of the original Italian pantaloon are, therefore, softened in
Shakespeare’s delineation of Gremio and are not used in full extent as in commedia dell’arte. Gremio is portrayed as rich, old and foolish, but is not openly mocked. Although
61 he is deceived by Bianca and Lucentio disguised as Cambio, he is still respected by other characters since he is an older and respectable citizen who has a say in the matters in
Padua.
However, what Lacy does in his adaptation of Shakespeare’s play is the complete opposite. He intensifies the pantaloon qualities in Woodall, especially his age, riches, avarice and jealousy, and makes his character harsher than that of Gremio. Woodall, for example, proposes that Margaret should “be whipt at Chairing-cross every morning”
(Sauny 1.1.75-76). Although Gremio proposes the same thing (without mentioning the exact place of whipping),28 Woodall’s harsh behaviour is emphasised when he suggests that Geraldo should marry Margaret because he is still fit enough to beat her: “There,
Geraldo, take her for me, if you have any Mind to a Wife; to her, you are Young, and may clap Trammel’s on her, and strike her to a Pace in time. I dare not deal with her, I shall never get her out of her high Trot” (Sauny 1.1. 52-56). According to Woodall,
Margaret can be tamed only when she is beaten by her husband. This assertion is Lacy’s addition to the play because there is no parallel of it in The Taming of the Shrew.
In tandem with his brutish nature, Woodall is, unlike Gremio, portrayed as a great miser. When the suitors decide to support Petruchio financially if he woos Margaret,
Woodall is concerned with throwing his money vainly away rather than with Petruchio’s success in wooing, and Geraldo must assure him that he will get a refund if Petruchio fails (Sauny 2.1.149-51). Woodall’s worry about his money is stressed in the scene where
Margaret refuses to marry Petruchio: “Heark, Petruchio, shee says shee’ll see you hang’d first. Is this your speeding? I shall make you refund” (Sauny 2.2. 267-69). Gremio utters
28 This is also an innovation of Restoration theatre because Restoration writers liked to use real names of places in their plays, especially the places in London which were familiar to the audience. That may be the reason why Lacy uses a specific real place, unlike Shakespeare. He uses Charing Cross which was at the time known as the place “where malefactors were publicly punished, and sometimes executed” (Sauny 493). 62 the first sentence but never asks Petruchio to give him his money back. Lacy, therefore, demonstrates Woodall’s avarice by adding his demand for a refund. Hence, one may see that Woodall cares more about money than Petruchio marrying Margaret, which would increase his chances to wed Biancha.
Woodall devises his own plan to get Biancha. Firstly, he asks disguised Winlove to court Biancha for him and even pays him for his services, but in the end, he gets jealous and bribes Winlove to help him kidnap her. Spring asserts that “[b]y this overt act,
Woodall commits the unpardonable sin of showing sexual jealousy” and concludes that
“[t]hese structural changes present a character obviously more envious than Gremio”
(102).
In the Restoration period, jealousy “was seen as a most dangerous and emasculating passion” because it was believed that it “originates from men’s concern to adhere to honour codes which lay emphasis on male control of women” (García). Hence, when a man displayed jealousy, he “was immediately seen as effeminate and lost his manhood by showing not just his lack of confidence in his authority, but also by admitting that he was afraid of losing control over the women” (García). The fear of losing (sexual) control over one’s wife was often used as a characteristic feature of cuckolded husband who represents one of the typical character types of Restoration drama. Although Spring states that both “Geraldo and Woodall automatically fall into the Restoration love chase pattern as jealous suitors” (100), Woodall’s jealousy is different than that of Geraldo and his portrayal may remind one of the character type of a cuckolded husband in Restoration drama.
Woodall is, therefore, jealous, deceived by the woman whom he loves (or wants to own) and, at the end even, openly mocked by other characters who show no respect for him. Winlove’s mockery of Woodall is initially concealed from the sight of others in
63 order to succeed in his plan to marry Biancha. He even uses the bribe from Woodall to
“buy a Ring and Pay the Priest” (Sauny 4.2.154-55). Woodall’s evil intentions, therefore, do not pay off and he not only loses the woman, but money as well. Moreover, the private mockery of Woodall changes to public mockery when Winlove marries Biancha:
Winlove. … How d’ye like my new Bride?
Woodall. How, how, how, Sir, your Bride? Seize on her quickly.
Winlove. Hands off. She’s my Wife, touch her who dares. Will you have your
Teeth pickt? What d’ye think of giving 20 Peeces to teach your Mistriss
French.
Woodall. O Rogue, I’ll have thee hang’d.
Winlove. Or 40 Peeces to buy a Pair of Gloves to let you Steal Madam Biancha.
This Ring was bought with some of it, ha, ha, ha. (Sauny 4.4.160-69)
Having no respect for Woodall, Winlove mocks the former’s foolishness openly.
Although Winlove reveals the truth, Woodall, as if living in the world of his own, does not seem to comprehend what Winlove tries to tell him and, despite the fact that Biancha is already married, he still wants to seize her. Woodall is mocked even when Winlove’s disguise is revealed and he himself admits that he has been “Gull’d” (Sauny 4.4.205). His miserly side makes its presence again towards the end of the play: “Sir, I shall expect my
Money back again; ’tis enough to lose my Mistriss (Sauny 4.4.223-24). But Winlove derides him again, “You’ll but fool it away, you’ll be hireing Frenchmen agen.” (Sauny
4.4.225-26). And so, Woodall ends up being humiliated, without a woman, money and respect. That is, however, not the case of Gremio in The Taming of the Shrew. Although he loses Bianca and is deceived, he is never publicly mocked by other characters because although being foolish, he is a respected citizen with a certain authority. He learns of
64
Bianca’s marriage together with Baptista, Vincentio, Katherina and Petruchio, and is not humiliated as Woodall before the reveal of Lucentio’s true identity.
2.3.6 Geraldo
Lacy’s version of Hortensio, Geraldo, together with Woodall, are the representatives of jealous suitors of Restoration drama. While Woodall falls into a rich old suitor character type category, Geraldo is depicted as a typical Restoration character, a fop.
His love for fashion is firstly mentioned by Margaret: “Go, get you a Sempstress, and run in Score with her for Muckinders to dry your Nose with, and Marry her at last to pay the Debt” (Sauny 1.1.63-66). She emphasises his passion for fashion, bordering on addiction, which may cause him to end up in a serious debt since he apparently throws his money away on clothes. No equivalent of this speech is to be found in Shakespeare’s source text.
From the moment Margaret utters this speech, Geraldo incorporates the vocabulary of fashion and clothing into his lines. For example, he refers to Margaret as a
“Petticoate Devil” (Sauny 1.1.70), while Hortensio originally describes her as a devil with no emphasis on her clothing (TS 1.1.66). When talking about the competition for Biancha,
Geraldo exclaims, “he that can win her, wear her” (Sauny 1.1.80-81), while Hortensio states that “He that runs fastest gets the ring” (TS 1.1.138-39). Although “wear” in this sense stands for the consummation, Geraldo’s choice of words may imply his foppish nature.
Geraldo is not only interested in what he wears, but what others wear too. When he first meets Petruchio, his primal concern is over Petruchio’s attire: “tell me now what happy Gale drove you to Town, and why in this Habbit? Why in Mourning?” (Sauny
2.1.47-50). Petruchio is apparently dressed in black and so Geraldo’s attention is focused on his reasons for wearing such clothing. He even tries to affront the disguised Winlove
65 by calling him “Monsieur Shorthose” (Sauny 3.1.6-7). Spring explains this insult as follows “part of the latter’s [Winlove’s] disguise was hose and doublet that rarely met”
(103). Hence, the most serious verbal attack that Geraldo is capable of producing against
Winlove is the criticism of his fashion style. In The Taming of the Shrew, Hortensio does not mention Petruchio’s or anybody else’s clothing.
Similarly to Woodall, Geraldo expresses his anger and jealousy in a much more intensified way than the original character. Hortensio suspects that Cambio (the disguised
Lucentio) is in love with Bianca and declares that, if he finds her to be inconstant, he would quit his wooing and find somebody else (TS 3.1.89-90). Geraldo, however, forswears her immediately. Although the prior interaction between Winlove and Biancha is similar to the one which may be found in The Taming of the Shrew, Geraldo jumps to conclusions that Biancha is having an affair with her French teacher:
I know not what to think of her. This fellow looks as if he were in Love, and she
caresses him. These damn’d French men have got all the trade in Town; if they
get up all the handsome Women, the English must e’en march into Wales for
Mistresses. Well, if thy thoughts, Biancha, are grown so low, to cast thy
wandering Eyes on such a kikshaw, I’me resolv’d to ply my Widow. (Sauny
3.1.61-67)
While Hortensio promises to be her suitor providing that she is faithful, Geraldo immediately concludes that Biancha is unfaithful, therefore not worthy of his love. That is the reason why he decides to woo the widow instead. His wooing and “subsequent marriage to the Widow was regarded in the Restoration theatre as sufficient punishment” for his jealousy (Spring 160). Geraldo is not only jealous but, unlike Hortensio, he expresses his hatred towards the French master. He does not focus his attention on the man himself but on the fact that he is French, thus stressing the anti-French sentiment
66 common for the Restoration period and the 18th century (Ou 25). Hence, the theatregoers could identify with Geraldo’s views.
Geraldo’s offensive attitude towards the French teacher is soon transferred to
Biancha though. In The Taming of the Shrew, Hortensio disguised as a music master reveals his true identity only to Tranio, never to Bianca, and while he and Tranio watch
Bianca and Cambio court and kiss, Hortensio forswears her but does not speak rudely about her. He states that she is a “proud disdainful haggard” (TS 4.2.39), hence foreshadowing that in the end, it is Bianca who is the real shrew and not Katherina.
Tranio, on the other hand, is the one who is cruder from the two. He calls her a “cullion”
(TS 4.2.20), “light” (TS 4.2.24), and “unconstant” (TS 4.2.14). Thus, playing his role to get rid of Hortensio as a suitor.
While the abovementioned conversation between Tranio and Hortensio is private and nobody but the audience knows what they talk about, it is not the case in Lacy’s adaptation. Geraldo deliberately reveals his identity in front of Biancha, Winlove and
Tranio, “No fiddler, nor no Lutanist, Mounsier No point, but one that scorns to live in a
Disguise for such a one as leaves a Gentleman to doat upon a Pardon a moy Jack-pudding; know, I am a Gentleman, my name Geraldo” (Sauny 3.1. 307-11). Geraldo starts his identity reveal speech in a grandiose way probably to make Biancha regret her choice for a poor French teacher over a gentleman. He, again, speaks ill of the disguised Winlove and, since he uses French words, tries to mock him. However, since Geraldo uses broken
French, the unwilling target of the ridicule is Geraldo himself.
Geraldo does not varnish his opinion on Biancha either. He likens her to her sister
Margaret (Sauny 3.1.314-15), calls her “a Scurvy woman” (Sauny 3.1.325), a “Vile woman” (Sauny 3.1.336-37) who is in need to attend the taming school (Sauny 3.1.334-
67
36) and swears he will not have her (Sauny 3.1.321-22) right in front of Biancha. Geraldo even goes as far as to express his hatred towards Biancha,
Geraldo. … I have done with you. Mr. Winlove, Pray tell me, Don’t you hate this
Gentlewoman now?
Tranio. I cannot say I Hate her, but I’m sure I don’t Love her for this days Work;
Wou’d she Court me, I Swear I wou’d not have her. (Sauny 3.1.315-20)
Geraldo scorns her and wants to know whether Tranio, too, hates Biancha upon the exposure of her affair. Tranio is not as disrespectful as Geraldo, though. Tranio says that he does not love Biancha anymore, but he does not dare to say that he hates her since that would be highly impolite and thus improper for a gentleman to say. One may agree with
Spring’s assertion that “[t]hese direct affronts reveal a degree of envy beyond that exhibited in Shakespeare’s play” (102). Geraldo is, therefore, not only transformed into a Restoration character of a fop, but even his jealousy and envy reach a higher level than that of his Shakespearean counterpart.
68
3. David Garrick’s Catharine and Petruchio (1754)
While the English theatre of the late 17th and early 18th centuries was focused on “pathos- oriented adaptations of tragedies of state”, in the 1750s, according to Dobson, the attention was turned to comedies (National Poet 187). When older comedies were adapted, they usually underwent heavy cuts and were shortened to afterpieces or curtain- raisers, being thus were transformed to farces because they lacked proper characters and plot development (Haring-Smith 23). Moreover, adaptations of Shakespeare in 1750s in general emphasised morals, manners, emotions and domesticity (see below).
The mid-eighteenth century was also known as “the Age of Garrick” (Woo 17).
That is the reason why the present chapter first introduces this influential actor, director and theatre manager, who had a great impact not only on theatre as an institution, but on its spectators as well. When Garrick’s contributions to the theatrical world are presented, the chapter briefly describes his adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew, Catharine and
Petruchio. Since the importance of a dramatic character rose rapidly in this period and even the unity of character was added to the already existing Aristotelian model of unities of time, place and action (see Chapter 1), the last subchapter deals with the analysis of particular characters. It tries to trace the changes which the characters underwent and explain why these changes occurred and what had an impact on them.
3.1 David Garrick
David Garrick is an important figure tightly connected to Shakespeare and theatre studies.
He was a successful actor-manager at Drury Lane,29 coach of actors-beginners and writer of “poems, prologues, epilogues, and plays” (Tasch 80). He also “held shares in two
29 According to Tasch, “Garrick produced 63 new mainpieces and 107 new afterpieces during his 29-year reign” (81).
69
London newspapers” (Tasch 81) and wrote a short essay, which was published anonymously under the title “An Essay on Acting” (McIntyre 70). Garrick even became a collector of old plays and thus the owner of “the finest dramatic library of his age, without the aid of which Johnson’s and Steevens’ editions of and Capell’s notes on
Shakespeare could hardly have come into being” (Stone 185). Finally, he was the one who was instrumental in elevating the profession of an actor by means of introducing
“‘order, decency and such like stuff’ into the raffish and morally ambiguous world of the playhouse” (Cunningham 26).
Garrick debuted as an actor in the role of Richard III in 1741 and he became an immediate sensation (Woo 17). As John Lacy, he was also praised for his superior acting and Alexander Pope commented on his performance: “I am afraid the young man will be spoiled, for he will have no competitor” (qtd. in McIntyre 41). The reason for this praise may be the fact that Garrick’s acting differed to a large extent from what people had been used to see on stage, that is, the declamatory style of acting used until 1741 (Stone 187).
Garrick’s acting is seen as more natural and realistic since he “emphasized psychological understanding of the characters” (Stone 187).
To be able to perform the characters accurately, he had to study Shakespeare’s text thoroughly and into a great detail. Woo emphasises the fact that such an in-depth study of the characters was unheard of at that time (22).30 Garrick tried to understand the motivations and feelings of his characters and, when on stage, he “remained in character even when other performers spoke. … Frederick Grimm wrote in 1765, Garrick
‘abandons his own personality, and puts himself in the situation of him he has to represent
… he ceases to be Garrick’” (Tasch 81). Some of his acting techniques are very similar
30 Since Garrick knew the texts inside and out, he was perceived as an expert on Shakespeare and was often asked “to clarify obscure passages in Shakespeare’s text which editors and critics alike had rendered doubly confusing by emendations and contradictory annotations” (Stone 184). 70 to the ones used by actors nowadays. For example, when he played the character of King
Lear, he observed his mad friend and copied his behaviour to portray the mad king accurately and realistically: “There it was … that I learned to imitate madness; I copied nature, and to that owed my success in King Lear” (qtd. in McIntyre 49). The fact that
Garrick focused his attention towards the “character delineation rather than upon plot structure”, treating “Shakespeare’s characters as living beings acting on valid motives”
(Stone 189), led to the growth of the character on stage and the development of “character acting” (Woo 23). The character acting was interconnected with understanding of emotions and, as Marsden points out, “[a]ctors were evaluated on their ability to move audiences, and Garrick in particular was known for his ability to elicit emotion: his strength as an actor was not grandeur, but feeling” (Marsden, “Improving Shakespeare”
33). This understanding of human emotions was connected to the elocutionary movement whose leading figure was Thomas Sheridan. This movement stressed “the physical manifestation of emotion” and its members believed that the spoken language is far more powerful than a written one (Woo 21).
Garrick’s influence on acting skills was, however, not his only contribution to the evolution of the theatre. He brought about other changes which eventually led to the modernisation of the 18th-century theatre and its approximation to the theatre of the present day. From 1747, spectators have not been allowed to go behind the scenes and, from 1762, they have been forbidden to sit on the stage. These restrictions led to the enlargement of the seating capacity of the playhouse (Woo 39). Garrick also contributed to the “significant advances in scenery, lightening and staging techniques”, “insisted on thorough rehearsal[s]” of the plays (McIntyre 3), “introduce[d] more ‘realism’ into the use of costume” (Kendall 40) and moved the time of performances from 3:30, which was typical of the 17th century, to 5:00 and later to 6:00, time common for performances in
71 the 18th century (Woo 38). Towards the end of his career, Garrick founded the Theatrical
Fund “which was secured by the Act of Parliament” (Kendall 173) and he became its
“Father, Founder and Protector” (McIntyre 578).
Garrick, however, was not only a great theatrical reformer but is also seen as one of the greatest Shakespeare advocates and promoters who contributed to the change of the public attitude towards Shakespeare and his plays. The beginning of the national and international cult of Shakespeare may be marked by Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769, which was organised by Garrick himself. And although the festival did not work as he planned and “not a single work of Shakespeare’s was performed” (McIntyre 432), this event led to the establishment of Shakespeare as a national poet. Moreover, Ritchie believes that his position as a manager of Drury Lane theatre gave him the privilege to choose the repertory and by doing so, he, more than anyone else, was capable of influencing the attitude of public towards Shakespeare (52).
Although Garrick was in charge of the repertory of Drury Lane theatre, Kendall points out that it was not solely his doing that the audience changed their views on
Shakespeare. He could direct the play, but “[i]t was up to the audience … to dictate how the theatre should evolve” and if Garrick “could not carry them with him, then Garrick could do nothing. They had to be persuaded into wanting, and then expecting, and even demanding, something better” (201). Samuel Johnson, Garrick’s friend and a teacher from Lichfield, expresses the same thoughts in his Prologue written for the occasion of the opening of Drury Lane theatre in 1747:
The stage but echoes back the public voice;
The drama’s laws, the drama’s patrons give,
For we that live to please, must please, to live.
Then prompt no more the follies you decry[.] (qtd. in Kendall 200)
72
He, therefore, stresses the fact that the theatre, as in Lacy’s case, has to take into consideration the tastes of audience because even the theatre of the 1750s was “a commercial and competitive enterprise” (Cunningham 19). And although the theatre must have been able to compete with others, Garrick, simultaneously, tried to influence the tastes of his spectators.
Unlike Lacy who adapted plays according to the tastes of his audience and his own comic talents, Garrick “privileged the text over his own performance” (Scheil 217).
Although he did adapt the plays, the changes were not as radical as in the 17th century and
“his audiences witnessed more authentic Shakespeare than they or their ancestors had seen before since 1700” (Stone 187). According to Cunningham, Garrick adapted approximately 22 Shakespearean plays (1).31 He composed and added songs and dances to his adaptations to please the audiences who wanted to be entertained (Woo 36). And since English society shifted from lewdness, immorality and profaneness to the importance of manners, morality, sensibility, sentiment and sympathy, he offered them a more sentimentalised Shakespeare (Kendall 42; Dobson, National Poet 176).
3.2 Catharine and Petruchio
Catharine and Petruchio was first performed on 18 March 1754 for the benefit night of actress Hannah Pritchard (Pedicord 427).32 According to Pedicord, “the box office take was £298, the second highest amount of the season” (427). He adds that while it might have been caused by Pritchard’s fame in the mainpiece Jane Shore, it is also possible that the afterpiece, Catharine and Petruchio, contributed to the success because it became
31 However, “[o]nly twelve of these … can be authenticated” (Pedicord XIII). 32 She played the character of Jane Shore in the mainpiece and the character of Catharine in the afterpiece. 73 extremely popular in the following years and managed to “banish all these [other older versions of The Taming of the Shrew] from stage” (428).
The popularity of the play may be witnessed mainly by the criticism of Garrick’s contemporaries. The 18th-century criticism of Garrick’s adaptation of The Taming of the
Shrew was mostly positive. For example, Arthur Murphy criticises Shakespeare’s original but highly praises Garrick’s version:
The original play is, perhaps, the worst of all our great poet’s productions. … It
cannot for a moment pass for reality. It is wild, confused, and almost inexplicable
fable, crowded with superfluous scenes and unnecessary characters; forming all
together a chaos … Garrick, however, saw his way. He was like a man travelling
over a rugged country, who, amidst the rocks and desert wastes that surround him,
perceives great order and beauty in several parts. From the whole he had the
judgement to select the most coherent scenes, and, without intermixing anything
of his own, to let Shakespeare be the entire author of a very excellent comedy.
(qtd. in Haring-Smith 17)
He states that Garrick preserved only relevant parts of the play and rewrote it to be more
Shakespearean than the original. Thomas Davies, Garrick’s biographer, is of a similar opinion: “The Taming of the Shrew was not altogether written in Shakespeare’s best manner, though it contained many scenes worth preserving. The fable was certainly of the farcical kind, and some of the characters rather exaggerated” (qtd. in Pedicord 428).
In his view, Garrick was the one who preserved the worthy scenes which were suitable for the 18th century audience.
The views of the critics in the 20th century differed though. Some saw Garrick’s rewriting of the early Shakespeare’s comedy in positive light: Odell admits that the adaptation “deserved its great popularity” (qtd. in Pedicord 429) and George Wincester
74
Stone, Jr. adds that it “is more unadulterated Shakespeare here than in any of the other versions … seen after the Restoration” (qtd. in Pedicord 430). Others, however, criticised it: Joseph Knight calls the play “[t]he most contemptible piece of work Garrick has accomplished” and Frank Hedgcock complains that “Shakespeare’s joyous farce finishes on a grave note suitable for a homily on the whole duty of women” (qtd. in McIntyre 218-
19). Hazelton Spencer, who also criticises Sauny the Scot, does not see Garrick’s adaptation in positive light either and calls it “a mangled three-act affair” (46).
From the most recent critics, Michael Dobson describes Garrick’s text as
“adulterated and sentimentalized” (qtd. in McIntyre 219) because, in his view, “Garrick’s emphasis is primarily on palliating Shakespeare’s embarrassingly frank presentation of power relations between the sexes” (National Poet 195); and Robert D. Hume calls
Garrick “an aggressive appropriator who spouted pieties and hacked the texts about any way he pleased” (47).
Despite these negative attitudes towards the play, Haring-Smith terms it “the most important of the many revisions of The Taming of the Shrew” (15), an assertion which may be easily supported by the production records. Catharine and Petruchio was performed more than 230 times by the end of the 18th century (Marsden, Re-Imagined
Text 81), “was the sixth most popular Shakespearean play on stage from 1784 to 1800” and was the only adaptation of The Taming of the Shrew to be performed “on the English and American stages from 1754 to 1844” (Haring-Smith 15). Moreover, Garrick’s version of The Taming of the Shrew remained in the repertory up until the end of the 19th century when Augustin Daly revived the original Shakespearean play in 1886 (McIntyre 218).
Regarding the changes from the Shakespearean original, as in the case of Sauny the Scot, they do affect plot, language and characters. The specific changes in each category are, however, different.
75
The Taming of the Shrew underwent heavy cuts in the mid-18th century and was transformed to three-act afterpiece.33 Since comedies shortened to afterpieces were often regarded as farces rather than comedies, because of the lack of character and plot development, Catharine and Petruchio became a farce as well. Haring-Smith even admits that, in this case, “farce remained the primary technique for making its [The Taming of the Shrew] story acceptable” (23).
As in Sauny the Scot, Induction and Sly scenes were omitted probably because these sequences were not appropriate for refined tastes of the 18th century spectators.
Garrick also eliminated the subplot of the original play which is focused on Katherina’s sister, Bianca, and her suitors. In Garrick’s adaptation, Bianca is already married to
Hortensio, not Lucentio. Garrick, therefore, focuses his attention on the main plot and, by doing so, he “solves the problem of disunity among the three plots” (Haring-Smith 15) and obeys the Aristotelian unity of action. Since the Induction and subplot vanished, the majority of their characters disappear with them. Garrick managed to cut nine characters out of the original twenty-five but “expands some of the briefer roles” and also
“introduces 175 new lines of his own” (McIntyre 218).
The language and the form Garrick uses are “much closer … to their
Shakespearean originals than their predecessors” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 86) and the “changes in diction are infrequent” (81). Garrick, however, does adjust the language to fit the aesthetics of 18th century theatres. He removes inappropriate utterances, shortens and breaks up Shakespeare’s longer speeches, reassigns certain speeches to other characters (for example a part of the original Katherina’s speech of submission is assigned to Petruchio) and inserts more stage business.
33 Marsden describes afterpieces as “light comic accompaniments to the main attraction” (Re-Imagined Text 79). 76
Despite these alterations, additions and omissions in the adaptation, Catharine and Petruchio follows the structure of Shakespearean main plot faithfully.34 Garrick uses all these devices to remove the ambiguities that could be found in the original text and to refine it for the tastes of his audience and the worldview of his society. That is the reason why he emphasises morality and “reshapes the play to focus almost exclusively on marital love and duty” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 81). This is, however, not a novelty invented by Garrick. Marsden asserts that, from the mid to the end of the 18th century, it was common for managers to revise and cut a play in order to emphasise domestic relationships” (“Improving Shakespeare” 34).
The original comedy by Shakespeare thus becomes a morality farce which promotes values acceptable for contemporary society. And since, as it has already been mentioned, afterpieces and farces in general are short and there is not enough space for character development, Garrick had to change the characters to achieve the desired outcome.
3.3 Character Analysis
3.3.1 Catharine
Katherina, Shakespeare’s shrew, is turned into Catharine in Garrick’s adaptation of the
Elizabethan comedy. Since Garrick’s Petruchio is more of a gentleman and is not such a harsh tamer as his Shakespearean counterpart (see below), he is matched with a much milder shrew. It may be even said that, since Catharine is not that shrewish, Petruchio does not have to apply such brutal taming techniques as, for example, Lacy’s tamer.
34 For detailed description of the differences between Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew and Garrick’s Catharine and Petruchio, see Pedicord, 428-29. 77
Catharine’s behaviour is far from being shrewish in comparison with both
Shakespeare’s and Lacy’s shrews. Whether the nature of the original Katherina is inherently shrewish or not,35 her behaviour is, nonetheless, harsher than that of Garrick’s
Catharine. Garrick omits the scene in which Katherina behaves aggressively for no apparent reason, in which she treats her sister Bianca harshly only to learn which suitor she likes the best (TS 2.1.1-22). Even her heated response to her father’s reproach concerning her treatment of her sister is cut from the adaptation. By omitting this scene,
Garrick makes sure that she does not behave badly to people for no apparent reason and thus lessens the level of her shrewishness.
The only person that she terrorizes seems to be the music master. She breaks his head offstage and shouts at him “Out of the house, you scraping fool” (CP 1.80) from within, and her father admits that “This is the third [music master] I’ve had within this month. / She is an enemy to harmony” (CP 1.84-85). The scene with the music master seems to serve the only purpose and that is to prepare the audience for her entrance. So far, the audience has only heard about her reputation indirectly by her father or the music master and semi-directly, by hearing her swearing from within. However, when she finally appears on stage, she is far from being as shrewish as one would expect.
The real shrew is apparently her sister, though. Their roles are in a way swapped because it seems that it is Catharine who is being perpetually derided by her married sister
Bianca, who calls her “poor abandoned Cath’rine” (CP 1.279). As if by being married, she has acquired more power and, therefore, could take the liberty of mocking people below her status. Bianca, however, does not only mock her but she is also a very
35 In the recent years, the original character is rarely seen as being naturally shrewish, but her shrewishness is mostly understood as a mere means of defence against the environment in which she lives. For a detailed analysis, see “Chapter 2: Katherina and Kate’s Violence” in the present author’s BA thesis “‘My tongue will tell the anger of my heart’: The Search for Identity of Katherina/Kate in The Taming of the/a Shrew”, 16-28. 78 unsupportive sister. When Petruchio does not appear for the marriage, instead of supporting her sister, she comments on her condition with scorn, “Such hasty matches seldom end in good” (CP 2.21), expressing her unfavourable view on her sister’s marriage to Petruchio. That is, however, not the only time Garrick has Bianca disapproving of
Catharine’s decisions. Even towards the end of the play, when Catharine becomes an obedient wife, Bianca criticises the fact that her sister has her will broken so soon:
Was ever woman’s spirit broke so soon!
What is the matter, Kate? Hold up thy head,
Nor lose our sex’s best prerogative,
To wish and have our will. (CP 3.215-18)
Catharine’s decision to submit to her husband is met with disapproval on the part of
Bianca, who would rather see Catharine oppose her husband and express her will because, by submitting to him, she drags her whole sex down with her. Bianca, therefore, does not agree with any action Catharine takes and mocks and confronts her at every opportunity.
It could be easily argued that Catharine’s shrewishness demonstrated in front of the audience, at least partly, stems from her mocking sister. Her sister is, however, not the only one who takes part in the creation of Catharine’s shrewishness. Her father plays an important role in it as well since he, unlike Baptista in The Taming of the Shrew, forces
Catharine to marry Petruchio. Dobson believes that she freely chooses to marry Petruchio, maintaining that “Rather than having to be forced to go through the wedding ceremony, this acquiescent Kate actively choose to marry Petruchio” (National Poet 199). That is, however, not true. Unlike Katherina in The Taming of the Shrew, she does not have a choice but to accept Petruchio because, otherwise, her father would have thrown her out of the house on the streets:
And if with scurril taunt and squeamish pride
79
She make a mouth and will not taste her fortune,
I’ll turn her forth to seek it in the world;
Nor henceforth shall she know her father’s Doors. (CP 1.64-67)
Baptista makes it clear that he wishes her to marry Petruchio and none other. This is emphasised even later, when Catharine protests the choice of her husband, and her father declares, “Better this jack than starve, and that’s your portion” (CP 1.227). Baptista seems to be resolute in marrying her to Petruchio and, thus, getting rid of her, and so he refuses to discuss the matters with her completely. She is, therefore, given an ultimatum by her father: either she marries Petruchio or she ends up starving on the streets. There is no trace of such behaviour in Shakespeare’s Baptista – indeed, Baptista’s resoluteness in these matters is intrinsic to Garrick’s adaptation.
The fact that Garrick’s Catharine has no saying in choosing her husband is expressed even by Catharine herself. When her father is delighted with her agreement to marry Petruchio, she plainly states, “My duty, Sir, hath followed your command” (CP
1.273). She consents to marry only because of her father’s ultimatum. One may clearly see that she is not happy with such an option of a husband at the beginning of the wooing scene:
How! Turned adrift nor know my father’s house?
Reduced to this, or none, the maid’s last prayer,
Sent to be wooed like bear unto the stake? (CP 1.135-37)
Catharine laments the fact that she is reduced to Petruchio and cannot choose a husband of her own choice.
Since she cannot choose her own husband, is threatened by ultimatum of her father, her husband-to-be behaves like a madman and is constantly mocked by her sister, she decides to tame Petruchio:
80
Why, yes: sister Bianca now shall see
The poor abandoned Cath’rine, as she calls me,
Can hold her head as high, and be as proud,
And make her husband stoop unto her lure,
As she, or e’er a wife in Padua.
As double as my portion be my scorn;
Look to your seat, Petruchio, or I throw you.
Cath’rine shall tame this haggard; or, if she fails,
Shall tie her tongue up and pare down her nails. (CP 1.278-86)
Catharine decides to marry Petruchio only to avenge herself and she sets a goal to tame him probably because she wants to prove herself to her sister, other Paduan women and even Petruchio. That is the main source of her rebellion and shrewishness. She, however, not only swears to tame Petruchio but she even promises that, if she does not manage to fulfil her goal, she is ready to submit to him. Dobson summarises her speech as follows,
“Kate has already internalized some of her ‘natural’ subordination to Petruchio before they even speak together … so that her resistance to his wooing is transformed into a mere perverse whim rather than a genuine attempt to remain single and independent”
(National Poet 195). He adds that “Kate [is] thus prepared to assume the prescribed wifely role already, albeit as a last resort” (National Poet 196).
The fact that Catharine is tamed more rapidly does not have to be explained only by the claim that her resistance is not genuine. One may notice that she is really frightened of Petruchio and his manners. When he beats Grumio and the tailor, she exclaims, “For heav’ns sake, Sir, have patience! How you fright me!” (CP 3.133-34), and even starts crying. She is, therefore, genuinely terrified of her husband and since this is Garrick’s addition to the play, which is not to be found in The Taming of the Shrew, one may say
81 that Petruchio’s harsh manners and behaviour are the reason for which she is more readily tamed than original Katherina.
Garrick’s Catharine even admits her defeat directly, “I see ’tis vain to struggle with my bonds” (CP 3.165). She, therefore, does not only conform to Petruchio’s games about the sun and moon as Katherina, but even casts away any doubts about her submission by admitting her defeat and thus fulfilling her promise to “tie her tongue up and pare down her nails” (CP 1.186) when she fails to tame Petruchio. Her obedience is even emphasised when she, unlike Katherina, informs her father that “I am transformed to stone” (CP 3.207) and calls Petruchio “So good a master” (CP 3.209) being unable (or too afraid) to resist him.
Since Catharine is more readily tamed and not really shrewish, her importance in the play lessens and so her spotlight is easily taken by Petruchio at the end of the play. In
The Taming of the Shrew, Katherina’s speech is the desired culmination of the plot; indeed, after being silenced throughout the whole play, she eventually takes the stage with the longest speech in the whole piece. That, however, cannot be said about Garrick’s
Catharine. Her speech is not only shortened from original 44 lines to mere 19 lines, but it is interrupted several times either by Petruchio or Bianca and, what is more, Petruchio is the one who finishes the speech for her (see 3.3.2).
3.3.2 Petruchio
Garrick’s version of Shakespeare’s tamer Petruchio underwent several changes and, although many of his actions and lines are preserved, these alternations change his character and make him much milder than Shakespeare’s and Lacy’s Petruchios.
While Shakespeare’s Petruchio is portrayed as an adventurer in search for profit, most of his mercenary lines are omitted in Catharine and Petruchio. When he bargains with Baptista about his potential marriage to Catharine, he admits that
82
Left solely heir to all his [his father’s] lands and goods,
Which I have bettered rather than decreased.
And I have thrust myself into the world,
Haply to wive and thrive as best I may[.] (CP 1.9-12)
Petruchio, therefore, claims that he inherited enough money and property which he even managed to improve and, since he has enough material possessions, all he needs now is a wife. Marsden comprehends his character in a similar way, pointing out that “This
Petruchio is a model member of the bourgeoisie – a good business manager who, having made sure that his accounts were in order, goes in search of domestic happiness” (Re-
Imagined Text 81).
Since Petruchio seeks domestic happiness and not wealth as in The Taming of the
Shrew and since the subplot is cut, his conspiring with Bianca’s suitors and hence their promise to pay him for his successful wooing of Katherina (TS 1.2.271-73) is omitted as well. He does not ask Baptista, “What dowry shall I have with her to wife?” (TS 2.1.119), as his counterpart does in Shakespeare’s play, and he even refuses “Another dowry to another daughter” (CP 3.264), which Baptista offers him upon seeing the transformation in character of his daughter. In The Taming of the Shrew, “Another dowry to another daughter” (TS 5.2.120) is not enough for Petruchio though and he exclaims, “Nay, I will win my wager better yet” (TS 5.2.122). Shakespeare’s Petruchio is mercenary and boasts about Katherina’s obedience, which he decides to show off just to obtain more money, whereas Garrick’s Petruchio refuses another dowry, claiming that “My fortune is sufficient. Her’s my wealth: / Kiss me, my Kate” (CP 3.266-67). Petruchio finds his fortune in his wife and, thus, acquires domestic virtue and happiness, which is essential for him. This is the reason why he does not further test his wife in the wager scene.
83
Marsden speculates that “it was undoubtedly vulgar to bet upon your wife’s behaviour – especially if you were a loving husband” (Re-Imagined Text 81).
Although Garrick tries to depict Petruchio as a loving husband in search for domestic virtues by omitting, rewriting and adding new lines, he unaccountably preserves
Shakespeare’s Petruchio’s “I come to wive it wealthily in Padua; / If wealthily, then happily in Padua” (CP 1.73-4), which, in the context of Garrick’s adaptation, does not make much sense and undermines the author’s efforts to portray Petruchio marrying for love and happiness.
Despite the fact that Garrick preserved Shakespeare’s lines about marrying wealthily in his version, Petruchio’s original mercenary nature diminishes, nonetheless.
And to maintain this gentleman-like Petruchio, Garrick reduces the original ambiguity of the character by making sure that he is not normally violent or shrewish. Shakespeare’s
Petruchio’s inherent aggressive behaviour towards his servants is omitted from Catharine and Petruchio. While in The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio is violent towards Grumio upon their arrival to Padua and threatens to “knock your knave’s pate” (TS 1.2.12) and the stage direction says that he “wrings him by the ears” (TS 1.2.17.1), this scene does not appear in Garrick’s adaptation at all.
Right after the wedding, behaviour of Garrick’s Petruchio to his servants changes.
One may, however, notice that it is only pretence. Petruchio makes sure that Catharine sees him as a real aggressor: “Grumio, your master bid me find you out and speed you to his country house to prepare for his reception, and if he finds not things as he expects
’em, according to his directions that he gave you, you know, he says, what follows: this message he delivered before his bride, ev’n in her way to church” (CP 2.116-20).
Petruchio deliberately states these threats to Grumio right in front of Catharine to assure
84 her of his violent behaviour which can be directed from the servants to the bride herself anytime.
Upon their arrival to his country house, Garrick’s Petruchio is as aggressive towards his servants as the original Petruchio, but, unlike in The Taming of the Shrew,
Petruchio’s servants in Catharine and Petruchio are shocked at his altered behaviour:
“He kills her in her own humour. I did not think so good and kind a master could have put on so resolute a bearing” (CP 2.371-2, emphasis mine). Servants, thus, emphasise
Petruchio’s pretence and it is, therefore, stated explicitly that Petruchio is normally kind and that he has only put a mask on in order to alter the behaviour of his wife.
Although Garrick’s Petruchio only pretends his shrewishness, he still beats his servants and swears at them. He is, however, not as rude to Catharine as Shakespeare’s
Petruchio, showing at least some respect for her. His wooing of Catharine is similar to the one that may be found in The Taming of the Shrew; however, Garrick decided to omit and rewrite some of the bawdy language. He reduces the dialogue in the wooing scene and cuts the lines 2.1.222-41 out, omits the sentence “What, with my tongue in your tail?”
(TS 2.1.219), probably because it might have been seen as a way too vulgar, and censors the inappropriate “Marry, so I mean, sweet Katherine, [keep me warm] in thy bed” (TS
2.1.269, emphasis mine) which becomes “Or rather warm me in thy arms, my Kate” (CP
1.204, emphasis mine).
Towards the end of the play, Garrick even adds a speech for Petruchio, addressed to Catharine, which is not to be found in The Taming of the Shrew,
… and since thou art become
So prudent, kind, and dutiful a wife,
Petruchio here shall doff the lordly husband;
An honest mask, which I throw off with pleasure.
85
Far hence all rudeness, wilfulness, and noise,
And be our future lives one gentle stream
Of mutual love, compliance and regard. (CP 3.267-73)
In this speech, Petruchio reveals his true nature – unlike Shakespeare’s Petruchio, he states directly that he just pretended to be ruthless and violent, he throws his mask of pretence away and becomes “a gentle and loving husband” (Marsden Re-Imagined Text
82), whom he has secretly been the whole time. He also stresses the importance of
“mutuality of the marriage relationship” (Marsden Re-Imagined Text 82) and, by doing so, he emphasises the importance of the companionate, and hence egalitarian, marriage.
Since, as Singh points out, “in the eighteenth century … a more egalitarian, individualistic and companionate family type developed” (8), there is no wonder that Garrick wanted to apply such a desirable type of family relationship to his play.
The motif of the companionate marriage re-appears shortly afterwards again, when Petruchio takes his wife by the hand and goes forward to finish her speech of obedience. He, however, does not leave her behind, taking her to the foreground with him, thus stressing their mutuality, he still finishes the speech for her. Dobson asserts that the speech is “reallocated to the more authoritative male voice” (National Poet 197) and, since it is Petruchio who lectures women that “Such duty as the subject owes the prince,
/ Even such a woman oweth to her husband” (CP 3.277-8) instead of Catharine,
“Garrick’s additions here expose the hierarchical foundation on which such an ideal of egalitarian marriage is built” (Marsden, Re-Imagined Text 82). Marsden also adds that, in this case, the “plot depicts the restoration not of a monarch, but of a husband and father”
(Re-Imagined Text 86). And so only when the wife accepts her subordination to her husband, does the husband decide to show his hidden gentleness and loving nature which eventually lead to a more companionate type of marital relationship.
86
3.3.3 Bianca’s suitors
The subplot of Shakespeare’s play, which centres on Bianca and her suitors, is altogether omitted from Garrick’s version. The reason for the omission of the whole subplot may be
Garrick’s compliance with the Aristotelian unity of action, which states that the effective play should follow only one main plot. The importance of the unity of action was stressed by Johnson in his Preface (see 1.2). Although Garrick wrote Catharine and Petruchio before Johnson’s Preface, Johnson was Garrick’s teacher and the two might have shared this view on classical unities, which might have influenced Garrick’s decision to leave out the subplot to unify the plot and make the story more comprehensible.
Since the subplot disappears, its characters vanish with it, except for Bianca and
Hortensio, who do remain in the play, but the attention is not focused on them as much as in the subplot. The relationship between Bianca and Hortensio changes, too. Hortensio is no longer the unsuccessful suitor, but Garrick makes him Bianca’s husband. At the beginning of the play, her father Baptista mentions “her gentler Sister [Bianca], / New- married to Hortensio” (CP 1.62-3). Garrick, therefore, skipped the wooing of Bianca, the rivalry among the suitors and finally the elopement of Bianca. It is possible that Garrick did not want to show her elopement with Lucentio because it was not moral. The plays of the 18th centuries emphasised moral decency and that may be the reason why Garrick decided to eliminate this part of the original play.
Another Garrick’s motive for omitting the subplot might have been related to all the disguises that happen in the subplot: Tranio pretending to be Lucentio, Lucentio being disguised as a teacher of classical languages, Hortensio as a music master, and the
Pendant being persuaded to act as Lucentio’s father Vincentio. These provide the important comic element of the original Shakespearean play. Nevertheless, so many
87 disguises in one plot may be confusing for the audience, and so to rid the play of unnecessary ambiguity, Garrick decided to jettison the subplot.
3.3.3.1 Hortensio
Since Garrick decided to eliminate all the disguises in his adaptation of Shakespeare’s play, Hortensio is no longer disguised as a music teacher because he does not have to woo
Bianca since they are already married. Instead of having Hortensio as a music master,
Garrick uses the real teacher of music in his play, whom Catharine eventually breaks his head in an outburst of anger. And so, Garrick opts for clarity in place of confusion of identities caused by the disguises.
Hortensio’s disguise in Shakespeare’s version, however, does not only create ambiguousness. Duthie, a Shakespearean scholar whose research was mainly focused on bad quartos of Shakespeare, believes that the fact that Hortensio is disguised as a music master produces even several inconsistencies in the original (349). From the moment
Hortensio disguises himself as a music master, Tranio suddenly behaves as Petruchio’s close friend despite the fact that he does not even know him. As the author of the present thesis has previously observed, “On the wedding day, Tranio tries to convince Baptista and Katherina of Petruccio’s good intentions and … advises Petruccio to use some of his better clothes for the wedding. All of these Tranio’s lines would be more appropriate for
Hortensio who describes Petruccio as his ‘good friend’ (TS 1.2.21)” (Andrisová 13).
Garrick manages to correct this irregularity in the behaviour of the characters by the elimination of the subplot and reassigning the inappropriate speeches of Tranio from The
Taming of the Shrew to Hortensio in his adaptation.
Hortensio is not only used to correct the blemishes in the original text though. He is also rewritten to conform to the 18th-century ideals. Hortensio in The Taming of the
Shrew comes to visit Petruchio in his house to witness his taming process so that he can
88 apply it to his widow. He participates in the taming of Katherina from 4.3, when he and
Petruchio bring meat to her and Petruchio asks him to eat it all up. Not only does
Hortensio see how Katherina is deprived of food, but of proper clothes as well. He also travels with them to Padua and so is present when Katherina’s spirit is broken during the sun-moon scene. In Garrick’s version, Hortensio does not participate in the taming of
Petruchio’s wife – indeed, he does not even visit them. He is in company with his wife
Bianca and her father Baptista when he meets them for the first time after the wedding.
At this point, Catharine is already tamed and calls her father a “Young budding virgin, fair and fresh and sweet” (CP 3.190). Garrick’s Hortensio, unlike Shakespeare’s one, does not see, or participate in, Petruchio’s taming of his wife. The reason for his omission from the taming process as an observer, as well as a participant, may be the fact that he is happy in his marriage with Bianca and does not want her to be tamed.
When Bianca protests against her sister’s sudden transformation and Petruchio commands Catharine to tell her “What duty ’tis she owes her lord and husband” (CP
3.231), she refuses to listen to her sister and Petruchio. However, when Hortensio says,
“Let us hear for both our sakes, good wife” (CP 3.235), she suddenly stops protesting and listens. Hortensio does not command her, but simply states that it will be good if they both listen what Catharine has to say so that they both can learn something from her sister’s speech. It is, therefore, possible that Bianca and Hortensio have an equal position in their relationship and live in a companionate marriage, which was the desired form of marriage from the 16th and 17th centuries onwards (Mikesell 123).
3.3.4 Grumio
Grumio’s character in Garrick’s adaptation does not change much from his
Shakespearean counterpart. Since Garrick’s “chief wish … joy … only plan” was “[t]o lose no drop of that immortal man” (Prologue 54-55), he preserves much of the original
89 character. There are, however, several slight alternations in Garrick’s portrayal of Grumio which were probably made because they were more suitable for the 18th-century audience.
One such an element partly preserved is Grumio’s foreshadowing of the storyline.
As in The Taming of the Shrew, Grumio states that “he [Petruchio] begin once, she’ll
[Catharine] find her match” (CP 1.41-2). He points out that an altercation between
Catharine and Petruchio awaits the audience. The fact that audience would witness violence, scolding and swearing is emphasised by Grumio’s following soliloquy added by Garrick,
and if I know anything of myself and master, no two men were ever born with
such qualities to tame women. – When madam goes home, we must look for
another-guise master than we have had. We shall see old coil between ’em. If I
can spy into futurity a little, there will be much clatter among the moveables, and
some practice for the surgeons. By this the parson has given ’em his license to fall
together by the ears. (CP 2.108-115)
Since Garrick, unlike Lacy, wanted to preserve the original dynamics between Catharine and Petruchio, he could not omit everything that would be seen as inappropriate by contemporary audience, and so it may be possible that he used Grumio to foreshadow the scenes with increased violence, whether direct or indirect, to prepare the theatregoers for the conflict so that they would not be utterly shocked and offended upon seeing the play.
Grumio is not only used as means to soften what is to come in the play, but he himself is much politer and more respectful towards his master than the original Grumio.
Since Petruchio’s arrival to Padua and his visit of Hortensio are completely omitted from
Garrick’s version, one does not encounter the quarrel between Grumio and Petruchio about knocking at Hortensio’s gate (TS 1.2.1-46). Similarly to the original Grumio, he, too, obeys his master’s orders when commanding the servants (CP 2.252-56) and only
90 when everything is ready is he willing to answer the servants’ questions about their new mistress. Unlike Sauny, Garrick’s Grumio never dares to call Catharine a devil or talks about her in a vulgar way – quite the opposite. He is polite and calls her “madam” (CP
2.110) and “dame” (CP 3.30), thus showing respect for someone who is superior to him.
Garrick censured the diabolical terms associated with Catharine, pronounced either by Grumio or other characters in the play, probably in order not to offend religious theatregoers. He also omitted double meanings with sexual overtones used by Grumio in
The Taming of the Shrew:
Petruccio. Go, take it up unto thy master’s use.
Grumio. Villain, not for thy life! Take up my mistress’ gown for thy master’s use?
(TS 4.3.156-58).
Grumio misunderstands Petruchio’s commands of “let[ting] your master make what use of it he can” for “preparing to ‘use’ Kate sexually” (Hodgdon 270, fn. #156-8). This whole passage is missing from Garrick’s version. It is possible that he omitted it because of its ambiguity and immorality and replaced it with a fight between Grumio and a tailor, which may be seen as a comic element (CP 3.130.1). One may, therefore, see that Garrick tried to censor the play in order to soften it, make it less immoral, offensive and ambiguous so that he would not offend his audience.
91
Conclusion
Shakespeare’s plays underwent series of modifications from the Restoration of the monarchy, when the theatres were re-opened after the eighteen-year ban on theatre performances, till the end of the 18th century. Since the theatrical world became a more commercialised and competitive business than before the Civil War, Restoration adaptations of Shakespeare mirrored the tastes of audience and immoral court in order to gain enough revenue. The main aim of the theatres was, therefore, not to stage the quality plays but to please their audience in order to attract enough theatregoers to see the performance. That is the reason why lewdness, immorality and ribaldry were typical features of Restoration drama and why theatre companies competed in incorporating of various innovations on the stage. In many cases, plays were re-written only to increase the entertainment value by adding sex and violence. Typical of the period were shrew taming plots and rape, or near rape scenes, in which playwrights could exploit the actresses which were a novelty on English stage. They came to be viewed as sexual objects and spectators adopted the role of voyeurs. Popular actors were hired by theatre companies to secure the success of the play, characters were revised to conform to popular dramatic types, and plays were usually set in London to reinforce the values of the town and show the audience the familiar.
The Restoration also gave rise to literary criticism, which influenced the plays to a large extent. Language presented the biggest problem with Shakespearean plays. It was perceived as archaic, obscure, unintelligible and unnatural, and that is the reason why adapters tried to simplify and clarify the language. However, simplification of the language led to the simplification of the characters and the plot, and the clarification of the ambiguities in the source texts “restrict[ed] the figures to one interpretation, denying the numerous possibilities Shakespeare’s language invites” (Walsh 177). Since one
92 interpretation was preferred to another, the complexities and subtleties of the characters were lost. Although not unanimous, many critics preferred plays to be rewritten in accordance with the Aristotelian unities of action, time and place, which were perceived as important for producing an effective drama.
The 18th century, however, presents a change in the perception of Shakespeare.
The first half of the century was largely dedicated to editions of Shakespeare’s plays and an emphasis was on reading the plays rather than performing or seeing them in theatres.
Adaptations of his plays began to appear from mid-18th century, but they differed greatly from the Restoration adaptations. Since the audience no longer desired to see moral corruption on the stage, adapters excluded improper language, sex, references to heaven and hell and they rather put emphasis on morality, domestic virtues and the characters’ emotions. The importance of emotions led to the increased emphasis on the character and the subsequent formation of “the unity of character”. By doing so, they domesticised, sentimentalised and moralised Shakespeare.
Attitudes of literary critics towards Shakespeare changed in this period as well.
Since Shakespeare was perceived as a national hero, a classic and was used as a symbol of national identity, his works were seen in a different light. His plays were no longer simplified, but quite the opposite, adapters tried to preserve as much of the original as possible and several playwrights even copied his style. Critics finally took into consideration the context in which Shakespeare wrote and thus appreciated his plays more.
Shakespeare, thus, gained a new status in the 18th century – that of a national poet
– and his works were considered to be classics and were even treated that way. That is a great shift from the Restoration period, which perceived Shakespeare’s plays as corrupt
93 and in need of improvement. Shakespeare’s genius resides in his words and that is the reason why the playwrights tried to preserve as much of his “originals” as possible.
The main aim of the present study was to explore those changes in theatrical world in the Restoration and 18th century, and to demonstrate their impact on the adaptations of
Shakespeare’s plays. The analytical part of the thesis proves that the crucial changes in the theatre aesthetics of the Restoration and 18th century are projected in the adapters’ delineation of the main and selected minor characters in the two adaptations of
Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew (1623) – Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the
Shrew by John Lacy (1667) and Catharine and Petruchio by David Garrick (1754). The analysis also demonstrates the shift in the adapting of plays that occurred during the
Restoration period and the 18th century, thus showing different attitudes of the playwrights, critics and audience towards Shakespeare. Although the observations in the thesis are not new, they may function as an extension of what has already been written on the topic.
Lacy’s Margaret is depicted as more shrewish, aggressive, rebellious and spirited character than Shakespeare’s Katherina. This alternation is brought about by the fact that
(1) the position of women in the society in the Restoration period changed and that (2)
Lacy used typical features of Restoration comedies, such as the rejection of the ideals of the older and thus traditional and conservative generation, scorn for the country and a right of a woman to oppose an oppressive husband. Since the appearance of actresses on stage was a novelty in this period, even Margaret, as other Restoration female characters, served as a sexual object for the characters within the play and the voyeuristic audience as well.
Garrick’s revision of Katherina to Catharine takes a completely different direction than in Lacy’s play. Catharine is a milder character who is not really shrewish. She only
94 rebels to prove herself to her family and husband. Unlike Margaret, she is afraid of
Petruchio and is more readily prepared to submit.
Petruchio in Lacy’s version is, as his wife Margaret, more aggressive and even brutal. He is also mercenary and employs coarse language. These alternations were probably brought about by Lacy’s efforts to clarify Shakespeare’s ambiguities and simplify his language. In his revision of Petruchio, Lacy thus employs his preferred interpretation of Shakespeare’s tamer. The simplification of the language and the transformation of the play into prose also produce an incapable tamer, who lacks the eloquence of the original Petruchio. Petruchio’s lack of success in taming is emphasised by the extended role of Sauny who interrupts him and even replaces some of the important soliloquys of Shakespeare’s Petruchio by comical scenes, thus obscuring Petruchio’s taming strategy and, consequently, altering Petruchio’s overall image.
Garrick’s Petruchio is a complete opposite of his Restoration counterpart. He is a milder tamer, a gentleman hidden behind the mask of a tamer. Since Garrick explicitly states that Petruchio is not inherently aggressive and his taming is just pretence, he solves the issue of Petruchio’s questionable behaviour in the original play. Several lines in which
Shakespeare’s character uses vulgar language are omitted and so are his mercenary lines.
Garrick, therefore, points out that Petruchio is interested in his wife rather than money and stresses the importance of egalitarian companionate marriage, mutuality and domestic virtue.
As to the minor characters selected for the analysis, Lacy transformed the original
Bianca’s suitors into typical Restoration character types. Both Woodall and Geraldo are the jealous suitors and, while Woodall represents the old rich greedy suitor character type with the features of cuckolded husband, Geraldo may be seen as a representative of the foppish character. In tandem with these qualities, they are both much coarser than their
95
Shakespearean counterparts. Winlove, the successful suitor of Biancha, is more aggressive as well and may resemble Restoration rake. He also voices the typical
Restoration aversion for country life and exploits Lacy’s talents for employing dialect comedy.
Garrick, on the other hand, decided to employ the unity of action in his adaptation and so omits the subplot completely. Although the unities were no longer seen as the rules for producing the effective drama in the 18th century, Garrick adheres to the unity of action probably because of the impact of his teacher Samuel Johnson, who remarks that it is the unity of action that is the most important one. By applying the unity of action,
Garrick unifies the story, makes it more comprehensible and omits indecencies, such as the elopement of Bianca with Lucentio. In order to domesticise Shakespeare, Garrick leaves both Hortensio and Bianca from the subplot in his adaptation and has them married.
Hortensio is also used as means of correcting inconsistencies in the original play caused by multiple disguises.
Another minor character in the original play, which was promoted to one of the most important major characters in the Restoration adaptation is Grumio who is transformed to Sauny in Lacy’s play. Lacy extended the role of original Grumio to fit his comic talents, which were popular with the audience at the time. This extension has, however, a great impact on other characters, especially Margaret and Petruchio. Unlike
Sauny, Grumio remains a minor character in Garrick’s version. He is used to foreshadow the storyline, especially the scenes with increased levels of violence and coarse language, and thus softens what is to come. Grumio’s language in Garrick’s adaptation is even censored because he is more polite and does not use double meanings with sexual overtones and no longer uses diabolical terms in his speeches. Sauny’s employment of such language, in contrast, increases. He even speaks a Scottish dialect, which is highly
96 unintelligible on many occasions. And so, in this case, Lacy subordinates the Restoration need for clarity to his own comic talents.
To conclude, while Lacy tried to simplify the language by turning it from poetry to prose and revised the characters to be much coarser and fit the categories of typical
Restoration character types, Garrick’s main purpose was to preserve as much from the original language as possible and to soften the characters and their speeches to offer a more sentimentalised and moral Shakespeare to his audience.
The analysis indicates that the plays were changed to suit new theatres, innovations in them, new audience and the societies of the period(s). One can, therefore, see not only the shift in tastes and attitudes towards Shakespeare, but also the shift in the society itself, in its worldviews and preferences. And so, as the society was changing,
Shakespeare changed with it. This may be seen as an ongoing process that will never cease and whose effect we see even nowadays every time when Shakespeare’s works are revived for the 21st-century stage.
97
Works Cited
Primary sources
Garrick, David. Catharine and Petruchio. The Plays of David Garrick: Garrick’s
Adaptations of Shakespeare 1744-1756, edited by Harry William Pedicord and
Fredrick Louis Bergmann, Southern Illinois UP, 1981, 187-220.
Lacy, John. Sauny the Scot. Shakespeare Made Fit: Restoration Adaptations of
Shakespeare, edited by Sandra Clark, Everyman, 1997, 3-78.
Shakespeare, William. The Taming of the Shrew, edited by Barbara Hodgdon, Arden
Shakespeare, 2010, 139-305.
Secondary sources
Andrisová, Martina. “‘My tongue will tell the anger of my heart’: The Search for Identity
of Katherina/Kate in The Taming of the/a Shrew.” BA Thesis, Masaryk
University, 2016.
Canfield, J. Douglas. Introduction. Broadview Anthology of Restoration and Early
Eighteenth Century Drama, by Canfield, Broadview P, 2001, pp. IX-XVIII.
Clark, Sandra. “Shakespeare and Other Adaptations.” A Companion to Restoration
Drama, edited by Susan J. Owen, Blackwell, 2001, pp. 274-290.
Collier, Jeremy. “A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage.”
The Universal Anthology, edited by Richard Garnett, The Clarke Company, 1899,
pp. 347-357.
Corman, Brian. “Comedy.” The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre,
edited by Deborah Payne Fisk, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 52-69.
Cunningham, Vanessa. Shakespeare and Garrick. CUP, 2008.
98
Dobson, Michael. “Adaptations and revivals.” The Cambridge Companion to English
Restoration Theatre, edited by Deborah Payne Fisk, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 40-
51.
---. The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 1660-
1769. Oxford UP, 1992.
Dryden, John. An Essay of Dramatic Poesy. Oxford UP, 1918.
Duthie, George Ian. “The Taming of a Shrew and The Taming of the Shrew.” The Review
of English Studies, vol. 19, no. 76, Oct. 1943, pp. 337–356. JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/509514.
García, Laura Martínez. “Staging male vulnerability on the Restoration Stage: Jealousy
and cuckoldry in The Country Wife.” El Genio Maligno: Revista de Humanidades
y Ciencias Sociales, no. 21, Sep. 2017, https://elgeniomaligno.eu/staging-male-
vulnerability-on-the-restoration-
stage/?fbclid=IwAR34tdvWkdZj7UDduCgD92wgVG8J6vOvPsjRne6P8tEIRoq
KqJ4vrvWlf6o. Accessed 1 Jan. 2019.
Gay, Penny. “Women and Shakespearean performance.” The Cambridge Companion to
Shakespeare on Stage, edited by Stanley Wells and Sarah Stanton, Cambridge UP,
2002, pp. 155-73.
Haring-Smith, Tori. From Farce to Metadrama: The Stage History of The Taming of the
Shrew, 1594-1983. Greenwood, 1985.
Harrison, Martin. The Language of Theatre. Routledge, 1998.
“Historical Criticism.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 13 February 2014, Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/art/historical-criticism-literary-criticism. Accessed 4
March 2019.
99
Hogan, Charles Beecher. Shakespeare in the Theatre 1701-1800: A Record of
Performances in London 1701-1750. Clarendon, 1952.
Hume, Robert D. “Before the Bard: ‘Shakespeare’ in Early Eighteenth-Century London.”
ELH, vol. 64, no. 1, 1997, pp. 41-75. JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030246.
Johanson, Kristine. Shakespeare Adaptations from the Early Eighteenth Century: Five
Plays. Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2013.
Johnson, Samuel. “Preface.” The Works of William Shakespeare, edited by Edmond
Malone, London, 1816, pp. 1-39.
Kendall, Alan. David Garrick: A Biography. Harrap, 1985.
Kewes, Paulina. Authorship and Appropriation: Writing for the Stage in England, 1660-
1710. Clarendon Press, 1998.
Kirke, Thomas. A Modern Account of Scotland Being an Exact Description of the
Country, and a True Character of the People and Their Manners. London, 1679.
Langhans, Edward A. “The theatre.” The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration
Theatre, edited by Deborah Payne Fisk, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 1-18.
Maguire, Nancy Klein. “Tragicomedy.” The Cambridge Companion to English
Restoration Theatre, edited by Deborah Payne Fisk, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 86-
106.
Markley, Robert. “The canon and its critics.” The Cambridge Companion to English
Restoration Theatre, edited by Deborah Payne Fisk, CUP, 2000, pp. 226-42.
Marsden, Jean I. “Improving Shakespeare: from the Restoration to Garrick.” The
Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Stage, edited by Stanley Wells and
Sarah Stanton, Cambridge UP, 2002, pp. 21-36.
100
---. “Rape, Voyeurism, and the Restoration stage.” Broken Boundaries: Women &
Feminism in Restoration Drama, edited by Katherine M. Quinsey, Kentucky UP,
1996, pp. 185-200.
---. The Re-Imagined Text: Shakespeare, Adaptation, & Eighteenth-Century Literary
Theory. Kentucky UP, 1995.
McIntyre, Ian. Garrick. Penguin, 1999.
Mikesell, Margaret Lael. “‘Love Wrought These Miracles’: Marriage and Genre in The
Taming of the Shrew.” The Taming of the Shrew: Critical Essays, edited by Dana
E. Aspinall, Routledge, 2002, pp. 106–129.
Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Film Theory and Criticism:
Introductory Readings, edited by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, Oxford UP,
1999, pp. 833-44.
Murray, Barbara A. Restoration Shakespeare: Viewing the Voice. Fairleigh Dickinson
UP, 2001.
---. Shakespeare Adaptations from the Restoration: Five Plays. Fairleigh Dickinson UP,
2005.
Odell, George C.D. Shakespeare from Betterton to Irving. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920.
Ou, Hsin-yun. “David Garrick’s Reaction Against French Chinoiserie in The Orphan of
China.” Studies in Theatre and Performance, vol. 27, no. 1, 2007, pp. 25-42.
Research Gate, doi:10.1386/stap.27.1.25/1.
Owen, Susan J. Perspectives on Restoration Drama. Manchester UP, 2002.
“Pantaloon.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 20 July 1998, Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pantaloon. Accessed 1 Jan. 2019.
Ritchie, Fiona. Women and Shakespeare in the Eighteenth Century. CUP, 2014.
101
Rosenthal, Laura J. “(Re)Writing Lear: Literary Property and Dramatic Authorship.”
Early Modern Conceptions of Property, edited by John Brewer and Susan Staves,
Routledge, 1995, pp. 323-338.
Rymer, Thomas. “A Short View of Tragedy.” London, 1693.
Scheil, Katherine West. “Sauny the Scott: or, The Taming of the Shrew: John Lacy and
the Importance of Theatrical Context in the Restoration.” Restoration: Studies in
English Literary Culture, 1660-1700, vol. 21, no. 2, 1997, pp. 66-81. JSTOR,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43293647.
---. The Taste of the Town: Shakespearian Comedy and the Early Eighteenth-Century
Theater. Bucknell UP, 2003.
Singh, Sarup. Family Relationships in Shakespeare and the Restoration Comedy of
Manners. Oxford UP, 1983.
Sorelius, Gunnar. “‘The Giant Race Before the Flood’: Pre-Restoration Drama on Stage
and in the Criticism of the Restoration.” Dissertation, University of Uppsala,
1966.
Spencer, Hazelton. Shakespeare Improved: The Restoration Versions in Quarto and on
the Stage. Harvard UP, 1927.
Spring, Joseph Edward. “Two Restoration Adaptations of Shakespeare’s Plays - Sauny
the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew by John Lacey and The History and Fall of
Caius Marius, Thomas Otway’s Appropriation of Romeo and Juliet.”
Dissertation, University of Denver, 1952.
Stone, George Winchester. “David Garrick’s Significance in the History of
Shakespearean Criticism: A Study of the Impact of the Actor upon the Change of
Critical Focus during the Eighteenth Century.” PMLA, vol. 65, no. 2, Mar. 1950,
pp. 183-197. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/459463.
102
Tasch, Peter A. “Garrick, David.” Restoration and 18th Century Drama, edited by James
Vinson, Macmillan, 1980, 78-81.
Taylor, Gary. Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the
Present. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989.
Quinsey, Katherine M. Introduction. Broken Boundaries: Women & Feminism in
Restoration Drama, by Quinsey, Kentucky UP, 1996, pp. 1-10.
Walsh, Jaquelyn W. The Impact of Restoration Critical Theory on the Adaptation of Four
Shakespearean Comedies. The Edwin Mellen Press, 2000.
Woo, Celestine. Romantic Actors and Bardolatry: Performing Shakespeare from Garrick
to Kean. Peter Lang, 2008.
Wheatley, Christopher J. “Tragedy.” The Cambridge Companion to English Restoration
Theatre, edited by Deborah Payne Fisk, Cambridge UP, 2000, pp. 70-85.
103
Summary
The main aim of the present thesis is to analyse a Restoration and an 18th-century adaptation of Shakespeare’s early comedy The Taming of the Shrew (1623), Sauny the
Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew (1667) by John Lacy and Catharine and Petruchio
(1754) by David Garrick. Since the theatres underwent a number of important changes during the Restoration and the 18th century, the thesis tries to trace these modifications and examine and explain them in relation to historical, political and social background of the respective periods. All the gathered findings are subsequently used to prove that the changes in theatre aesthetics are projected in the delineation of the selected characters from the respective plays.
The thesis is divided into three chapters. The first one is focused on the historical, political and social background of the Restoration and the 18th century and it also examines the important literary criticism of the respective periods to demonstrate the perception of Shakespeare in each era. This chapter, therefore, provides the context necessary for the analysis of the two adaptations which is conducted in the following two chapters. These chapters include biographical information about the adapters, historical and critical material about the two adaptations and the analyses proper. The main purpose of the analyses is to prove that the changes that occurred in theatres of the Restoration and the 18th century significantly influenced the delineation of selected characters of the two adaptations in question.
The analysis demonstrates that, while Lacy simplified the language of his adaptation by turning it from poetry to prose, and revised the characters to be much coarser and fit the categories of typical Restoration character types and his own comic talents, Garrick’s main purpose was to preserve as much from Shakespeare’s source as possible, while, on the other hand, censoring the inappropriate language and motifs, and
104 thus softening the characters in order to stage a sentimentalised, domesticised and moral
Shakespeare.
The conclusion of the present thesis is, therefore, that the Restoration and 18th- century adaptations of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew were changed to suit new theatres, innovations in them, new audience and the society, thus providing the shift in tastes and attitudes towards the Bard.
105
Resumé
Hlavním cílem této diplomové práce je analyzovat adaptace Shakespearovy rané komedie
Zkrocení zlé ženy (1623), restauračního Sauny the Scot; or, The Taming of the Shrew
(1667) od Johna Lacyho a adaptaci z 18. století Catharine and Petruchio (1754) od
Davida Garricka. Vzhledem k tomu, že v průběhu restaurace a v 18. století prošla divadla
řadou významných změn, se diplomová práce snaží tyto modifikace vysledovat, zkoumat a vysvětlit je ve vztahu k historickému, politickému a sociálnímu pozadí jednotlivých období. Všechny získané poznatky jsou následně využity k prokázání toho, že změny, které nastaly v divadelní estetice jsou promítnuty do zobrazení vybraných postav z jednotlivých her.
Práce je rozdělena do tří kapitol. První z nich se zaměřuje na historické, politické a společenské pozadí restaurace a 18. století a zkoumá také významnou literární kritiku jednotlivých období, aby bylo možné objasnit, jak byl Shakespeare vnímán v jednotlivých obdobích. Tato kapitola proto poskytuje kontext nezbytný pro analýzu dvou adaptací, která je provedena v následujících dvou kapitolách. Tyto kapitoly obsahují biografické informace o adaptátorech, historickém a kritickém materiálu týkajícího se těchto dvou adaptací a samotné analýzy. Hlavním cílem analýz je prokázat, že změny, k nimž došlo v divadlech v období restaurace a v 18. století, významně ovlivnily zobrazení vybraných postav těchto dvou adaptací.
Analýza dokazuje, že zatímco Lacy zjednodušil jazyk jeho adaptace tím, že změnil poezii na prózu, přepracoval postavy, aby byly hrubější a odpovídaly typovým postavám restaurační literatury a jeho vlastnímu komickému talentu, Garrickovým hlavním cílem bylo zachovat co nejvíce ze Shakespearova původního textu. Na druhé straně však Garrick cenzuruje nevhodný jazyk a motivy, a tím zjemňuje postavy, aby mohl vytvořit sentimentalizovanou, domáckou a morální verzi Shakespeara.
106
Závěrem této práce je zjištění, že adaptace Shakespearova Zkrocení zlé ženy z restaurace a 18. století byly změněny tak, aby vyhovovaly novým divadlům, inovacím v nich, novému publiku a společnosti, čímž práce prokazuje, že došlo ke změně v postojích a názorech na barda.
107