F is principal authority for this play.
The problematic prologue or “Induction” to THE TAMING OF THE SHREW represents a drunken & slumbering beggar, Christopher Sly, being — upon awakening — fooled into believing that he is a Nobleman. Though Shakespeare may have been influenced (like Calderon’s LA VIDA ES SUENO) by “The Sleeper’s Tale” of A THOUSAND AND ONE NIGHTS, thus the Induction introduces themes of transformation and disguise. As for the “play” itself (i.e. THE TAMING OF THE SHREW), it is an “entertainment” that is performed for the (false) Lord by a troop of wandering players. In terms of METATHEATRE, then, SHREW is a perfect play-within-the-play.
Unfortunately, there is no conclusion or epilogue to match this “induction” (Alexander Pope coined the term in the 1720s). The story of Christopher Sly is just left hanging there, completely unresolved. However, an earlier quarto (with uncertain links to Shakespeare’s text) entitled A PLEASANT CONCEITED HISTORIE CALLED THE TAMING OF A SHREW (1594) DOES resolve it: Sly is made to re-awaken near a tavern having dreamt “The bravest dream tonight that ever thou Heardest in all thy life” (see Riverside p.175 / Norton p.200). Nevertheless, the absence of this “conclusion” in the Folio’s text remains a problem that has kept scholars guessing. According to one theory (listed in Riverside), the entire Christopher Sly frame was perhaps meant to be deleted but a compositor missed this indication and set the “induction” before being reminded not to do the rest.
I, myself, think that Shakespeare and his theatre company soon realized that they didn’t actually need all the rigmarole completing the Sly story (and which could not but be anticlimactic). All they really needed to do, at the end of the play, was simply to leave Sly sleeping there on stage (indeed, this conceit is even suggested at the end of 1.1 (TLN 558) when the 1st servingman says to Sly “My lord, you nod”). Furthermore, something like Sly’s slumbering might even be what PUCK is referring to at the very end of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM.
If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you haue but slumb’red heere
— 5.1.423–5 / TLN 2207–9
There is no way to precisely date the early works of Shakespeare but some scholars (the Oxford/Norton editors among them) believe that either SHREW or TWO GENTS OF VERONA was the first. Therefore Shakespeare’s career as dramatist may have begun with an outsized play-within-a-play.
__________
Oxford’s TEXTUAL COMPANION writes that “in some respects, SHREW is the most problematic play in the canon” and adds “the provenance of the Folio text remains radically uncertain” (p.170). But, after much hand-wringing, the Oxford editors nevertheless opt for its either being Shakespeare’s own foul papers or some transcript thereof (“which might have undergone some minor theatrical adaptation at a later date”).
Indeed, there are indications of authorial second thoughts and revisions that may have been undertaken in the heat of the moment during composition (see, for instance, the mixed entrances at beginning of 4.4). Furthermore, there are many deficiencies in stage directions and some speech prefixes may be referring to “actors” as opposed to “characters” (“Sincklo” at the top of F p.209 and “Nicke” instead of “Messenger” on F p.218).
Yet, in spite of it being entirely possible that SHREW was set according to Shakespeare’s holograph, the Oxford editors write “The Folio act division seem too incompetent to reflect theatrical practice at any period, and is probably of printing house origin”.
Well …
The Folio’s act division is certainly deficient and problematic in that it merely provides
“Actus primus. Scœna Prima” (F p.208),
“Actus Tertia” (F p.218),
“Actus Quartus, Scena Prima” (F p.223),
and “Actus Quintus” (F p. 227).
But I am not at all certain that these are “incompetent”.
The Folio’s ACTS are as follows:
ACT 1: line 1
ACT 2: line ???
ACT 3: line 1294
ACT 4: line 1977
ACT 5: line 2533
FINIS @ line 2751
Whereas the “traditional” subdivisions (mostly by Steevens in 1773, excepting 3.3 by Oxford 1987) are as follows:
INDUCTION
0.1: line 1 (reads “Induction’s scene 1 begins at line 1″)
0.2: line 151
1.1: line 299
1.2: line 565
2.1: line 855
3.1: line 1294
3.2: line 1387
[3.3 line 1511]
4.1: line 1640
4.2: line 1846
4.3: line 1977
4.4: line 2180
4.5: line 2294
5.1: line 2379
5.2: line 2533
As mentioned above, the Oxford editors added a new scene 3.3 (at TRANIO’s line “But sir, Love concerneth us to adde …” F p. 219). The scene makes a great deal of sense because it enables Petruchio’s & Kate’s wedding to occur in a reasonable time frame. Otherwise the audience would be left with the impression that Petruchio, upon his arrival at Baptista, would have rushed upstairs, grabbed his bride and run to the church with the wedding party in hot pursuit. Which is not impossible given Petruchio’s disposition, but then Gremio would certainly have commented upon it (whereas he only speaks of the strangeness of the ceremony).
All this to say that, though the Folio’s divisions are certainly incomplete, what’s there MAY be adequate (and furthermore reflect something of Shakespeare own structuring of the work). At 218 lines, the Folio’s ACT V may be short BUT it IS a real “catastrophe” demonstrating that Petruchio’s “taming” is indeed “complete” (and at 278 lines, TWO GENTS OF VERONA’s last act isn’t much longer).
_______________
Entrances & exits of Characters along Y axis
in their order of appearance.
• (2,14) reads “enters at line 2, exits at line 14″.
• DISGUISED as CAMBIO (703,2383)
is inserted at the end of some characters’ list (in this case Lucentio’s) to indicate “duration” of said disguise. But the entries for the problematic INDUCTION are somewhat more detailed.
• PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS are capitalized.
CHRISTOPHER SLY
(2 [sleeps from 17 to exit] 77) (151 [audience from 298 on] … … [comes to foreground from 558 to 564] … 2750) / DISGUISED as Lord (151,2750)
Hostess
(2,14)
LORD
(18,150) (165 [audience from 298 on] … 2750)
Huntsmen
(18,77)
SERVINGMEN / Three servants
(82,115) (151 [audience from 298 on]…[come to foreground from 558 to 564] 2750)
PLAYERS (these, presumably, would be the principals of SHREW)
(86,115)
PAGE
(252 [audience from 298 on]…[comes to foreground from 558 to 564] 2750) DISGUISED as LADY (252,2750)
LUCENTIO, son of Vincentio
(299,557) (703,854) (897,975) (1295,1380) (1511,1639) (1852,1924) (2200,2249) (2258,2293) (2379,2383) (2534,2750) / DISGUISED as CAMBIO (703,2383)
TRANIO, Lucentio’s servant
(299,557) (786,854) (898,1036) (1155,1293) (1387,1510) (1511,1639) (1846,1976) (2180,2257) (2440,2490) (2536,2750) / DISGUISED as LUCENTIO (786,2462)
BAPTISTA, father of Katherina & Bianca
(347,405) (878,1036) (1155,1280) (1387,1510) (1565,1639) (2200,2257) (2440,2517) (2534,2750)
KATHERINA
(347,409) (855,894) (1051,1205) (1387,1415) (1565,1625) (1746,1810) (1978,2179) (2294,2375) (2387,2591) (2653,2660) (2674,2747)
BIANCA
(347,395) (855,888) (1295,1379) (1387,1415) (1565,1639) (1852,1924) (2379,2383) (2485,2519) (2535,2591) (2674,2750)
GREMIO, a Pantaloon character, wooer of Bianca
(348,448) (703,854) (897,1036) (1155,1285) (1387,1510) (1532,1639) (2379,2521) (2534,2750)
HORTENSIO, wooer of Bianca
(348,448) (587,854) (898,975) (1007,1036) (1295,1386) (1565,1639) (1846,1891) (2015,2179) (2294,2378) (2534,2750) / DISGUISED as LITIO (898,1891)
BIONDELLO, servant of Lucentio
(527,557) (786,854) (898,1036) (1419,1510) (1910,1976) (2188,2251) (2258,2289) (2379,2384) (2419,2436) (2485,2490) (2535,2624) (2627,2637) (2641,2750)
PETHRUCHIO, wooer of Katherina
(565,854) (898,1205) (1468,1506) (1565,1625) (1746,1810) (1821,1845) (2015,2179) (2294,2375) (2387,2747)
GRUMIO, servant of Petruchio
(565,854) (1468,1506) (1565,1625) (1640,1766) (1770,1799) (1811,1820) (1978,2179) (2387,2519) (2534,2648)
Curtis, servant of Petruchio
(1650,1766) (1770,1799) (1815,1820)
Servingmen (Nathaniel, Gregory, Phillip, Peter), servants of Petruchio
(1733,1766) (1770,1799) (1811,1820)
PEDANT
(1925,1976) (2180,2257) (2397,2437) (2440,2490) (2534,2750) / DISGUISED as VINCENTIO (2180,2490)
Tailor
(2043,2151)
Haberdasher
(2045,2070)
VINCENTIO, father of Lucentio
(2324,2375) (2387,2516) (2534,2750)
Widow, betrothed of Hortensio
(2535,2591) (2674,2750)
___________
There are, presumably, three things going on:
1) The INDUCTION, which concerns:
CHRISTOPHER SLY
The HOSTESS
The LORD
The HUNTSMEN
The (Lord’s) SERVINGMEN
The PLAYERS
The PAGE / LADY
2) The wooing of BIANCA, which concerns:
LUCENTIO
TRANIO
BIANCA
HORTENSIO (until line 1891)
GREMIO
BIONDELLO
The PEDANT
VINCENTIO
3) The taming of KATHERINA (the eponymous “shrew”), which concerns:
KATHERINA
PETRUCHIO
GRUMIO
CURTIS
The SERVINGMEN
HORTENSIO (from line 2015)
The TAILOR
HABERDASHER
___________
• As indicated above, and given the INDUCTION: it is the whole of SHREW that should indeed be framed as a play-within-the-play (even if the framing device itself is incomplete): (299,2750).
CHRISTOPHER SLY: DISGUISED as Lord (151,2750). Un-conscious
The PAGE: DISGUISED as LADY (252,2750). Conscious
LUCENTIO: DISGUISED as CAMBIO (703,2383). Conscious
TRANIO: DISGUISED as his master LUCENTIO (786,2462). Conscious
HORTENSIO: DISGUISED as LITIO (898,1891). Conscious
The PEDANT: DISGUISED as Lucentio’s father VINCENTIO (2180,2490). Conscious.