This comedy was never published during Shakespeare's lifetime and was first

printed only in the posthumous F of 1623. In the list of Shakespearean plays,

it cannot be concluded that it was written later, since the list of Meres

could be incomplete, and besides, his list includes a mysterious play

"Love's Efforts Rewarded", which could have been a second title

Shakespearean comedy - sort of like it happened with the play "The Twelfth

night, or whatever." Finally, the possibility is not ruled out that Meres is simply

mixed Shakespeare's play with the play of the same name by another, anonymous author on that

same plot. In general, an anonymous play should be taken into account in the first place when

resolving the issue of the dating of Shakespeare's comedy and its origin.

This second play was published in 1594, and then reprinted twice - in

1596 and 1607. However, according to some indications, it was written for

several years before its first edition. It was called: "Funny invented

a story called - The Taming of a Shrew." Difference from the title

Shakespearean play is reduced to two last words: anonymous - "one

shrew" (a shrew), Shakespeare's just "shrew" (the shrew) -

the shade is quite insignificant and cannot be accurately translated into Russian

Everything in the anonymous play is a plot with its three themes (introduction with

drunkard Sly, the taming of Katarina, the story of Bianca's marriage), almost all

characters with their characters, even in the main "moral" of the play - corresponds

Shakespearean comedy. Small discrepancies are reduced only to the following. At

Anonymous action takes place not in Padua, but in Athens; all character names

other: main character called Ferrando, the heroine is always abbreviated Ket, etc.

P.; Ket has not one, but two sisters - Emilia and Filena, to each of which

one young man wooing, while Shakespeare has one

a sister who, on the other hand, has several admirers; Anonymous has no secret marriage, and

the whole denouement is crumpled; expanded the role of the drunkard in the introduction, which

Shakespeare disappears shortly after the beginning of the real play, while the anonymous

he remains on the stage to the end, interrupting the action with his funny exclamations,

The alternation of episodes and the development of action in both plays are the same, and in

some places (especially in the scene with the tailor, IV, 3) one of them directly

copies another. Nevertheless, the text itself is different everywhere, and for the whole play

there are only six lines that match exactly. And this difference of texts

is such that we must recognize Shakespeare's comedy as a masterpiece of comedic

art, while the anonymous piece is a handicraft. It concerns not

only fine development of characters in a Shakespearean play, mainly

Petruchio and Katarina, motivations for the behavior of the characters, excellent language,

softening tone, giving even the most rude farcical motives a touch of live

humor and cheerful daring - but also how the "moral" of the play is presented and what

its true content.

The external similarity of both plays is so great that, in the absence of a common

plot source, independent processing of which they could

appear, we have to admit that one of them served as a model for the other.

But which comedy is earlier?

For a long time, the prevailing opinion among Shakespeare scholars was that

Shakespeare received an offer from his troupe, in view of the appearance of an anonymous

play, which arose no later than 1592 and went with success on one of

London scenes, to create something like a new version of the same plot, which

Burbage's troupe could oppose this play. This processing

Shakespeare performed with brilliance - creating, judging by the metric and stylistic

featured, circa 1594, essentially a profoundly original work,

full of youthful inspiration and poetic charm.

However, already about a hundred years ago, another hypothesis arose, which found in

P. Alexander). According to them, Shakespeare's play first arose, and

anonymous is a very clumsy plagiarism of some scribbler who, in order to

disguise their literary robbery and give the impression of novelty of the play,

rewrote the entire text. If we accept this theory, we would have to push back

the date of a Shakespearean comedy two or three years ago.

Although in favor of the second point of view, many witty

arguments, nevertheless, the old theory seems to us, like most critics, more

convincing. The following consideration is decisive here. For Shakespeare

extremely characteristic is this way of processing other people's plays, when he, borrowing

plot and images, creates a completely new text, where he uses only two or three

phrases or expressions old play, but at the same time all its content is unusual

deepens, decorates and often fills with a completely new meaning. Examples

This from the early period of his work - "The Comedy of Errors" and some

chronicles ("King John", Falstaff's part of "Henry IV"), later - "Measure

measure", "Lear", probably "Hamlet". On the contrary, for numerous others

of the then "recyclers" of other people's plays, a typically shameless use

old text; there were even cases when they were limited to adding

one or two scenes and reworking a few lines. Nothing to say that

it almost never came to the internal enrichment of the play.

It should also be noted that all three themes of Shakespeare's comedy, in addition to the anonymous

plays were widespread in that era in a wide variety of forms and

versions. So, for example, the theme of the introduction ("caliph for an hour") is found in

English folk ballads, in didactic treatises, in English

translation of fairy tales "Thousand and one nights"; the story of the taming of the shrew - in

many edifying tales, songs, anecdotes; Bianca's story

dressing her fans as teachers was known at least for the famous

Ariosto's comedy The Changelings, translated into English as early as 1560

the year of Gascoigne. From all these works, Shakespeare borrowed some

expressive additional features; but the main source was nevertheless

anonymous play.

To this origin, The Taming of the Shrew owes many of its

genre and style features suggested go at least prompted

Shakespeare with an anonymous play that interested the indefatigable seeker

dramatic forms and possibilities that Shakespeare was. Indeed, a lot

puts this comedy of Shakespeare apart in his work. This is not the case here

details, like a large number of inserted Latin and Italian words or

an admixture of verses of irregular, clownish meter (the so-called

"warm up"). These features, indicating the closeness of the young Shakespeare to funny

school memories are found in other early plays of his, as,

for example, "Titus Andronicus", "Love's Labour's Lost", etc. But none of

we do not find such a strong influence of Italian comedy in the rest of his plays.

del arte and such undivided domination of farcical tone. These two moments

are closely related to each other.

Of all the characters in the play, only two are bright, lively,

well-developed characters: these are Katarina and Petruchio, and only with very

with big reservations, you can still add Bianca to them. Yet the rest

characters - conditional figures, stereotyped grotesques, very close to masks

Italian comedy. The good-natured and stupid miserly old man Baptista is very

similar to the same fooled fathers of Italian comedy, the dexterous servant of Tranio

On the cunning Brigella, the youthful old man Gremio - on the foolish Venetian

Pantaloon, etc. This corresponds to the thoroughly farcical nature of the action.

(all sorts of tricks, brawls, sheer laughter), without any admixture, although

the lightest lyricism, tender, ideal feelings, which is, for example, in

almost simultaneous, in essence - also a farcical "Comedy of Errors".

Accordingly, the language of the characters is juicy and sharp without the slightest hint of

euphemism characteristic of early Shakespeare. This case is almost unique in

all the work of Shakespeare: only the Merry Wives of Windsor can be

classified as a purely farcical genre.

This also explains the internal bond that connects the introduction with

the play itself. The "philosophizing" critics searched in vain for the connection between them in

unity of thought or morality (no one should go beyond the assigned

his destiny; everything that exists is a mirage, etc.). In fact, Shakespeare willingly

reproduced the introduction of the old play as preparatory and justifying

buffoonish character of the comedy itself. It is played out by wanderers

comedians in order to entertain the patient - naturally, what do you expect from her

spectacle of a light, coarse, purely entertaining, without any complexity and

And yet there is a deep problem hidden in the play,

embodied in the images of Katarina and Petruchio, not accidentally developed

in a special way and immeasurably more meaningful than that of anonymous. Her interpretation

serves as a stumbling block for many researchers, but meanwhile this is the moment

central to understanding the meaning of the play and revealing its artistic

interest.

The concept of the play cannot be doubted. Spoiled and wayward

Katarina is subdued by her clever and dexterous fiancé, and later by her husband, Petruchio.

The fruits of his efforts were not slow to affect: she turned into an ideal

good-natured wife. At the end of the play, when a kind of test takes place

wives, it turns out that the former humble Bianca managed to turn into

grumpy capricious, while Katharina herself became the embodiment of meekness and

friendliness. The play ends with her famous monologue in which she

affirms the natural weakness of women and calls them to submit to their husbands.

Such a morality seems to be in bad agreement with our idea of

freedom-loving Shakespeare, the creator of images of bold, enterprising, fighting for

their human rights, for the freedom of their feelings of women (Juliet,

Desdemona, Hermia from "A Midsummer Night's Dream", Elena from "End of the Crown" and

a lot others).

That not only us, but also some of Shakespeare's contemporaries, this morality

shocked, evident from the fact that the playwright Fletcher wrote in opposition to her

comedy "The Tamed Tamer" (the exact date is unknown), where a woman takes

revenge. The hero of the play, who is also called Petruchio, falls in love (apparently

after the death of Katarina - this is not clearly stated in the play) into one girl and decides

marry her, and the wife treats him the same way that Shakespeare treats him

Petruchio is addressing Katarina. The play ends with the words: "Tamed

tamer! But so that no man has the right to complain if

he will consider that he is not destined in this world to be a tyrant of a woman. However,

women will not find here grounds for triumph and ridicule, for we are now

recognized equality between men and women, as it should be. We learn

love for love's sake!"

Many critics tried to "rehabilitate" Shakespeare, to whitewash his play with

with the help of various stretches and the most arbitrary interpretations, starting with the statement,

that, since Shakespeare took a ready-made plot, he "had" to keep it

morality or that Katarina is not the mouthpiece of Shakespeare, who himself looked at the matter

otherwise, and ending with the assumption that Katarina and Petruchio are fighting among themselves only

for fun and that Katarina delivers her famous monologue only for

in order to laugh at Hortensio and his wife, but she herself did not at all

believes in what he says. All these speculations go against the grain

text. They are also completely anti-historical.

Shakespeare, despite all his genius and progressiveness of criticism

contemporary society, was nevertheless the son of his age, whom he could not

even come up with the idea of ​​complete legal and everyday emancipation

women. The bourgeoisie did not know such gender equality. Appearance of equality

existed in some circles of the advanced nobility, but there she wore

epicurean character and served to raise the price of selfish

pleasure up to the approval of the complete freedom of adultery and refined

immorality. The prototype of morality for Shakespeare in this play of his is how,

however, in all others, folk morality could most likely serve

peasant family, recognizing the internal (moral and practical)

equality of husband and wife, but nevertheless in the sense of guiding and guiding

began giving primacy to her husband.

This living model and source of Shakespeare's thought was in perfect agreement with the

stage of humanistic consciousness, which he expressed in his struggle against

predatory, anarchic immoralism of the era of the primitive

capitalist accumulation. Shakespeare, who rebelled against everything

tyrannical violence against the human person and always defending freedom

children and wives from the coarse and stupid despotism of fathers and husbands, at the same time

in no way refused to recognize the need for a firm system in

family, society and state. Without this system, according to Shakespeare,

a reasonable and harmonious arrangement of human society is impossible, which

is as much the task of the humanists as the conquest of the freedom of the human

personality. To the praise of this system and the ideal harmony that should

dominate society and the state, just as it dominates

nature, the famous speech of Ulysses in "Troilus and Cressida" is dedicated: "Everywhere

system - and on the earth below and in the heavens, among the burning planets: the laws

birthrights are everywhere. There is primacy in everything, there is proportionality - in

customs, in motion, on the way..." (I, 3).

So, according to Shakespeare, it should be in a family where the husband owns

obstinate ", but also in a number of other plays by Shakespeare. In Lucian's "Comedy of Errors"

shames his jealous and quarrelsome sister, urging her to be meek and submissive

towards her husband. Shows the same timidity and meekness in relation to

Brutus his noble, heroic friend Portia ("Julius Caesar", II, 1, in

However, the whole point is what are the forms and purpose of such obedience to the husband.

Its goal is not to affirm the exploitation and enslavement of women in accordance with

feudal norms, but the introduction into the family of that "order" and "harmony" that

Shakespeare, in accordance with the social and cultural state of the era, could

imagine only in the forms that we find in his works.

In "The Taming of the Shrew", despite the sharpness of individual expressions

(significantly smaller, however, than in the old play), we are talking only about

who should have the final word - husband or wife. Petruchio must

only to break Katarina's "stubbornness", after which a

harmony.

To fully appreciate this, one should at least briefly compare the comedy

Shakespeare, not only with the anonymous play, but also with other older

developments of the same theme, undoubtedly known to the playwright. Comparison is in

should mainly touch on two points - firstly, the character of the heroine,

secondly, the nature of the relationship that is established between her and her husband, and

in general, the whole atmosphere enveloping the action.

In older, mostly medieval, versions, the shrew is represented in

repulsive, ugly in her anger and eccentric whims,

instigator of causeless quarrels and poisoner of peace. Echoes of such

relationships are also heard in Shakespeare's play, where others call Katarina

"devil", "witch", "malicious", "feisty", "obstinate and rude from above

any measure. "But is it really like that in Shakespeare's play? Let's trace everything

her behavior, along with the circumstances in which the heroine finds herself.

Katharina appears at the very beginning of the play (I, 1). Her father announces

suitors who are wooing Bianca, that he will not give her away until he arranges

Katharina, eldest daughter. Katharina, knowing the general attitude towards her, feels all

humiliation of his position and expresses his resentment directly: "Why,

Father, will you make me a laughingstock for a couple of fools?" A skirmish ensues,

in which she only responds—albeit rather sharply—to ridicule and

insulting the sister's suitors. Bianca starts crying, which makes her angry.

Katarina's remark: "Her eyes are always wet." Her irritation and

is clear here. The behavior of the "meek sufferer" Bianca, her spiritual squalor,

directly hurts Katarina, exposing her as some kind of monster, the culprit

sister's misfortune. The father leaves with Bianca, leaving the eldest daughter: "Stay,

Katarina", to which she exclaims indignantly: "But I can’t leave here, what

whether? Point! As if I myself don’t know what I need, what I don’t need "- and leaves,

escorted by cursing of the sister's suitors. She's right - what should she do here

among hostile people?

So far, we have observed sharpness in Katharina, even rudeness, but

We did not see "quarrelsomeness" in the true sense of the word. She was a party

attacker, but defender.

But her next appearance (II, 1) seems to reveal in her something

worse. Left alone with her "quiet" sister, she tied her hands and

hits her. For what? Bianca's answer explains everything: she imagined that

Katarina wants to take away all her dresses and jewelry, and expresses

willingness to give her all his outfits "down to the skirt" on the grounds that

her "holy duty is to obey the elders". Katarina wooed her, who

of suitors she likes best - and then Bianca, deciding that one of them,

maybe her sister liked her, assures that she is not one of them

gives preference and is ready to give in to anyone.

Such spiritual squalor, impersonality, a tendency to interpret everything

freedom-loving impulses of the sister in their own, base way, finally

infuriate Katarina, who tried to find at least

some manifestation of feeling, something like a living soul. And from here -

Katarina's anger and cruelty towards her sister. The scene ends

the appearance of Baptista, who comforts the weeping quiet Bianca and, according to

as usual, severely reproaches Katharina. Of course, in this scene, all sympathy

spectators - both in Shakespeare's time and today - on the side of Katharina,

leading a bold fight for the rights of women as individuals.

For the third and last time before her "taming", we see Katarina in

immediately following this scene of her explanation with Petruchio. This

decides to stun her at once - showers her with compliments, praises her "courtesy,

beauty and meekness", which everyone "extols" ... Naturally, this

Katarina's mockery responds with harshness. There is an amusing skirmish with

fireworks of witticisms, and in conclusion, Petruchio announces to Baptista that they

"get along" and that "the wedding will take place on Sunday". Katharina for the last time

snaps: "I'll see you before they hang you!" - and shuts up. Here we are less

all we see is a "shrew". Katarina is only trying to defend herself against the rude

an intruding rapist. As for her barbs, she has few

those who have received a very subtle upbringing and Rosalind from "The Barren

efforts of love" and Beatrice from "Much Ado About Nothing". True, after one of

Petruchio's insolence, she gives him a slap in the face, which they probably would not have done.

But neither Biron nor Benedict would behave like Petruchio. For that

it is also a farce in which any of the characters (except the hypocritical Bianca) in

rudeness will argue with Katarina.

After that, we see immediately "tamed" Katarina. Yes, and under what

circumstances does this taming take place? Not in response to self-will, but simply

so, without any reason, Petruchio humiliates his wife, starves her, forces

do and say stupid things. As a result, in the play we have before us - a woman fighting

for her dignity and after all the trials, gaining what she deserves

The overall tone of the play compared to the old plot arrangements is fundamentally

different. There is a gloomy, "monastic" atmosphere, merciless cruelty (husband

beats his wife or tries to frighten her by killing his beloved horse before her eyes,

hound dog or falcon), leading to the transformation of a young woman, morally

broken, into a wordless slave. Here is laughter, cheerful (although sometimes

painless) tricks - a harbinger of a happy, full-blooded life in

the rays of the gentle and hot Italian sun.

Katarina is a blooming, gifted girl with a bold and strong character,

suffocating in a circle of vulgar nonentities (not excluding her father and sister), among

which she is doomed to live. She was born to meet the same strong and

a brave, lively person like herself. And she meets him -

daring adventurer, temperamental and witty, from the breed

conquistadors, desperate navigators of the 16th century, favorites of fortune. Certainly,

he is elementary and selfishly limited in his greedy impulse to life, but

the type is historically deeply true and, moreover, is interpreted in a brightly farcical way.

As soon as Petruchio and Katharina met, a

an electric spark is a guarantee that their struggle and its trials will not end

longing and bondage, but great human happiness.

On the whole, the play - and this is its deep, progressive meaning for that era -

affirms the idea not of "equality", but of "equivalence" of men and women. Like

in many other plays by Shakespeare, Katarina reveals the same richness

inner life, like Petruchio. This is the same strong and full-fledged nature.

Just as it happened between Beatrice and Benedict, they were pushed by each other.

directness, excess of health and cheerfulness characteristic of both.

Each found in the other a worthy adversary - and a partner. Man to her

hostile or indifferent, Katarina, of course, would not have obeyed. Litigation

between them, which has a serious, problematic character, they themselves experience

like an exciting, joyful game, because between them the

love and because they feel in themselves an excess of young forces that require

discharge.

Shakespeare's intention is much deeper than morality.

Fletcher's plays, where the protection of the "prestige" of a woman is achieved by lowering and

men and women, described as petty natures, devoid of scope and

completeness of Shakespearean characters.

One of possible topics for conversation, these are the topics present in The Taming of the Shrew.

Personally, it seems to me that Shakespeare chose certain themes for his comedies and then developed them into the text. And these are different themes, that's why the plays are so different.

The concept of "love" in A Midsummer Night's Dream is different from the concept of "love" in Twelfth Night. Because "A Midsummer Night's Dream" explores the imagination ("madmen, poets and lovers live in imagination") and the subordination of the mind to feelings ("because our feelings are subject to reason, and the mind says that you are beautiful" - you need to understand exactly the opposite). "Twelfth Night" is usually interpreted through "gender issues", and it is certainly present there, along with issues of social status. (Duke Orsino: "Believe me, my boy, women cannot love as much as we do." Viola, dressed as Cesario and hopelessly in love with Orsino: "How else can they!" Orsino: "You are too young, what can you know about women?" Viola-Cesario: "Well... let's just say I had a sister...") To the extent that gender issues are present in The Taming of the Shrew, this is a different issue, because other issues are raised there .

What themes can I see in The Taming of the Shrew?

First, it is a paradox, that is, Shakespeare here explores the paradoxical nature of the funny. Comedy is funny because it is unexpected. Well, there lived, there were two sisters, one obedient girl, the other harmful and evil. Both got married. A good girl promises to turn into a complete bitch, and a bad girl follows her husband and blows dust off him. Where is the logic? A man says that he is going to marry a woman for money, so this is a love story. A man and a woman fight, so they agree to get married. After the wedding, the man mocks his wife, so she begins to really appreciate him and promises to be for him perfect woman. Etc.

Secondly, it is discomfort. I do not know how to formulate it more precisely, but this is the feeling that we are shown by the example of Gremio, who ran away from the church, unable to endure Petruchio's idiotic and blasphemous clowning during the marriage ceremony; a feeling of discomfort from a public violation of social norms, when you are not a participant and not the culprit of events, but you are watching them. The ending is structured to evoke this uncomfortable feeling - Bernard Shaw complained that during the denouement of "The Taming of the Shrew" he felt ashamed to collapse on the spot (" no decent man can watch the last act in the company of ladies without a sense of shame"), and I explain this by the fact that Shakespeare achieved just such an effect. In a good production, this discomfort should be present. [The concept associated with discomfort is frostbite, that is, the ability to ignore generally accepted norms of decency, the absence of any external brakes. Petruchio an incredibly frostbitten character, Katarina is also quite a frostbitten lady.]

To the extent that this comedy raises gender issues, it raises them in the spirit of a vicious critique of established norms: "In our country, conventional ideas about the relationship of a man and a woman are no good!" I want to emphasize that the norms themselves change over time, but "The Taming of the Shrew" is still perceived as a scandalous and indecent thing - and it seemed so in the 17th and 18th centuries, when no one was talking about the current Western "political correctness" heard. I will say more, if this thing were put on the Mountain, it would be incredibly daring and insulting there too. (It's funny that we in Russia are less familiar with this aspect, because our translations are a little toned down, our productions are, as a rule, adapted in the direction of greater "decency" compared to the original.) In general, "The Taming of the Shrew" contrasts living, "biological "relationships between people to dead," social "prescriptions - and in such a way that all sympathies are on the side of people, and not prescriptions, no matter what norms are implied in this particular case: gallant, feminist, communal. As Petruchio says, "if it suits her and me, what do you care?" ( If she and I be pleased, what's that to you?) But society always cares about such things!

Department of Education of the City of Moscow

State budget educational institution

higher vocational education Moscow city

"Moscow City Pedagogical University"

Institute for the Humanities

Department of Foreign Philology

Course work

The theme of the marital war in "The Taming of the Shrew" by W. Shakespeare

and "School of Scandal" by R.B. Sheridan

Introduction

The theme of marital warfare European literature Middle Ages and Renaissance: from Farces and Fablios to Comedy

The theme of marital won in W. Shakespeare's comedy "The Taming of the Shrew": traditional and new

The theme of marital warfare in the "School of Scandal" by R.B. Sheridan: traditional and new

Peculiarities of Shakespeare and Sheridan's interpretation of the marital war motive (comparative analysis)

1 The place of the analyzed motif in the plays of Shakespeare and Sheridan

2 Purposes of addressing the analyzed motive in the plays of Shakespeare and Sheridan

3 Analysis of comparable situations considered in the works of Shakespeare and Sheridan, and the form of marital warfare

Conclusion

Introduction

This topic attracted me with its novelty. Some of its elements are found in research, but usually scientists take some part of this topic. For example, M. M. Morozov partially captures the theme of marital wars, analyzing the fablio; J. Bullock considers the evolution of the marital war theme from fablio to Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew; N. M. Marshova, analyzing the play "School of Scandal", pays more attention to the main theme of the comedy - slander in high society and the history of the Serfes brothers; A. A. Anikst considers Shakespeare's comedies in the most general form, etc.

Consequently, the novelty of my work is due to the lack of modern research on the topic of comparing relationships in married couples in the named plays of Shakespeare and Sheridan.

The purpose of the study is to compare the coverage of the theme of marital war in Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew" and Sheridan's "School of Scandal".

Object of study: the plays "The Taming of the Shrew" and "School of Scandal".

Subject of study: general and distinctive features in the coverage of the theme of marital war in these plays.

When comprehending the topic of the course, it seemed to me that it was necessary to consider the process of development of this topic from its very inception, to identify traditions in the interpretation of the topic, because any author, no matter how innovator he may be, relies on traditions. At the same time, he somehow deviates from them, following his own plan, and thus creates new versions of plots and characters. Accordingly, my research objectives are as follows:

consider the traditions of interpretation of the theme of marital war (starting with its occurrence);

establish elements of tradition and innovation in the coverage of the topic by Shakespeare and Sheridan;

to establish the distinctive and common features in the coverage of the theme of marital war by the named authors.

The work consists of four parts: the first part examines the early interpretations of the theme, starting from its origin, the second deals with the interpretation of the theme in Shakespeare's play, the third - the interpretation of the theme in Sheridan's play, the fourth highlights the similarities and differences in the disclosure of the theme by Shakespeare and Sheridan.

1. The theme of marital war in European literature of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: from farces and fables to comedy

The theme raised in the selected works is not new. It was developed back in the Middle Ages, in particular, in French fablios and farces. "Fablio is an urban poetic story, born of urban reality, action-packed in its content". The farce genre is very close to the fablio genre. Farce (from Latin farsum - filling, stuffing) is a genre of medieval folk theater: a small comic scene or play, usually of a domestic or satirical orientation, played out between actions during the performance of religious dramas (mysteries) in order to entertain the viewer. Both genres are united by a close, or the same, theme, and a single poetic form (an eight-syllable with a paired rhyme), and developed approximately at the same time - at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th centuries. This is the time of the spread of the activities of the medieval comedy theater. Unlike performances based on biblical stories, the themes of farces were very often everyday, secular and concerned the life of the general population. They are characterized by a variety of conflicts affecting certain aspects of the life of a medieval city dweller. Some studies of French literary critics are devoted exclusively to works depicting family quarrels, the struggle for supremacy in the family, adultery, etc. Thus, "life in farces appears as ... a stubborn, bitter war of all against all." . And this war begins with the smallest unit of society - with the family. A huge number of farces are devoted to the theme of marital warfare. Husband and wife constantly quarrel, find out who is in charge in the house, squabbles and fights break out between them daily. The role of religion in the Middle Ages was very great. Under her influence, certain views on women have developed in society. She is already initially guilty of original sin, so what good can be expected from her? Therefore, a bad wife is to blame for most family troubles. She is grumpy, greedy, lewd. But at the same time, she does not just put spokes into her husband's wheels to annoy him, she defends her rights and at the same time shows ingenuity and resourcefulness. It was these features that made the authors of farces sympathize with their heroines, depict them as full-fledged rivals of men, in no way inferior to them, and sometimes even superior (farce "Tub"). Sometimes the authors of fablios and farces talk about the methods by which husbands tame obstinate wives. In history Sire Hain & Dame Anieuse it is said that the husband locked the obstinate wife in a barrel of water and kept her there until she begged for mercy.

These stories came to English soil thanks to Geoffrey Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales. The young Chaucer learned a lot from the French authors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, who were then in vogue among the English, and later, during a visit to Italy, from Italian writers: Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio. At the same time, processing the short stories of Italians and French fablios, he wrote in the London dialect, which has since become literary English, and turned the rude humor of the French fablios into a short story of character, immersing the reader in a typical English environment of that time. The theme of the struggle of spouses for primacy and the image of a woman fighting for her rights also passes into the Canterbury Tales. The most striking examples we can find in Chaucer's book are the Prologue and The Bath Weaver's Tale. Chaucer exposes his heroine to ridicule. With her behavior, the weaver turns the usual order of things for that time; for her contemporaries, the very idea of ​​the primacy of a woman was ridiculous. Therefore, Chaucer turns this image into a purely farcical, comical one. The weaver justifies her behavior with references to the Bible and proves with its help that the husband is obliged to fulfill marital duties, never denying his wife carnal pleasures. She pestered the first three husbands for hours with her chatter and grumbling, accused them of deeds that they did not commit, made the fourth constantly jealous, and scolded the fifth all the time.

I d be first to complain, and always findway was quickly over…

I attacked first, fought boldly,

I won the fight on the fly...

(Translated by I. Kashkin) d not correct myself by his advices.hate a man who tells me of my vices,so do more of us, God knows, than I.mad with me this made him he could die,I would not forbear in any case.

Should I put up with his whip?

So that he would expose all my vices?

No, it never happened

And it won't happen to any of us.

(Translated by I. Kashkin)

says the weaver, talking about her relationship with her husbands. She defended her rights so fiercely that she hit her fifth husband when he began to read her a book about rebellious wives. True, after that the weaver woke up on the floor "with a broken cheek and head." The Bath Weaver's Tale reiterates the idea that

What is most precious to a woman is power

Over her husband, that she agrees to fall,

To gain dominance over the one you love.

(Translated by I. Kashkin)

… What women most desire is sovereigntytheir husbands or the ones they love,have the mastery, to be above.

After Chaucer, the theme of unsubdued wayward wives appeared in Jest Books And Tales and Quick Answers (1567). IN Jest Books we find a story about three husbands who suffered a lot in their family life. Tales and Quick Answers contains a story about a man who, when his wife drowned, began to look for her, going against the current, arguing that she was so stubborn that even after death she would do everything contrary to the laws of nature and society.

The closest thing to the theme of taming is the story of how a man married a girl whose father was under the heel of his domineering wife. The mother gave the bride advice on managing her husband, but she did not have time to apply them. Her husband scared her by pretending to be furious and killing his dog for disobeying him. When they arrived home, the husband punished the cook for a poorly prepared dinner and beat his wife. When the parents came to visit them three months later, they found their daughter very obedient [See: 20, p. 59].

Scoggin's Gestures contains such stories. Scoggin is a jester from the time of Henry IV. When his own wife tried to show her temper and began to contradict him, he flogged her.

In 1594, the most famous predecessor of The Taming of the Shrew, The Taming of a Shrew, was published (author unknown). In it, the heroes are called Fernando and Kate, and the taming here is primitive, straightforward. Fernando answers rudeness with rudeness. He "breaks" Kate for himself, intimidates her and starves her, comes to the wedding in an old dress, explaining that he did not want to ruin his best suit on the way to the celebration. The portrait of Fernando is sketchy, it does not have that psychologism and change of feelings that we encounter in Shakespeare's play.

Thus, in all the works preceding Shakespeare's comedy, the theme of the marital war is revealed rather one-sidedly: the husband and wife are constantly arguing, most of the disputes are to blame for the wife, who is not distinguished by integrity, rude, quarrelsome and capricious, and the husband either slavishly obeys her (example - farce "Tub"), or pacifies her (for example - "Jests" Scoggin).

2. The theme of marital war in W. Shakespeare's comedy "The Taming of the Shrew": traditional and new

conjugal war play image

According to some researchers, Shakespeare simply reworked the play "The Taming of a Shrew" (E.K. Wilson, A.A. Anikst, etc.). At the same time, he not only changed the names of the heroes, but also significantly changed the images of the tamed and the tamer.

Petruchio, unlike Fernando, is more individual, his role is complicated by the fact that in the process of taming (almost completely copying Fernando's actions), he falls in love with his wife. His taming plan is subtler than Fernando's and was thought up before meeting Katarina, while Fernando decides how to overcome his wife's stubbornness already at home, and he openly sets out his program of actions: starve Kate, keep her awake, etc. e. Petruchio explains his actions by taking care of his wife: he does not let her eat because the dish is tasteless, does not let her sleep because the bed is not soft enough, etc. He deliberately ignores Katarina’s obstinacy at the first meeting, just like Fernando (albeit in more colorful terms), declaring that the girl fell in love with him at first sight. The image of Fernando as a whole is not distinguished by wit, which is very clearly seen in his first conversation with Kate: he insists that the girl loves him and will marry him, and only plays the shrew out of himself ( they say you art a shrew ). He goes ahead, responds with rudeness to rudeness, and thus wins over Kate. Petruchio plays more rudeness and thereby transfers his relationship with Katarina to another level, creating a special playing space where Katarina is not ashamed to give in to her husband and accept the rules of the game.

The psychological portrait of Katarina is also drawn by Shakespeare more subtle than that of his unknown predecessor. The degree of individualization of the heroine is already reflected in the title of the play. The play is called by an unknown author The Taming of a Shrew , in Shakespeare - The Taming of the Shrew , and the complex personality of Katarina, who put on a “mask of bizarre behavior”, is brought to the fore. Katarina, like Kate, is surprised and outraged by her husband's behavior, but still, when he wants to leave the wedding, she first asks him to stay and only after his refusal declares that she will not go anywhere. Kate immediately says that if Fernando can leave the holiday, leaving friends invited to the wedding, then she will not do it. ( Ile don't go. ).you in madding mood would leave your friendsof you Ile tarry with them still.

Politeness awakens in Kate only in scene XIII, after a hungry day and a sleepless night. On the way to Athens, the couple bicker over a star in the sky. Kate argues weakly and reluctantly, and Fernando openly tells her that he argued with her, only to see if she would contradict him (scene XV). The same scene in Shakespeare is solved a little differently. Firstly, the language of the characters is more colorful, and the scene itself is more developed. Secondly, Petruchio starts this argument more as a joke than seriously, therefore he does not explain his actions, like Fernando.

Significantly different last monologue main character. Keith leaning on Holy Bible proves to her sisters that the wife is obliged to obey her husband, that she was created by God in order to obey him and love him (scene XVIII).

In this she is in tune with the authors of the fablio. There are no references to the Bible in Shakespeare's play, although the image of the husband-master is preserved, but it is said that a woman is strong in her weakness ( our strength as weak ).

Thus, Shakespeare's primitive scheme of subordinating an obstinate woman to her husband with a strong manifestation of the farcical beginning has been significantly transformed.

The line of taming coming from the fablio is taken as a basis and turned into a line of relationships between two individuals who, in the process of skirmishes, rise to a higher level of relationship and understanding of each other.

3. The theme of marital warfare in R.B. Sheridan: traditional and new

As the Renaissance ended, romantic values ​​were gradually replaced by their satirical negation. Comedians switched to various satirical genres and later on serious moral conflicts. Only J. Shirley (1596-1666) turns to comedy affecting marriage and family relations.

The Puritan Revolution interrupted the development of English drama (the Puritans began to close theaters), and during the restoration of the Stewards in the second half of the 17th century. arose new drama, known as the "drama of the Restoration", whose direct predecessor was J. Shirley. In terms of the totality of themes and ideas, he is closest to the playwrights of the Restoration era.

The comedians of the Restoration borrowed from Molière and Ben Jonson their attention to character. New in the comedy of the Restoration are the motives of hunting for a large dowry and overcoming a preconceived attitude. It reveals all sorts of vices of that time. The comedy of the Restoration is often described as immoral due to the "shameless jokes" and "obscene language" of its characters. Witty dialogue becomes an integral part of comedy. Heroes are basically free and can manage their money as they please. Wives in comedies are trying to better deceive their husbands, not averse to starting an intrigue. The place of action in most cases is London. In addition, the authors of the Restoration comedy draw a clear opposition between the city and the countryside. The image of quarrels and the characters of the spouses have changed significantly compared to the era of Shakespeare.

The work of Goldsmith and Sheridan was aimed at banishing sensibility from drama and replacing it with satire for contemporary reality.

Sheridan saw his task as turning the comedy of manners into a vehicle for expressing a certain idea. “He deliberately made an attempt to capture the very tone of the comedy of the previous century. And Sheridan really managed to restore in his play the wit, liveliness and brilliance of English comedy.

Thus, Sheridan, on the one hand, observes some of the motives of the comedy of the Restoration, on the other hand, deviates from it and relies on the comedy of the 18th century. He turns to the comedy of the Restoration in order to create in his play a vivid image of the era. According to Sherwin's descriptions, this was a time when women and men led equally dissolute lifestyles (craze for cards, alcohol abuse, numerous love affairs, etc.). The woman was no longer obliged to obey the man in everything. In some ways, she began to behave in the same way as the stronger sex, and no one condemned her for this. Relations in the family also changed: there was no question of any taming. The epoch has changed, and mores have changed in comparison with the era of Shakespeare.

In the image of the Teasles, the absence of the theme of taming was clearly manifested. The Teasles' relationship can be described more as a reconciliation of people who have come to an understanding than as a taming. Peter Teasle is not a tamer. He seeks understanding and warmer feelings from his wife with affection, without asserting his power. Lady Teazle corrects herself not under pressure (played out, like in Petruchio, or quite real, like in Fernando), but after she learns about the tender attitude towards herself. Interestingly, in the picking scenes, none of the spouses has a plan according to which he contradicts his opponent. Their verbal duels on both sides can be seen as impromptu, saturated with wit, and on the part of Lady Teazle, there is also a desire to hurt her husband harder. Her dialogues with her husband are not at all like the skirmishes of Shakespeare's characters, they are much angrier. This, according to the play, reflects the negative influence of society on family relations (“You have become as bad as all of them”).

Unlike Shakespeare's play, Sheridan, under the influence of the comedy of the Restoration, has a strongly accusatory and satirical beginning, and social prejudices are affected. In the image of Lady Teazle, Sheridan ridicules the behavior of provincials who find themselves in a big city and want to match the fashion. Already in the first skirmish of the spouses, the city and the countryside are opposed. Sir Peter compares his wife's lifestyle before and after marriage: … you forget what your situation was when I married you - “You forget what your position was when I married you” (phenomenon 1, act 2). The formation of the image of Lady Teazle was influenced by the image of the simple-hearted "village wife" Pinchuife from Wicherly's play "The Provincial Wife", who plunges headlong into the pleasures of metropolitan life.

The Salon of Lady Sneerwell, under whose influence Lady Teasle falls, is an excellent satire on the society of the time. Sir Peter acts as reasoner, denouncing him. He is that figure in Restoration comedy who makes "pretense of integrity" and contrasts Lady Sneerwell's salon and manners.

New in Sheridan's comedy is the sympathetic attitude of the author to the suffering spouse. The authors of the Restoration comedy ruthlessly ridiculed unfortunate husbands, giving preference to witty ones who followed the philosophy of libertinage.

Thus, Sheridan, drawing on the traditions of the comedy of the Restoration, softens them, expressing sympathy for Sir Peter and leading the spouses to reconciliation, and their detractors (Joseph Surface and Lady Sneerwell) to the failure of their plans.

4. Features of Shakespeare and Sheridan's interpretation of the marital war motive (comparative analysis)

Shakespeare's comedy "The Taming of the Shrew" and the play by R.B. Sheridan's "School of Scandal" is separated by about 180 years, but the plots of both plays use a similar comedic motif - the motif of marital war. Our task is to analyze its place and function in each of the plays chosen for analysis.

4.1 The place of the analyzed motif in the plays of Shakespeare and Sheridan

Consider the place of the analyzed motif in the plays. In the structure of "The Taming of the Shrew" and "School of Scandal", the studied motive occupies an unequal place. The character of Katarina (the obstinate wife) is the basis of the comedy The Taming of the Shrew. The main comedic line of the play is "taming", the transformation of Katarina from the most obstinate to the most submissive. Shakespeare introduces this main theme into the title of the play.

In the "School of Scandal", on the contrary, the image of Lady Teazle does not play such an important role. Initially, Sheridan had several versions of the play: "Study for the Teasles", which is a sketch for the theme of the Teasles; the second version, called "Emma" (later "Maria"), is an exposition of the theme of two brothers. Gradually, Sheridan combined both options, and from separate sketches of the play "Slanderers", depicting a company of gossip, he created a historical background for the mores of contemporary society (the theme of slander in high society).

In the final version, the author takes the farcical line of the Teasles into the background, and focuses on the history of the brothers and the salon of Lady Sneerwell. The intrigues of the salon are closely intertwined with the line of the Surfes brothers, and with the line of the Teasles spouses, therefore it is the theme of slander that is reflected in the title of the play.

4.2 Purposes of addressing the analyzed motif in the plays of Shakespeare and Sheridan

As already noted, the compared works are separated by about two hundred years. The Taming of the Shrew was written in 1593. The School of Scandal was published in 1777. Accordingly, the first play belongs to the Renaissance, and the second - to the "age of Enlightenment". Accordingly, the interpretation of the motive by Shakespeare and Sheridan cannot but be influenced by those ideas about the meaning and tasks of marriage, about the role of a man and a woman in marriage, which dominated in each of these eras. Both Sheridan and Shakespeare reacted in a certain way to the gender concepts that prevailed in their time (concepts of "social sex").

In Shakespeare's play, two points of view on woman and marriage collide: the medieval and the Renaissance. In accordance with the ideas of the Renaissance, Shakespeare destroys the medieval view of man and woman that goes into the past. At the same time, in Shakespeare's play, the patriarchal orders of the burgher environment described by him are strong: a woman must obey a man, her rights are severely limited. Katharina, who despises these orders and does not observe them, is sharply criticized by those around her. Tranio calls her "evil and wayward". Everyone compares her with her younger sister, Bianca, who is "the ideal of patience, ... modest in her meek silence." Katarina embodied the personality traits of the Renaissance, a free spirit and full of unspent strength, she is head and shoulders above her environment. Shakespeare writes that the resistance of such a person to the environment is not in vain, that she deserves happiness and can achieve it.

Sheridan pursues very different goals. At that time, there was an active discussion on the pages of newspapers and magazines on the issue of equal choice in love and marriage for both men and women. The woman received more rights than in previous eras, spread " female romance”, women's scientific societies, etc. Lady Teazle fell under the influence of the latest trends of the time, which she did not fully understand. This brought her into conflict with her husband. The proof of her naivete is the argument with Sir Peter, in which she calls "playing someone else's reputation" a privilege. Sheridan writes that the influence of society on family relationships is not always positive, and that the main thing in a family is not to follow the stereotypes imposed by society, but to listen to yourself, your feelings. Lady Teazle changed her behavior and her attitude towards her husband when she looked at him with an open mind, not relying on social stereotypes.

4.3 Analysis of the comparable situations considered in the plays of Shakespeare and Sheridan, and the form of marital warfare

In this section, the problem under study is an analysis of the comparable situations considered in the named works, and the form of marital warfare is a verbal battle, a squabble, a squabble. It is possible to identify the main points of contact between situations and images in the compared works. Both women marry people they don't like. The true face of her husband is not immediately revealed to both: Katarina - in the process of verbal squabbles with Petruchio, Lady Teazle - when she became an "unwitting witness" to Sir Peter's deep affection for her (scene in the library, act IV, phenomenon 3).

In both plays, the diving scenes are built on peculiar "hooks" in the characters' dialogues. The hero pronounces a phrase, the heroine clings to any word in it or to the whole phrase as a whole and plays it in her own way, and vice versa. Sometimes the characters, as if mimicking each other, build phrases according to the same syntactic constructions as the enemy.

"School of slander"

a) Sir Peter Teasle Lady Teasle, Lady Teasle, I won't let that happen!

Lady Teasle Sir Peter, Sir Peter, admit it or not, that's up to you...

b) Sir Peter Teasle Excellent, ma'am, excellent! So, then, the husband is deprived of any influence, any power?

Lady Teasle Power? Still! .. I assure you, you are old enough for this.

Sir Peter Teasle Old enough?... I will not bear to be ruined by your extravagance.

Lady Teasle By my extravagance? I can assure you that I am no more extravagant than a woman of the world should be.

Some diametrically opposed statements are built on the principle of syntactic parallelism, which further emphasizes the opposition of characters.

Sir Peter Teasle... you forget what your position was when I married you.

Lady Teasle Oh no, I don't forget.

"The Taming of the Shrew"

a) Petruchio Good morning, Kate for that s your name, I hear. Well have you heard, but something hard of hearing…

b) Katherina Asses are made to bear, and so you are. Women are made to bear, and so you are.

c) Petruchio For, knowing thee to be but young and light.Too light for such a swain as you to catch…

Let us dwell in more detail on the differences between the male and female characters of the play.

Comparative analysis male images in the plays under consideration

In this section, the problem under study is comparative analysis male images in the plays under consideration.

First of all, the characters live in a different era, they have different social status, they live in different social conditions and follow different norms of behavior. This leaves a certain imprint on the behavior of the characters.

Petruchio is a strong and bright rebellious person who is above the prejudices and stereotypes of his time. Initially, he appears to the reader as a ruined nobleman who dreams of "marrying a big dowry", Katarina is not interested in him as a person, and he is not afraid of her obstinacy, explaining that he traveled a lot, and his adventures were much more dangerous than a collision with a shrew woman. ( Have I not in my time heard lions roar? “Didn’t I hear the lions roar?” - translation by P. Melkova). Interest in Katarina as a person wakes up in him during Hortensio's story about the music lesson.

Now by the world, it is a lusty wench; love her ten times more then e er I did., how I long to have some chat with her!

I swear on my soul, a cheerful girl!

I became ten times more desirable.

Oh, to exchange a word with her!

(translated by P. Melkova)

Baptista hurries to introduce him to Katharina. Petruchio immediately comes up with a method of "taming". “As soon as he met her, Petruchio immediately figured out that her “obstinacy” was just fancy clothes. And he instantly put on a mask of "quirk". When he starves Katarina and doesn't let her sleep, he... doesn't break her. It's just his whim. "He conquers her with her own whim," as the servant Peter says (IV, 1)." On the way to Padua, Katarina unravels her husband's game. During this time, Petruchio was able to fully appreciate the sincerity and individuality of his wife, to understand that she was as bright an extraordinary person as he was, and in no way inferior to him, and fell in love with her. No wonder he demands a kiss from her. At the same time, he outwardly follows the customs of his society - the wife must obey her husband, this is the key to family happiness, marry, peace… and love, and quiet life - “love, peace and joy” (translated by P. Melkova). This formal observance of the rules is a kind of game for him. He taught Katarina to see this as a game too.

In contrast to Petruchio, Sir Peter, from the moment he met Lady Teazle, is interested in herself, initially - the daughter of a small landowner, modest, quiet. What is his horror and suffering when he realizes that she married him only because of his position in society and money, and her behavior is rapidly changing not for the better. … yet the worst of it is I doubt I love her or I should never bear all this . “And the worst thing is that I must love her, otherwise I would not have endured all this,” he says, talking about his misfortune. He sees the reason for his wife's bad behavior in the influence of the "slander society" on her. The reader does not immediately understand that he himself wears a kind of mask of an old grumpy husband, but in fact it is a kind, noble man who is sincerely attached to his wife. Therefore, he readily goes with her to reconciliation in the 1st phenomenon of the third act, and again despairs, having quarreled with her. His affection is so strong that, despite its obvious self-interest ( I want you to be in a charming sweet temper at this moment - do be in good humor d now and let me have two hundred Pounds will you? - “... I want to see you sweet and charming. So be in a good mood now and give me two hundred pounds ”- act III, phenomenon 1), he is going to give her 800 £ an annual payment and bequeath to her all his fortune in the event of his death. When he and his wife learn of Joseph's duplicity, he is glad that she is finally on the same page as him, and that her indifference towards him is beginning to fade. Sir Peter wants his wife not to argue with him, because he is older than her, because according to tradition, the husband is not at all “deprived of all influence, of all power”, after all, because he just wants to live in peace with the woman he loves . If Petruchio relies on the customs adopted in contemporary society and establishes relations in the family according to these customs, then Sir Peter is against the social mores of contemporary England. According to Sherwin's descriptions, women, along with men, abused alcohol, played cards, were far from the concept of a “virtuous person”, “liberty of morals reached the extreme”, and, of course, they honed their ability to slander at every opportunity. Sir Peter does not accept this society, maintaining relations with a limited circle of acquaintances (Sir Oliver, Rowley), and is very dissatisfied with the "charming circle of acquaintances" that Lady Teazle has got herself. When he sees that his wife has thrown off the mask of wit, is grateful to him for his help, is waiting for forgiveness and making peace, he happily goes to make peace with her (end of 2 phenomena, act V). Despite the fact that Sheridan leaves the scene of reconciliation of the Teasles behind the scenes, from the further behavior of the spouses, we understand that peace has reigned in their family.

Thus, Petruchio finds in Katharina a personality that is in no way inferior to him and teaches her to approach the observance of the rules, social mores and traditions as an exciting game, and therefore plays with her.

Sir Peter comes to terms with his wife and finds family happiness when the spouses manage to free themselves from the stereotypes imposed on them by modern society, which has plunged into slander, licentiousness and other vices.

Comparative analysis female images in the plays under consideration

In this section, the problem under study is a comparative analysis of female images in the plays under consideration.

In the society described by Shakespeare, a woman's manifestation of her character is unthinkable. Katarina is considered an "evil cat", a wayward and rude girl. In our time, according to some Shakespeare scholars, "Katarina's obstinacy ... is not "obstinacy" and not "quarrelsome", but a daring struggle for the rights of a woman as a person. In support of this point of view, we can cite the words of the heroine herself:

What! Shall I be appointed hours, as though, be like, knew not what to take and what to leave? Ha!

Always do everything as others want!

Don't stand up, don't sit down! Yes, how! Very necessary!

(Translated by P. P. Gnedich)

Katarina is cramped and bored within the framework into which society drives her. As a strong, uncommon and proud personality, she struggles with this and as a means of struggle chooses the mask of an obstinate girl who does not comply with due standards. When she encounters Petruchio's display of the same out-of-character behavior, she is at first surprised, confused, and begins to agree with everything he says, as long as he leaves her alone.

But when Petruchio addresses Vincenzio as a girl, she "guesses that Petruchio's 'obstinacy' is only a mask. And having guessed ..., she begins to easily ... agree with him, ”accepting the rules of the game. She finds in her husband a man who understands and loves her, and falls in love with the answer.

Sheridan describes a situation where a young woman marries a man who is much older than herself and belongs to a different circle of society. Lady Teazle trades from a quiet, boring village for a bustling city, fashions and outfits that quickly go to her head. At the same time, she is quite naive and frivolous. It was all the easier for the "pedlars of lies" from Lady Sneerwell's salon to acquaint her with the rules adopted in their society. "You've become as bad as all of them!" (Original: "They made you as bad as they are" - Aye they have made you just as bad any one of the society ) exclaims Sir Peter. Lady Teazle herself explains her slander as follows: “... when I make fun of people, I have no malice towards them. If I say something offensive, it is only because I am having fun; and I'm sure they pay me the same" ( But I vow I bear no malice against the People I abuse, when I say an ill-naturated thing, tis out of pure Good Humor and I take it for granted they deal exactly in the same manner with me ). But the real reason for her desire to be in society is to keep up with fashion. She behaves like a typical provincial who has got to the capital, and is driven by vanity. Out of vanity, she buys "something fancy" and begs Sir Peter for money. Her husband is not a beloved person for her, but a person who can provide for her financially. She does not see that Sir Peter loves her. But when she finds out about this, finds out that her husband is ready to forgive and support her in a difficult situation (scene in the library, act IV), she stops arguing with him at every turn. “Your tenderness for me, which I was an involuntary witness, penetrated my heart so deeply that if I left here without this shameful exposure, my future life would prove how sincere my gratitude is” ( The Tenderness you express "d for me, when I am sure you could not think I was a witness to it, has penetrated so to my Heart that had I left the Place without the Shame of this discovery, my future life should have spoken the sincerity of my Gratitude ), she tells her husband after exposing Sir Joseph. She is sincerely ashamed that she went along with Joseph, not noticing his hypocrisy, and treated the person who loves her so lightly. She ceases to perceive witty verbal battles with her husband as an exciting game, and puts up with him.

It is unlikely that she fell in love with her husband like Katharina, although like Katharina she saw his true face and appreciated him. At least in act V, she supports Sir Peter in everything and never once objected to him. Joseph Surfes they condemn with absolute unanimity, and with equal unanimity stand up for Sir Oliver.

Thus, if Katarina argues with her husband because of her unwillingness to obey anyone, especially the arrogant upstart, as Petruchio seemed to her at first, then Lady Teazle's behavior is dictated by the vanity of a provincial who entered into an unequal marriage with an unloved, but rich man.

Conclusion

Thus, summing up the results of my work, in accordance with the tasks set, we can draw the following conclusions:

The theme of marital war began to develop actively during the Middle Ages in farces and fables. Their authors, under the influence of church doctrine, blamed a woman for many family troubles. Chaucer adheres to the same position, satirically depicting a weaver from Bath who wants to become the head of the family. In The Taming of a Shrew, the direct predecessor of Shakespeare's play, the idea of ​​the wife's unconditional subordination to her husband is also repeated, supported by a direct reference to the Bible. Thus, the early interpretations of the topic are not diverse and are reinforced by ideas of religion, which is not surprising, given the important role played by the church at that time.

Shakespeare borrows from his nameless predecessor the motif of taming coming from the fablio and reworks the primitive scheme of subordinating the obstinate wife to her husband into a relationship between two individuals who rise to a higher level of relationship and mutual understanding in the process of skirmishes and bickering.

Sheridan, in general following the traditions of the comedy of the Restoration, changes his attitude towards his spouse. The mockery of the unfortunate husband is replaced by sympathy for his unenviable position, and the action of the play turns in his favor.

The female characters in the selected plays have varying degrees of importance: Katarina is at the center of the comedy, Lady Teazle is a sideline participant in the play.

The heroines are in a similar situation: an unloved husband whom the heroine does not understand, and a difficult path to understanding her husband. To build dialogues between spouses, similar syntactic constructions are used.

Petruchio outwardly nevertheless social norms and teaches his wife to see happiness in observing social mores and traditions. Sir Peter, on the contrary, is against the mores of his contemporary England, plunged into slander, licentiousness and gambling. Petruchio falls in love with his wife in the process of taming, Sir Peter tries to find a common language with his wife precisely because he loves her.

Katarina's obstinacy is a protest against people who do not understand her and drive her into the social framework she hates. As soon as she is convinced that her husband is not like everyone else, she stops arguing with him. The bad behavior of Lady Teazle is explained by her dislike for her husband and the vanity of a man from the provinces who entered into an unequal marriage and moved to the capital. She stopped arguing with her husband when she realized that he loves her, stands up for her and forgives her.

Thus, Shakespeare's characters learn to see each other as full-fledged individuals, without violating the traditions accepted in the society in which they live. The heroes of Sheridan are to turn a blind eye to the stereotypes imposed by society, and listen and hear each other. Both couples reconcile, coming to an understanding.

List of used literature

1. Shakespeare W. The Taming of the Shrew / W. Shakespeare // Comedies; per. from English. / Comp. and intro. from A. Anikst; ill. A. Brodsky. - M.: Pravda, 1987. - p. 123 - 134.

Sheridan R.B. School of slander: A play / transl. from English. M. Lozinsky. - St. Petersburg Publishing Group "Azbuka-classika", 2010. - 160 p.

Chaucer D. The Canterbury Tales: Per. from English. I. Kashkina and O. Rumina / Introduction. Art. and adj. I. Kashkina. Il. E. Shukaeva. - M.: Pravda, 1988. - 560 p.

Story foreign literature XVIII century: textbook. for students of philology. specialist. un-tov / ed. V.P. Neustroev, R.M. Samarin. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow. un-ta, 1974. - 414 p.

Andreev M.L. Classical European comedy: structure and forms / M.L. Andreev. - M.: RRGU, 2011. - 234 p.

Stein A.L. Cheerful art of comedy / A.L. Matte. - M.: Yurid. lit., 1990. - 336 p.

Anikst A.A. The first editions of Shakespeare / A.A. Anixt. - M.: Book, 1974. - 160 p.

Anikst A.A. The playwright's craft / A.A. Anixt. - M.: Sov. writer, 1974. - 607 p.

Anikst A.A. Creativity of Shakespeare / A.A. Anixt. - M.: Goslit - publishing house, 1963. - 615 p.

Anikst A.A. Theater of the era of Shakespeare / A.A. Anixt. - M., Art, 1965. - 328 p.

Anikst A. Shakespeare // URL: http:www.royalib.ru/book/anikst_a/shekspir/html (accessed 28.09.2012).

Bartoshevich A. Comic in Shakespeare. Lecture on the special course "Shakespeare" for students of the theater department of the theater university / A. Bartoshevich. - M.: 1975.

Marshova N.M. Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816) / N.M. Marshov. - M.: Art, 1960. - 122 p.

Mikhailov A.D. The problem of the genesis of anti-bourgeois satire in fablio / A.D. Mikhailov // From Francois Villon to Marcel Proust: in 3 volumes / Comp. T.A. Mikhailov. - T. III. - M.: Languages Slavic cultures, 2011. - p.83-95.

Mikhailov A.D. Medieval French farce / A.D. Mikhailov // From Francois Villon to Marcel Proust: in 3 volumes / Comp. T.A. Mikhailov. - T. III. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic cultures, 2011. - p. 137-167.

Morozov M.M. Comedy "The Taming of the Shrew" / M.M. Morozov // Selected / Ed.: E.M. Buromskaya-Morozova and others; intro. Art. M.V. Urnova. - M.: Art, 1979. - p.303-327.

Sherwin O. Sheridan: trans. from English. / O. Shervin. - M.: Art, 1978. - 290 p.

18 Auburn Mark S. Sheridan s Comedies: Their Contexts and Achievements / By M.S. Auburn. - Lincoln; Univ. of Nebraska Press, cop. 1977. - IX, 221 p.

Loftis J. Sheridan and the Drama of Georgian England / By John Loftis. - Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976. - XI, 174 p.

Created more than three centuries ago, Shakespeare's tragedies, historical chronicles and comedies still live, excite and shake the imagination of the audience.

Little information has been preserved about the life of the great playwright. Shakespeare did not write memoirs and did not keep a diary. Nor do we have his correspondence with contemporaries. No manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays have survived. Only a few documents have come down to us, in which various circumstances of his life are mentioned. Each of these documents, even if they contain only a few words about Shakespeare, has been examined and interpreted. The rarest historical values ​​are those few pieces of paper on which a few lines are written by Shakespeare's hand or simply bears his signature.

Shakespeare owns a cycle of 154 sonnets, published (without the knowledge or consent of the author) in 1609, but apparently written as early as the 1590s. In any case, already in 1598 a message flashed about his “sweet sonnets known to relatives and friends” and which were one of the most brilliant examples of Western European lyrics of the Renaissance.

The form that managed to become popular among English poets under Shakespeare's pen sparkled with new facets, containing a huge range of feelings - from intimate experiences to deep philosophical reflections and generalizations. And yet, Shakespeare's main business, the passion of his whole life, was the work of a playwright, the creation of plays. The language of his tragedies is distinguished by extraordinary richness and brilliance. His dramaturgy occupies an honorable place in the repertoire of theaters around the world.

The jubilant joy of life, the glorification of a healthy, strong, courageous, brightly feeling, boldly thinking person - this is the main thing in Shakespeare's first plays - the comedies The Taming of the Shrew, The Comedy of Errors, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, "Twelfth Night", written in 1593-1600. They express an important idea for the Renaissance: a person should be judged not by dress, not by knowledge, not by estate and wealth, but by his behavior and personal qualities. It is difficult to find in world drama a play as fabulously cheerful, clear, magical as A Midsummer Night's Dream. Shakespeare's poetic imagination gave rise to fantastic, close to folk tales images of the Mustard Seed. Cobwebs, Moth. Their participation in the fate of those who love leads to a happy ending.

All Shakespeare's works have gained popularity in modern times, despite the large gap in historical time and the sacrament, a small amount of information about the author himself.

Almost all of Shakespeare's comedies were written during the first period of his work - from 1592 to 1600. This period was characterized by an optimistic attitude and belief in the triumph of the humane principle. At this time, comedies such as The Comedy of Errors, The Taming of the Shrew, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, Two Verona, Love's Labour's Lost, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Venetian Merchant”, “As You Like It”, “The Merry Wives of Windsor”, “The End Is the Crown of Business”.

In the era of Shakespeare, comedy was understood as a play that could amuse the viewer, bring him joy and have a happy ending. The plot also combined comic situations with tragic events. But the playwright is no less interested in the characters' characters than the comedy of the situation. Shakespeare's comedies are, first of all, comedies of characters. Among actors comedies the main place belongs to the heroines. It is they who lead the intrigue, boldly defend their right to decide their own fate. Shakespeare's comedies are notable for their ease of development of action, liveliness of dialogue, and truly folk humor. At the same time, they pose serious social problems. Comedies affirm the human right to happiness, advocate the disclosure of all the possibilities of the human personality. Social criticism is also palpable here: Shakespeare ridicules the depravity and emptiness of the nobility, the stupidity of the bourgeoisie and the greed of the clergy.

But in general, the atmosphere of the comedies speaks of Shakespeare's optimism, of his faith in the successful resolution of contradictions.

The comedy "The Taming of the Shrew" was written by Shakespeare in 15 (93?), but for the first time it was published only after his death - in 1623. There are still unresolved disputes about the sources of this comedy.

In 1594, an anonymous play was published - "A funny invented story, called - the taming of one shrew." Everything in the anonymous play - the characters with their personalities, even the main "moral" of the play - corresponds to Shakespeare's comedy. There are only minor differences. Anonymous does not take place in Padua, but in Athens; all the names of the characters are different: the main character is called Ferrando, the heroine is always abbreviated as Ket; she has not one, but two sisters - Emilia and Filena, each of whom is wooed by one young man, while Shakespeare has one sister who has several admirers; Anonymous does not have a secret marriage, and the whole outcome is unclear.

The alternation of episodes and the development of action in both plays are the same, and in some places one of them directly copies the other. However, the text itself is different, and there are only six lines in the entire play that match exactly.

Shakespeare was characterized by such a way of processing other people's plays when, borrowing the plot and images, he creates a completely new text, where he uses only two or three phrases or expressions of the old play, but at the same time, all its content unusually deepens, decorates and fills with a completely new meaning. . In The Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare showed a subtle understanding of human nature. There is controversy among commentators on this play about its morality. Some tried to see in the play a defense of the medieval principle of unconditional subordination of a woman to a man, others considered it simply as a joke, devoid of ideological content.

Of all the characters in the play, only three are bright, well-developed characters: these are Katarina and Petruchio, and Bianca. The hero of the comedy Petruchio is a typical man of modern times, brave, free from prejudices, full of strength. He longs for struggle, success, wealth, and meets a worthy opponent in the person of Katarina. Catarina, pacified by her smart fiancé Petruchio, turned into an ideal wife in good manners. The duplicity of the stiff Bianca is contrasted with the sincerity of the obstinate Katarina. At the end of the play, when a kind of test of wives takes place, it turns out that Bianca, who used to be meek by nature, has turned into a quarrelsome capricious, while Katarina herself has become the embodiment of meekness and friendliness. The play ends with her famous monologue, in which she affirms the natural weakness of women and calls them to submit to their husbands.

All other heroes of the play are conditional figures, stereotyped grotesques. This corresponds to the farcical nature of the action: all sorts of tricks, brawls, sheer laughter, without lyricism, tender, ideal feelings, which are in the almost simultaneous, farcical "Comedy of Errors".

Shakespeare shared the opinion generally accepted in his era that the husband should be the head of the family. But at the same time, by showing the richness of Katarina's nature, he emphasizes the humanistic idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe internal equivalence of women and men.

The modern reader does not quite understand the compositional connection of the beginning and main theme plays.

However, Shakespeare wanted to show what distinguished the aristocrats in contemporary society. He shows this with a fairly striking example of a coppersmith.

Coppersmith Christopher Sly falls into a drunken sleep at the threshold of the tavern. The lord returns from the hunt with huntsmen and servants and, finding the sleeping man, decides to play a trick on him. His servants take Sly to a luxurious bed, wash him in fragrant water, and change into an expensive dress. When Sly wakes up, he is told that he is a noble lord who has been overcome with madness and has slept for fifteen years, dreaming that he is a coppersmith. At first, Sly insists that he is a peddler by birth, a comber by education, a bugbear by vicissitudes of fate, and by his present trade a coppersmith, but gradually he allows himself to be convinced that he is really an important person and married to a charming lady (in fact, this is the lord's page in disguise) . The lord cordially invites a traveling acting troupe to his castle, initiates its members into a prank plan, and then asks them to play a hilarious comedy, ostensibly to help an imaginary aristocrat get rid of an illness.

So, it should be noted that such an introduction and showing the necessary aspect of the life of aristocrats is a very important element in this work.

Thus, Shakespeare reveals not only the main idea, but also shows how society is having fun.

However, the main thing in the play can be called one condition on which the whole comedy stands. This is the Baptist condition.

He announces to Bianca's suitors that he will not marry Bianca until he finds a husband for his eldest daughter. He asks for help to find teachers of music and poetry for Bianchi, so that the poor thing does not get bored in forced seclusion. Hortensio and Gremio decide to put aside their rivalry temporarily in order to find a husband for Katarina. This is not an easy task, because the devil himself cannot cope with it, the main character is so malicious and stubborn for all that.

However, as noted above, the ending is unpredictable. Katarina takes the place of Bianchi, surprising everyone with her meekness and friendliness.

So, it should be noted that Shakespeare's work is diverse, each of his dramas, comedies, tragedies is unique, since it covers, in addition to the problems of modernity, psychological aspect personality. The worldview of the playwright was influenced by events and political changes. Shakespeare's work of all periods is characterized by a humanistic worldview: a deep interest in a person, in his feelings, aspirations and passions, sorrow for the suffering and irreparable mistakes of people, a dream of happiness for a person and all mankind as a whole.

The main idea of ​​the Renaissance was the idea of ​​a worthy person. Time has subjected this idea to a tragic test, the evidence of which was the work of Shakespeare. When creating his works, Shakespeare was often in the power literary heritage his predecessors, but the appeal to him served only as a form for the works that he endowed with a completely new, deep content. True, feelings are the main aesthetic principle of Shakespeare. No false falsehood, no false pathos, which is why everything that came out of his pen is so impressive.