TITLE:"Loytering in Love": Ovid's Heroides, Hospitality, and Humanist Education in The Taming of the Shrew
SOURCE:Criticism 40 no1 27-53 Wint '98

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.
    In the Heroycall Epistles (1567), George Turberville describes the ground situation of Ovid's Heroides 7 (Dido's letter to Aeneas) as follows:
    The courteous Queene
        The wandering Trojan prayes
       To make abode with her:
        She likes Aeneas so,
       As hostage with her heart at once
        on him she did bestowe.
       The messenger at length
        From mightie Jove was sent
       To new Carthago to demand
 The Trojan what he meant
       In Libie land to lodge
 And loyter so in love
       And not to search the lotted land
        That was for his behove.(FN1) Turberville here touches upon two significant aspects of the Heroides that have broad implications for the work's uses by early modern writers. First, Turberville emphasizes the fact, often repeated throughout his translation, that the hero acts as guest to the hosting heroine. The second, and related, point is one frequently raised in relation to Aeneas' story (indeed, it is ultimately Virgilian), but with which Dido herself would disagree: that is, that Aeneas' Carthaginian sojourn represents a "loytering" in love, "effeminate" slippage into oblivious leisure, or as Marlowe's Aeneas describes it, a "female drudgery."(FN2)
    Both of these aspects of Turberville's interpretation respond to tensions inherent in the Heroides' treatment of the "heroycall," and in the text's Renaissance reception. By offering epistles ostensibly composed by women abandoned by their otherwise "heroic" lovers, Ovid's text questions the classical epic's conventional genderings and challenges its myopia, which foregrounds military ("masculine") matters at the expense of domestic or amorous ones (coded "feminine"). If the heroic is undermined by its confrontation with the domestic realm in Ovid's original, however, the medieval and early modern tradition of "moralized" readings of the Heroides redirected its contents toward mainstream, "epic" views.(FN3) By framing the complaints within a vision of the heroic that vindicates the heroes' acts of abandonment, these moralized readings served to reinstate the epic's hierarchized couplings of male-female, heroic-domestic, and public-private which are challenged in Ovid's original. Similarly, Turberville's emphasis on the guest-host relationship recasts the Ovidian household according to early modern rites of hospitality, where "the image of the household [serves] as a microcosm within which true principles of order could be articulated."(FN4) In doing so, he subordinates the tradition of moralized commentary to a "natural law" of hospitality within which he interprets the behavior of the Heroides' characters. While the end result of Turberville's substitution may resemble the commentators' goal, to reaffirm social and moral hierarchies and the relationships that support them, his means promise to replace didacticism with delight, the restraint of the schoolroom with the pleasures of the banquet.
    As a work that as often appears in Shakespeare's age to undermine authoritative, epic values as it appears to be tamed by moralizing commentaries, the Heroides is tense with contradictions that make it difficult to assess the meanings of allusions to the text. Thus, when Lucentio in The Taming of the Shrew casts himself as Dido to Bianca's Aeneas, he not only calls forth the idea of "loytering" in idle love common in didactic treatments of the Dido episode, but he also transvalues that idleness (ranking love above philosophy, Ovid above Aristotle) while reversing the narrative's gender roles:

But see, while idly I stood looking on,
I found the effect of love-in-idleness,
And now in plainness do confess to thee,
That art to me as secret and as dear
As Anna to the Queen of Carthage was,
Tranio, I burn, I pine, I perish, Tranio,
If I achieve not this young modest girl.(FN5) Similarly, Antony's slip (substituting Aeneas for Sychaeus) in Antony and Cleopatra participates in an Ovidian "misrepresentation" of the Virgilian source that seeks to replace Roman with Egyptian values. At the same time, Antony's "militarizing" of the inhabitants of the Elysian Fields as "troops" asks whether such a violent appropriation is possible, while playing on the common Renaissance merger of eros and heros that informs the play's marriage of Egypt and Rome:(FN6)
Eros!--I come, my Queen:--Eros!--Stay for me.
Where souls do couch on flowers, we'll hand in hand,
And with our sprightly port make the ghosts gaze:
Dido, and her Aeneas, shall want troops,
And all the haunt be ours.(FN7) In order to clarify the role of the Heroides in one Shakespearean play, The Taming of the Shrew, we do best to examine the uses to which the text was put in early modern culture--by readers, commentators, educators, and imitators. The appearance of the Heroides as a tool used by Lucentio to court Bianca responds to early modern treatments of the work, in which its contradictory meanings complicate humanist discussions of women's education and the didactic literature suitable to fostering appropriate feminine behavior. This instance in the subplot resonates throughout the play's efforts to construct the household by "instructing" women in their domestic roles, and clarifies the issues at stake in Shakespeare's choice of sources (especially humanist, as opposed to folklore, treatments of taming). Turberville's enormously popular translation attained so wide a readership that it was almost certainly known to Shakespeare, and its influence is clearly felt in The Shrew. Turberville's normative vision of hospitality and its efforts to distinguish men's appropriate pleasures from the illicit pleasures of women inform not only Kate's and Bianca's courtships, but also the play's self-conscious constructions of domestic and theatrical spaces. The two works are similar in their portrayals of the pleasure to be derived from witnessing the "domestication" of Ovid's heroines in translation or the "taming" of women in marriage. Thus hospitality and humanist didacticism appear in each as centripetal forces articulating domestic and social roles and obligations, especially of women. These forces, however, are undermined by the less "tamed" aspects of Ovid's work. Shakespeare's recasting of the Ovidian guest-host paradigm, in which a stranger disrupts the domestic space, as a student-teacher relationship joins Turberville's concerns about the household and its violation (by heroic or humanist interlopers) with the play's parodic treatment of humanist programs of education for women. While tensions between pleasure and force, implicit in the Ovidian casting of the "heroic," reveal the stubborn continuity between hospitality and humanist commentary in Turberville, Shakespeare derives dramatic and thematic energy from these tensions, giving air to the shrewish refusal of containment that Turberville and Ovid's commentators seek, in different ways, to suppress.

    In its original form, the Heroides actively reevaluates and reverses conventional treatments of masculine and feminine roles and discourses, public and private spheres, and domestic and heroic activities.(FN8) Ovid renews the Virgilian Dido's challenge to epic negotium and reiterates it in the voices of the other heroines who join her.(FN9) The parallel between Ovid in exile, abandoned by Augustus, and the heroines, left behind by the literary exemplars favored by Roman imperium, has often been noted.(FN10) This association challenges the prominence of political and public affairs by focusing on the complaints of these dispossessed figures, reinscribing the imperial epic within a personal, domestic sphere populated, if not ruled, by abandoned women and the exiled poet. Throughout, the epistles document the displacement of heroic concerns by those of the household: nine of the epistles (those of Penelope, Phyllis, Hypsipyle, Dido, Ariadne, Medea, Sappho, Paris and Helen) stage breaches of hospitality by disruptive guests, while the remainder foreground the household within such themes as abandonment, incest, and exogamy.(FN11) The epistles elaborate a domestic space which at once is penetrated by the active "heroism" of military men, and articulates an alternative form of "feminine" heroism rooted in passive endurance.
    The moralized treatment of the Heroides in Renaissance editions and translations, however, subdued Ovid's heroines by depicting them as examples of vice and virtue.(FN12) Comments such as those of Ubertinus Clericus, written in 1481 and persistently reprinted throughout the sixteenth century, typify this reading of the heroic epistle as useful in instructing men (and some women) with figures originally intended as moral exempla:

Matera vero est ethica id est moralis: quod describit varios virorum; muliereque mores: intentio poetae est ... ostendere: quantum hic differant in mulieribus pudicis: & impudicis: qui in aliis casti amoris pietatem: in aliis libidinis & furoris incontinentiam probant. Itaque aliae ad laudem & imitationem: aliae ad libidinis & impudicitae destationem memorantur.(FN13)
(The matter truly is ethical, that is moral, because it describes the conduct of various men and women; the poet's intention is ... to demonstrate how love differs in modest and immodest women, showing in some the piety of chaste love and in others the incontinence of lustful fury. Thus some women are recalled for praise and imitation, and others for the condemnation of lust and immodesty.)

    Commentators' views of the Heroides as a compendium of moral exempla reflect the work's pervasive use throughout Europe as a textbook for schoolboys in the sixteenth century.(FN14) Erasmus, recommending the work as a source of exemplary Latin epistles, warned against "the amatoria of Naso, in which perhaps it would not be safe to exercise callow youth," but approved of the Heroides since "[they] are more chaste."(FN15) From the early sixteenth century on, Ovid's heroines, domesticated by the commentators, became familiar to students within upper level schools. Thus the heroines' complaints, once aligned with those of the male poet in exile, were again affiliated with the male writer, as models of rhetorical mastery for imitation by young men in transition from the domestic realm of the household, which they had left behind, to the world of public affairs, which they had not yet entered.
    While Latin editions were being used for rhetorical training, vernacular editions of the work proliferated throughout Europe, apparently intended for a more popular, less erudite audience. These works share with the Latin texts a didactic framing of the heroines' epistles that reflects the medieval tradition of the moralized Ovid. But more specifically, one finds in these works thorough-going and concentrated moralizations directed explicitly toward women readers.(FN16) The Italian translations of Remigio Fiorentino (1555) and Camillo Camilli (1587), for example, include prefatory "argomenti" that provide didactic and informational glosses to each epistle. Remigio observes that Heroides 1 (Penelope to Ulysses) demonstrates the praiseworthy "honesty of a modest woman" ("l'honestà di una pudica Donna"),(FN17) a characteristic which he seeks to foster in contemporary women. Similarly, a 1556 French edition with commentary by Charles Fontaine prefaces Heroides 2 (Phyllis to Demophoon) with the remark, "toute femme doit bien ici prendre un bel example de ne mettre son amour trop ardemment et folement en un homme, qui qu'il soit: car la fin de folle amour jamais n'en fut bonne" ("every woman must learn here an excellent example not to place her love too ardently and foolishly in a man, whomever he may be: because the end of insane love has never been good").(FN18)
    These annotated editions attest to the wide use of the moralized Heroides within humanist programs of educating young men and women, and illuminate the different aims and beliefs involved in the instruction of the sexes.(FN19) While annotated Latin texts reflect the revamping of Ovid as a teacher of virtue rather than praeceptor amoris within the rhetorical education of boys, annotated vernacular editions indicate a similar effort directed toward a female readership. When educating women, however, the commentators stressed not rhetorical mastery but moral behavior: preserving chastity on the model of Penelope, for instance, or avoiding the kind of "disperazione ne gli animi nostri" ("desperation of our spirits") that, according to Remigio, afflicted Dido.(FN20)
    Humanist formulations of the principles governing women's education suggest the "double standard" underlying the different styles of annotation in the Latin and vernacular editions, and shed light on the uncertain place of Ovidian works in this pedagogical program. These discussions acknowledge a paradox between the rhetorical content of humanist teaching and the female student's essentially homebound experience.(FN21) Given both the domestic character of a woman's activities and her moral frailty, humanists espoused a program of instruction in which virtue was the cornerstone and from which certain texts were excluded. Bruni, for instance, suggests, "Let religion and morals, therefore, hold the first place in the education of a Christian lady,"(FN22) and Vives concurs that a concern for "shamefastness" ("verecundia") ought to govern women's studies:(FN23) "For men must be occupied both at home and abroad, both in their own matters and for the common weal.... [But] as for a woman, she hath no charge to see to, but her honesty and chastity. Wherefore when she is informed of that, she is sufficiently appointed"(FN24) ("quoniam viri et domi, et foris, et in re privata, et in republica versantur.... [F]eminae unica est cura pudicitiae; id circo cum haec exposita est, abunde illa dimitti videtur instructa").(FN25) Since the studies undertaken by women should enhance the knowledge and virtues required of her domestic role without tempting her already fallen nature, Ovidian erotic verse was not recommended. Giovanni Bruto (as translated by Salter in 1579) condemns "unwise Fathers, who beyng more daintye, and effeminate in followyng their pleasures, then wise and diligent in seekyng the profite of their Daughters,"(FN26) offer "the Lascivious bookes, of Ovide, Catullus, Propercius, Tibullus, and in Virgill of Eneas and Dido,"(FN27) with the result that they "make her mynde (beeyng of itself verie delicate) more feble and effemynate."(FN28) Vives, too, rejects "Ovid's books of love"(FN29) ("arte amandi Ovidii")(FN30) for study by women on the basis of the sex's "weak discretion"(FN31) ("judicio invalido").(FN32)
    As Vives' comments suggest, the Ovidian work most often singled out for censure by humanist educators was the Ars amatoria. The moralized Ovid, however, might be seen as beneficial for study by women, insofar as the works could be made to teach chastity and obedience. Presumably, unannotated editions of the Heroides would be considered harmful when brought before a female reader. Such editions, in fact, began appearing with greater frequency as the sixteenth century wore on. These unannotated Latin works sometimes appeared alone, but more often were bound with Ovid's collected amorous works, intimately associating the Heroides with the Ars amatoria and locating it within a group of texts that were unsuitable for women from the humanist point of view.(FN33) If the commentaries on the Heroides sought to render the potentially subversive heroines "chaste and modest" and to restrain them within clearly defined categories of gender and genre, the text offered without a domesticating gloss represented a far less stable and potentially far more dangerous work.
    Among such works one finds Turberville's Heroycall Epistles. Appearing in the first wave of Elizabethan translations of Ovid in the 1560s, Turberville's work is unique in its lack of a moralizing gloss.(FN34) Golding's description of the Metamorphoses, for example, as "Not more delyghtfull too the eare than frutefull too the mynd,"(FN35) is typical of these glosses. As evidence of this delightful teaching, Golding provides more than 800 lines of prefatory verse to moralize the stories that follow. Turberville strikes a very different chord when he writes in his prefatory verse, "Go (Slender Muse) and make report to men / That meer desire to pleasure them indeed / Made me in hand to take the praisefull pen" (vii). Releasing the epistles from their usual moralized framework, Turberville presents the heroines' complaints for the pleasure of the (male) reader, with little regard for further didactic purposes per se. While he does provide prefatory "arguments" for the epistles, they supply narrative or historical background for the letters and only infrequently comment on characters' moral or immoral behavior.(FN36) The striking popularity of Turberville's translation, which went through at least four editions by the end of the century,(FN37) suggests both his success in entertaining readers and the impact of the reversal of didacticism he undertakes: in the Heroy-call Epistles one finds the beginning of a movement which, by the 1590s, resulted in Ovid being seen by "many writers, readers, and playgoers [as] a source of poetic and even licentious delight rather than moral edification."(FN38)
    Turberville's emphasis on the pleasure available in his "trifling toye" (vii) responds to the paradoxical status of Ovid's work vis-à-vis the "heroycall" from which its name is derived. Prompted by the antiheroic discourse of Ovid's women, Turberville puts forth conflicting readings of the heroic and, by extension, of the type of pleasure that men might take in observing the suffering of the abandoned heroines. His concept of the "heroycall" turns away from humanist ideas of delightful teaching, toward the pleasures to be afforded the reader, and the hero, by hospitality. By treating the epistles through a filter comprised of early modern ideas of hospitality and its violation, Turberville constructs a "heroic household," a complex space in which infractions of the law of hospitality are finally made to reaffirm that law. The pleasure of the gentleman reader lies in witnessing the taming of Ovid's heroines within a transhistorical, universally valid social code. Thus exemplarity gives way to pleasure: the heroines' epistles may not be nourishing fare, but they are, Turberville hopes, "toothsome to the taste" (ix).
    In his retrieval of Ovid's text on terms governed by a perceived continuity between classical Roman and early modern versions of hospitality, Turberville elides semiotic differences accruing to Ovid's work in relation to different readerships (in imperial Rome or Elizabethan England). Thus in his address "To the Reader," Turberville casts himself and Ovid as "co-hosts" to the guest-reader at the banquet of the text, urging his audience to "play a friendfull guestes part, & mislike not anything that shalbe served without just cause" (ix). Bridging the cultural and temporal distances between himself and Ovid (which, in theory, necessitate extensive glosses), Turberville portrays both domestic and gender relationships as natural and innate.(FN39) His idea of a natural "law of hospitality" parallels Giovanni della Casa's, who remarks, "albeit the lawes have inioyned no payne for unmanerly & grose behaviours ... nature herselfe punisheth them with sharpe & shrewde correction."(FN40)
    The image of banquet in the Heroycall Epistles reflects Turberville's treatment of hospitality and its pleasure. This emblem of hospitality appears in Turberville's prefatory enticement of the reader with the common Renaissance metaphor (ultimately Platonic) of the book as food:

I have heere at length bid thee (I say) to a base banquet to sharpen thy stomack & procure thy appetite to finer fare. Hoping that thou wilt not scorne or loth any dish that shall be set before thee. If it be so that thou mislike anything, impute the blame to the Cooke. For doubtlesse the Cates of themselves in their kinde, are passing curious, but for want of cunning in dressing the same, may appear nothing delectable in the eye, nor toothsome to the taste. The feast was devised long agone by Ovid at Rome, & passing well liked in learned Italie: no lesse for diversitie of dishes, than copy of confictes. (ix)

    Thus Turberville casts himself as a "Cooke" who must convey Ovid's Roman feast to his English guests. His translation involves, in other words, domesticating Ovid's "curious Cates" for the pleasure of an audience unused to such exotic delicacies.
    Moreover, the banquet metaphor echoes the conflations in the epistles of the public, "heroic" world of men and the private, "domestic" world of women, since the banquet itself is an event that attempts to insert and reaffirm political alliances within the realm of the household while simultaneously opening up household space as public space. The banquet is a synecdoche of Turberville's heroic household. It is at odds with Ovid's antiheroism, since Turberville's treatment of the heroes' breaches of hospitality is geared toward asserting the natural and necessary relationship between guest and host and its universal relevance. Like the practice of hospitality itself, Turberville's household enlists hospitable pleasures to affirm the social and familial hierarchies that they adorn.
    Finally, the image of text as banquet and its attendant claim that pleasure, rather than profit, is the primary goal of Turberville's translation resonate when juxtaposed with the concerns voiced by humanist educators about the effects of literature on women. In this context, the conservative concept of "the great feast at which all are seated [as] the living embodiment of ... the great chain of being,"(FN41) gives way to the idea of banqueting as fruitless reveling. While Guazzo describes an exemplary feast, so that "by the fourme of this Banquette menne should learne to avoyde confused disorder and ryotte, used commonlie in Banquettes,"(FN42) he also warns that daughters who "haunteth feastes and banquets" display "licentious and lascivious behaviour."(FN43) Thus banquets appear to be as unbecoming and dangerous to women as "Lascivious bookes" might be. Edward Hake's warning to parents of the effects on their daughters of "amorous books, vaine stones, and fonde trifeling fancies"(FN44) aligns reading and reveling in the figures of "the women of Perse land" who "after reading of pernicious, unchaste and godlesse bookes ... accompany in pleasures and banquets, young amorous Roisters, & mischievous varlettes, making the ende of one pleasure to be the beginning of another."(FN45) The idea that the "orderly" English feast has as its obverse the "lawless" reveling of the infidel (whether defined geographically or temporally) is also evident in humanist condemnations of the heroines' enjoyment of the pleasures of hospitality. For instance, Maphaeus Vegius moralizes Dido's story by warning that she "fell madly in love with her guest, a mere stranger, gave up the rule of her people, [and] spent her time in such pursuits as merrymaking and feasting."(FN46) Throughout Turberville's translation, he emphasizes the "appropriate" pleasure to be derived from the heroines' performances as that afforded to the male guest by hospitality; the pleasure of feasting on Ovid's domesticated "cates" (that is, on the heroines' complaints themselves). This idea of pleasure, dependent upon the codifying concept of hospitality, is distinguished from the illicit pleasures of the heroines themselves, which might also be experienced by the female reader of Ovid's text. Thus hospitality becomes a strategy by which the heroines are made to submit to the author's will, analogous to humanist commentators' moralizing glosses but attempting to entice rather than to "spoon feed."(FN47)
    Turberville's treatment of the guest-host relationship, however, indicates the lack of complete success of this strategy and the vulnerability of his idea of hospitality to abuse. At issue in both classical and early modern stagings of hospitality is the ambivalent relationship between host and guest. If the law of hospitality offers "a clearly formulated series of conventions that dictate[s] particular behaviour towards outsiders,"(FN48) the power of host over guest in extending hospitality is easily inverted by the guest's abuse of the household.(FN49) The challenge posed by the unruly guest is not only directed toward host and household, but assaults the complex network of cultural behaviors and expectations comprising the scaffolding of hospitality itself. Turberville's prefatory plea that the reader "play a friendfull guestes part" reverberates ironically against the narratives that follow, since the heroines' complaints repeatedly emerge from circumstances of betrayal of a hostess by an "ungrateful guest" (86). By representing himself as host to the reader, Turberville raises the risk of his own mistreatment by guests who may imitate the ingratitude of the work's heroes. Addressing the fact that the "heroic" character of Ovid's epistles rests on forceful trespasses of hospitality by "loytering" and abandoning men, Turberville both confronts the coercion that underlies his idea of pleasure, and recognizes his vulnerability (like the heroines' before the heroes, and like Ovid's before the commentators) to violent curtailments of his own rhetorical play. Cast in these terms, both reading and translation become projects in which one is as likely to tame as to be tamed, through violence or enticement. Pleasure and force, as aspects of Ovid's "heroic," are continually held in tension in Turberville's rendering of the heroic household.
    Turberville's handling of the dual letters of Paris and Helen (Heroides 15 and 16 in his edition) suggests that the limits of hospitable pleasure are to be found in "heroic" force. His Helen articulates both the hazards posed by disruptive guests and the dangerous possibility of women's "looseness" within the household:
    And didst thou dare a guest
       (the bounds of hostage broke?)
      And honest Matrone well espousde
       to pleasure to provoke? (211) Turberville's cautionary tale insists upon the basic relevance of hospitality and its codes and displays the vulnerability of the household from without and within, concerns that are echoed by writers such as Marlowe, whose Dido laments that, "all the world calls me a second Helen, / For being entangled by a stranger's looks."(FN50) However, he eschews commentators' depictions of the heroines' lapses into erotic otium as evidence of their low moral characters as women. Remigio, for example, uses Helen to illustrate that the inconstancy of wives ("la mutabilità delle moglie") is the true threat to domestic security: thus "non si debba disperare uno amante, che nel principio vede l'amata difficile e Salvatica, perché la puo piegarsi e diventar domestica" ("the male lover must not despair who at first sees his beloved to be difficult and wild, because she can be made to yield to becoming domestic").(FN51) In Turberville, moral exemplarity is subordinated to hospitality and its breach:

When Helen had the Trojan writ perusde,
She thought her selfe too shamefully abusde,
She deemde it not the part of anie gueste,
To whoredome so his Hostesse mind to wrest....
At length when to and fro she had discourst,
She fawnes, she frownes, she frets, she speakes him faire,
She offered hope, but fed him with dispayre,
As women wont, devising manie a toye,
But Paris her in fine convaide to Troy. (210) Both Turberville and Remigio describe a courtship that involves manipulations of hospitality and the pleasures of flirtation. Remigio's Paris domesticates Helen by relying on the fundamental "mutabilità" of women, against which the moralized epistle warns. For Turberville, on the other hand, Paris as unruly guest violates the rules of hospitality with force. Helen's freedom in negotiating the law of hospitality is violently curtailed by Paris' abrupt conveyance.

    Turberville's argument, in fact, offers a complementary metaphor to that of the banquet. It suggests the delicate balance in the Heroycall Epistles, maintained on both the levels of translator to reader and heroine to hero, between pleasure and force. It constructs a parallel between the translator and the heroines of the work, as host and hostesses, and indicates the vulnerability of Turberville's "banquet" to abuse by its readers: thus Helen's "toyes" and Turberville's "triflying toyes" are equally likely to suffer violent conveyances by unruly guests. The eruption of force in Turberville's work is symptomatic of the tensions that the veneer of pleasure overlays, and it marks the limits of Turberville's freedom in negotiating social and moral codes in his interpretation of the epistles. One is left to wonder, despite Turberville's self-portrait as Ovid's cohost, whether the pleasure that he takes in his banquet might not veil his own conveyance, no less violent than that of humanist domesticators, of Ovid's text. This possibility is affirmed when Turberville, in his Eclogues of Mantuan, describes translation itself as a form of violence, offering the reader "this Booke, which I have nowe forced to a new a foraine Language from that it was."(FN52)

    Like the Heroycall Epistles, The Shrew explicitly addresses a male audience, presenting a "taming school" (4.2.53-54) to instruct men (represented on stage by Hortensio) in how to handle their women.(FN53) Petruchio's taming school participates in the play's more general treatment of the theme of education,(FN54) in which the alternative modes of instructing Baptista's daughters--by pleasure and by force--offer a critical view of the modes of constructing the household and women's roles within it. As part of this project, the play displays "domesticated" women for the pleasure of men, and further aligns the pleasure that the audience takes in the performance itself with that of the feasting guest--literally as a guest at the "heroic feast" that closes the play by celebrating the "time ... when raging war is done" (5.2.2).(FN55) Turberville's metaphor of translation as an act of rendering palatable "curious Cates" is given new life as Petruchio puns on Kate's name at the outset of his attempted act of domestication: "for you are called plain Kate, / And bonny Kate ... / Kate of Kate Hall, my super-dainty Kate, / For dainties are all Kates" (2.1.184-88). The further association between "cate" as culinary delicacy and as "cat" in need of taming is made by Petruchio later in the same scene. In lines that recall Remigio's view that even the most "difficult and wild" woman can be domesticated, Petruchio states, "For I am he am born to tame you, Kate, / And bring you from a wild Kate to a Kate / Comformable, as other household Kates" (2.1.269-71). This merger of the imagery attending Turberville's treatment of hospitality with humanist ideas of the vulnerable character of women reveals that the precepts of the play's taming school are drawn from and illustrate the spectrum of early modern reactions to Ovid's resistant heroines. Moreover, it associates the construction of the household with the instruction of wives by rendering Kate a "household Kate" and later, Petruchio's "household stuff" (3.2.231)--a dehumanized "commodity" (2.1.321) that both characterizes and defines the play's domestic sphere and its concept of theatrical making (by allusion to Sly's "What, household stuff?" Ind.2.140).(FN56) By way of these objectifications, The Shrew deliberately constructs and violates the household, exploring its intersections with the "heroycall" realm on terms provided by and aware of the transvaluations of the domestic and heroic by Ovid and his interpreters. Shakespeare exploits Turberville's "pleasure principle" and its wavering between pleasure and force, as well as humanist portrayals of women's illicit pleasures (as both hostesses and readers), to suggest the presence of a residual female pleasure that persists at the play's close despite the efforts of male tamers to suppress it.
    Turberville's manipulations of hospitality and the humanist ideal of delightful teaching are imitated by later writers of the period. Lyly's Euphues (1578), for example, paraphrases Turberville's letter of Helen to Paris as the response of Lucilla, a daughter serving as "the onely steward of [her father's] houshoulde,"(FN57) to the illicit advances of her guest, Euphues.(FN58) The allusion continues Turberville's play with the threat to the household represented by Ovidian guests, and characterizes "the dichotomy between stylistic and moral education"(FN59) apparent in humanists' treatments of Ovid's rhetorically skilled heroines and in Turberville's turn away from didacticism toward pleasure. Lucilla concludes her epistle with a catalogue of heroic guests that reflects the influence of Turberville's emphasis on hospitality: "Who more trayterous to Phillis then Demophoon? yet he a trauailer. Who more periured to Dido then Aeneas? and he a stranger ... Is it then lykely that Euphues will be faithfull to Lucilla beeing in Naples but a soiourner?"(FN60)
    The pervasive presence of euphuistic language in The Shrew, and Shakespeare's reliance on Lyly as a source for the wooing of Bianca in 4.2,(FN61) suggest the route by which Turberville's concerns with humanist education and the construction of the household influence Shakespeare's play. Moreover, Tranio's opposition between Ovid and Aristotle (1.1.32-33), and Shakespeare's shift in the play's location from Ferrara (in Gascoigne's Supposes) to Padua (seat of Aristotelianism) are indebted to Euphues, which likewise juxtaposes Naples with Athens, Ovid with Aristotle.(FN62)
    As these facts suggest, The Shrew makes use of the Heroides by way of direct and indirect allusions to the text and its Renaissance fortunes. As early as Act 1, scene 1, as noted above, Lucentio's self-representation as the love-struck Dido casts Bianca in the unlikely role of Aeneas in one of the play's many comic inversions of gender and genre. Lucentio's inversion sets off a series of specific allusions to the Heroides within the subplot which explicitly link Bianca's story to the text. As it unfolds, her courtship takes on aspects of the career of Ovid's work as a text, specifically in relation to its female readership.(FN63) Indeed, as Kate is dehumanized as "household stuff," Bianca is transformed by Biondello's Latin tag into a book: "Take you assurance of her, cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum" (4.4.88-89). Women's pleasure in reading, associated with domestic reveling, characterizes Bianca's courtship, which is enabled by Baptista's desire to employ tutors "to teach her that wherein she delights" (1.1.111). Thus Tranio compares the courtship of Bianca to that of Helen, at once indicating Shakespeare's direct reliance on the Heroides,(FN64) and suggesting that Bianca, too, will become a Helen "entangled by a stranger's looks": "Fair Leda's daughter had a thousand wooers; / Then well one more may fair Bianca have" (1.2.343-44). Like Turberville's Helen, Bianca "offer[s] hope, but fe[eds Lucentio] with dispayre" when Penelope's letter to Ulysses is quoted (but not translated) as part of her Latin lesson, becoming a "toye" manipulated by Lucentio/Paris:

Lucentio: Hic ibat, as I told you before, Simois, I am Lucentio, hic est, son to 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. (3.1.31-36)

    Bianca replies in kind, indicating her willing consumption of the text:

Bianca: Now let me see if I can conster it. Hic ibat Simois, I know you not, hic est Sigeia tellus, I trust you not, Hic steterat Priami, take heed he hear us not, regia, presume not, celsa senis, despair not. (3.1.40-43)

    The implications of the passage bear upon The Shrew's more general considerations of Ovidian metamorphosis (or "supposes," 5.1.107), generational conflict, education, and hospitality. The comic juxtaposition of "Priam" with "my man Tranio" points toward the play's numerous travesties(FN65) prefigured in the Induction's description of Ovidian "wanton pictures" (Ind.2.50-61). Lucentio's "translation" of senis as "the old pantaloon" connects the scene to Grumio's comment, "See, to beguile the old folks, how the young folks lay their heads together" (1.2.137-38).(FN66) Most significantly, the passage resonates within the play's treatment of the household and its violation. Ovid's epistle is literally domesticated in the scene, but the ironies of its mishandling are apparent in the fact that it remains untranslated; thus its subject, the chaste Penelope, is herself the victim of a forceful, playful conveyance. The fact that Penelope, the humanist commentators' exemplum of feminine chastity and constancy and the definitive defender of the household,(FN67) should be the author of this text points toward the play's parodic treatment of the commonplaces of the humanist education of women. This parody permeates Bianca's courtship. For instance, Baptista's pretensions toward educating his daughters as gentlewomen (in, for example, 1.1.95-99) are typical of the parental mismanagement of daughters that humanists such as Bruto condemn. The scope of his mismanagement is clear when, against the advice of humanist educators, Bianca's instruction in music, mathematics, and classical literature exposes her to Roman love poetry destined to make her "feble and effemynate." Shakespeare's choice of the Heroides to exemplify this "subversive" literature plays on the humanists' association of the unannotated--thus "outlawed" and "untamed"--Heroides with Ovid's unsafe Ars amatoria. The play's comic defiance of the humanists' ban on unmoralized works such as Lucentio's Heroides is evident in Gremio's description of the content of Bianca's lesson: "Hark you, sir, I'll have them very fairly bound-- / All books of love, see that at any hand, / And see you read not other lectures to her" (1.2.145-47).(FN68)
    The Shrew exploits Ovid's blending of domestic and heroic spaces by treating "heroycall" matter within a tutor's violation of a student's household. Following Turberville, Shakespeare presents the Heroides not as a source of moral exempla, but of pleasure, and goes on to cast humanist education itself--or more specifically, its all-too-easy manipulation--as a dangerous and seductive interloper in the household.(FN69) Humanism and hospitality are thus aligned as normative forces that are comically inverted and undone in the course of the play's action. Lucentio's replacement of the moralized Ovid with the "untamed" text of the Heroides parallels Bianca's overturning of the "modesty" which humanist educators associated with both Ovid's female authors and the male students who would imitate them: "I am no breeching scholar in the schools," she insists, "I'll not be tied to hours nor 'pointed times! But learn my lessons as I please myself" (3.1.18-20). The transitional, contradictory character of the Renaissance Heroides--as a male author's display of female-authored complaints which, in turn, veil his own complaints in exile; as a work that ironically presents female voices which are useful in teaching schoolboys but potentially dangerous for female readers--here proliferates in the scene's travesties of didactic and gender relationships. These contradictions are focused within the figure of Bianca, a female figure who is also (self-consciously) the theatrical world's equivalent of the "breeching scholar," a boy actor.(FN70) Bianca's "modesty," like that of Ovid's text itself, is interpreted in conflicting ways by male "readers," while her self-assertion and self-possession depict the female voice as the persistent voice of the "shrew"--a rendering which prompts reactions similar to early modern responses to the untamed, querulous voices of Ovid's heroines, unrestrained by either use or pleasure.
    Because Bianca willingly takes part in Lucentio's illicit courtship, the exemplary inconstancy of figures such as Remegio's Helen is relocated within the figure of the reader-as-text: it is Bianca herself who exemplifies, for her jilted suitors at least, "Unconstant womankind!" (4.2.15). While Lucentio's "translation" of the Heroides, like Turberville's, devalues moral exemplarity in favor of the pleasure to be derived from the domestication of both literary works and women, he, again like Turberville, is only partially successful in dominating the female voice which presents him with a text that resists enclosure within the confines of the male interpreter's pleasure or use. Thus Bianca's disobedience and willfulness in the play's final scene, where shrewishness poses as a breach of hospitality which the banquet in its orthodox manifestation presents, are prefigured in the scenes of her courtship.(FN71)
    If Bianca happily participates in her courtship, facilitating the violation of the household from within, Kate is "conveyed," like Turberville's Helen, into marriage and submission. Kate's taming is a story of the conveyance of "household stuff" that records the forced and ultimately incomplete imposition of orderly societal structures and roles upon her, enacted against the backdrop of the play's witty treatment of the "heroics of marriage."(FN72) While self-conscious gestures of extended and/or violated hospitality permeate The Shrew, the most remarkable are Petruchio's repeated railings against hospitality, enacted as part of his taming strategy. Thus he becomes a "forward guest" in Baptista's household (2.1.51) and casts his courtship in mock heroic terms that reinterpret the epic adventure as an erotic one and continue in the main plot the contradictions of the "heroic household" that are exploited in Bianca's courtship:
    Have I not in pitched battle heard
   Loud 'larums, neighing steeds, and trumptets clang?
   And do you tell me of a woman's tongue,
   That gives not half so great a blow to hear
   As will a chestnut in a farmer's fire?
   Tush, tush, fear boys with bugs!
                    (1.2.204-8) Collapsing domestic and epic spheres, Petruchio heroically defends his "household stuff" from an imagined threat of conveyance ("Fear not, sweet wench, they shall not touch thee, Kate. / I'll buckler thee against a million," 3.2.236-37), while breaking "the bounds of hostage" by "escaping" the wedding banquet held in his honor. As Hutson has argued, this disruption associates Petruchio's courtship with a clandestinity that both unites subplot and main plot, and initiates the play's unfolding "drama of a husband's achievement of absolute conjugal discretion."(FN73) Petruchio's scripting of his heroic household, furthermore, exploits the tense alliance between domestic and heroic implicit in the Ovidian household by constructing a hegemonic home economics grounded on violations of domestic pleasures and "rule."
    In his taming of Kate, Petruchio manipulates hospitality by refusing to satisfy basic needs for food and sleep, the fulfillment of which define the household and its obligations. The fact that hospitality and its violation are at issue throughout Kate's taming is clear when she complains that the hospitable act of charity--the Christian foundation upon which early modern hospitality was based--is denied her:(FN74) "Beggars that come unto my father's door / Upon entreaty have a present alms, / If not, elsewhere they meet with charity" (4.3.4-6). Petruchio, moreover, confirms the elemental role of caritas within both hospitality and taming, as twin aspects of the construction of the household: "He that knows better how to tame a shrew, / Now let him speak: 'tis charity to show" (4.1.197-98).
    Petruchio's exposition of the logic of his taming reflects the merger of public and private (or heroic and domestic) spheres that the play has in common with Turberville's heroic household. Furthermore, the analogy he draws between shrew-taming and falconry engages this conflation on terms that Shakespeare shares with Turberville:
    Thus have I politicly begun my reign,
    And 'tis my hope to end successfully.
    My falcon now is sharp and passing empty,
    And till she stoop she must not be full-gorg'd,
 For then she never looks upon her lure.
    Another way I have to man my haggard,
    To make her come and know her keeper's call,
    That is, to watch her, as we watch these kites
 That bate and beat and will not be obedient.
 (4.1.175-83) Petruchio's self-portrayal as king in his own castle anticipates the collapsing of public and private realms by Protestant writers such as Whatley, who states bluntly that a man is "King in his family."(FN75) Moreover, the establishment of domestic order as a synecdoche of social order is reflected in the falconry analogy. Throughout The Shrew, this analogy characterizes women's relationships to the household as determined by their male tamers and maintainers. Thus Baptista is twice described as "mewing up" Bianca (1.1.87-89 and 1.1.183), while both Kate and Bianca are portrayed as "haggards" to be "manned" (4.2.39). Hortensio adopts the image to condemn Bianca's inconstancy, figuring her as a hawk that will stoop to any lure: "Yet if thy thoughts, Bianca, be so humble / To cast thy wandering eyes on every stale, / Seize thee that list" (3.1.88-90). The implicit meaning of this imagery, that the construction of the household involves the taming of unruly women by orderly men (including Petruchio, who "outshrews" Kate only in the service of establishing "love, and quiet life, / An awful rule, and right supremacy" [5.2.109-10]), is explicitly put forth in Turberville's meditations on the art of falconry in his Booke of Faulconrie or Hauking (1575). There, Turberville traces his own movement from heroic to domestic pursuits ("from ciuill swordes, to ciuill pastimes")(FN76) as he describes his abandonment of a translation of Lucan(FN77) in favor of the guide to falconry. He goes on to praise falconry as a "humanist" sport that combines pleasure with profit, and contrasts it with the fruitless pastimes of "bawdie Venus ympes [who] embrace, the loitring life at home."(FN78) As his discussion soon makes clear, the benefit of falconry lies in the fact that it teaches the art of taming:
    What greater glee can man desire, than by his cunning skill,
 So to reclaime a haggarde hawke, as she the fowle shall kill.
 To make and man hir in such sort, as tossing out a traine,
  Or but the lewre, when she is at large, to whoup her in
     againe?(FN79) Unlike the unprofitable domestic loitering of "Venus ympes," the civil pastime of falconry constitutes a version of the heroic household, figured on the larger societal scale: men's pleasure in taming conflates domestic and heroic pursuits in a skill "meet for ciuill courtly men."(FN80)
    Hosley's persuasive comment that Shakespeare chose to draw upon the humanist tradition of shrew-taming, rather than the more overtly abusive folk tradition,(FN81) associates the play's falconry imagery with humanist comparisons of the education of wives by husbands with the taming of wild or disobedient animals.(FN82) As Turberville's praise of falconry indicates, the "glee" available to male practitioners of the sport lies in the skill with which the falconer "persuades" the hawk to relinquish her liberty. Thus the pleasure of the tamer depends upon the female's submission to a "domestic" order that is a correction of the fruitless, amorous loitering of "Venus ympes"--that is, the otiose reveling of Ovid's heroines, or the shrewish independence of Kate, or the delighted flirtation of Bianca. In The Shrew, the art of falconry, like "the art of household," in Hutson's words, "is exemplary because it involves the man practising his own histrionic exemplarity in the training that will transform a 'rude' and 'wytles' partner into a womanly helpmeet."(FN83)
    The falconry analogy appears in its most orthodox terms in the play's closing banquet, where wives are once again compared to hawks both as household stuff and objects on which to wager (5.2.72-73). In the same scene, the heroic household is given its most orthodox articulation in Kate's closing speech, and there it becomes apparent that the overlaying of household with heroic concerns is not simply a laughing matter in the play. Rather, it serves, as does Turberville's heroic household, to redirect the Heroides' disruptive imagery of the domestic as a sphere violated and abandoned by the heroic toward a version of the home that is at once public and private, domestic and heroic. "Dart not scornful glances from those eyes / To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor," Kate advises her female listeners (5.2.137-38), and later, "Such duty as the subject owes the prince, / Even such a woman oweth to her husband" (5.2.155-56). Kate's politicized portrayal of the domestic both echoes Petruchio's and marks the transition in the play between the comic treatment of such themes in earlier scenes and their more forceful casting by a "tamed" female speaker in the context of the banquet. As Turberville's portrait of Helen's courtship moves from the playful exchange of "toyes" to the violent conveyance of a woman, The Shrew confronts its audience with a movement from pleasant flirtation to forced submission.
    As the final gesture in this movement, Kate's speech must be seen either as coerced (and as coercive toward its audience), or as ironic in its relationship to patriarchal authority.(FN84) As such, the two faces of banqueting revealed in the Heroycall Epistles' treatment of hospitality and humanist commentators' censure of female "reveling" are significant. On the one hand, the banquet as the orderly "fourme of entertainment"(FN85) and "living embodiment" of social structures provides the appropriate setting for Kate's speech in its enactment of an elaborate code of hospitality which affirms hierarchies, including those pertaining to husbands and wives. Thus taken at face value, Baptista's banquet presents the domesticated Kate as the dish offered to please the guests and, most importantly, her "Lord and Feere."(FN86) Quilligan's argument that Shakespeare demonstrably altered Kate's final speech in order to present women's subordination as based on natural, rather than theological, grounds(FN87) further stresses the alliance between this view of gender and a natural law of hospitality as normative and prescriptive forces. On the other hand, the pleasures afforded to the female participant in the banquet (that is, the ironic Kate and the "shrewish" Bianca and widow)--or the female spectator of Shakespeare's play--suggest an autonomy for women which is, at least in part, based upon their abilities to recognize and manipulate domestic and rhetorical codes. Read ironically, then, Kate (like Ovid's heroines) resists the rigid codification of women's roles threatened by the patriarchal system and its pleasure. While Turberville's engagement with threatened violations by unruly guests marks the limits of his experiment with the law of hospitality and the pleasures of the text, Kate's irony responds to Turberville's symptomatic admission of force, articulating the tensions that he attempts, with only partial success, to resolve.
    While the careers of Bianca and Kate suggest that in The Shrew, as in Turberville's Heroycall Epistles, women are made to submit to men's pleasure in hospitality, the resistance to taming confronted by Lucentio and Petruchio argues for a residual female authority, akin to that retained by Ovid's partially-domesticated heroines, which would, at least temporarily, subvert the submission of women to male authorities. In its self-conscious manipulations of the household and of humanist education, evident in the attempted but incomplete reduction of women to objects or animals, the play articulates "a necessary social myth in the culture of the early modern period"(FN88) without espousing it. Turberville's uncomfortable shifts between the roles of host and violating guest parallel the conflations of pleasure and force in Shakespeare's presentation of the myth of the household and women's place within it. His tense handling of pleasure and force is the starting point for Shakespeare's playful, forceful exposure of the constraints imposed on women by both hospitality and humanist education.
    Finally, the pleasure that the audience of the play, particularly its female members, derive from its performance takes on complex and potentially revisionary aspects when considered in light of Turberville's formulation of the pleasure of the reader as that of the guest at a banquet. Certainly the closing banquet presents the play's dizzying conflations of domestic and heroic, private and public, feminine and masculine categories in a setting that further reiterates them: the orthodox pleasure of male auditors in the banquet's ability to reaffirm hierarchies confronts the "illicit" pleasure of women who violate domestic expectations. But the play's obvious failure to return to its Induction reminds us, by way of this lack of closure, that we are not the only guests at this banquet: Christopher Sly, "conveyed to bed" (Ind.1.37) in the Lord's household, served "a most delicious banquet by his bed" (Ind.1.39), and made "lord and husband" to a cross-dressed boy (Ind.2.166) has been an observer as well. His startling absent-presence collapses distinctions between public and private (this is a play performed in a bedroom), domestic and heroic (a "nobleman" violates his own household by "practicing on" a poor drunken tinker), and masculine and feminine (the obedient wife, after all, is merely a boy actor--as are Kate and Bianca). From this perspective, the pleasure to be taken in the play is that of briefly "loytering" before "a flattering dream or worthless fancy" (Ind.2.42), but its meaning goes beyond the usual associations of this metatheatrical commonplace. Informed by the apparent contradictions in the loiterings of the Heroides' male protagonists, Sly's enforced "pleasure," and the play's closing scene, thematize the problematic character of entertainment itself--as an aspect of hospitable behavior and literary texts--and reveal the tacit alliance between pleasure and conveyance. As such, pleasure lies in acknowledging that some texts, like some women, are difficult to tame.(FN89)

Added materialADDED MATERIAL
    Patricia B. Phillippy
    Texas A & M University

1. George Turberville, The Heroycall Epistles of the Learned Poet Publius Ovidius Naso (1567), edited by Frederick Boas (London: Cresset Press, Ltd., 1928), 82-83. All references will be to this edition and will be included parenthetically in the text.
2. Christopher Marlowe, The Tragedy of Dido, Queen of Carthage, in Dido Queen of Carthage and The Massacre at Paris, ed. H. J. Oliver (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), 4.3.55.
3. Here and throughout, my use of the term "epic" is informed by the Bakhtinian notion of epic discourse as tending toward hegemonic, "centripetal" utterances and views. See Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays, edited by Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson, University of Texas Slavic Series, 1 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), esp. 15 and 271-98.
4. Felicity Heal, Hospitality in Early Modern England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 33.
5. William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, in The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 1.1.150-56. All further references will be to this edition and will be given parenthetically in the text.
6. On the union of eros and heros in the period, see Giordano Bruno's De Gli Eroici furori, trans. Paul Memmo (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964), and John Charles Nelson, Renaissance Theory of Love: The Context of Giordano Bruno's "Eroici furori" (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), esp. 163-233.
7. William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra, The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), 4.14.50-54.
8. The two most recent book-length studies of the Heroides both comment on the text's "subversive," feminist, and/or dialogic aspects, while reaching different conclusions: See Howard Jacobson, Ovid's Heroides (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974) and Florence Verducci, Ovid's Toyshop of the Heart (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985). See also Marina Scordilis Brownlee, The Severed Word: Ovid's "Heroides" and the "Novela Sentimental" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990) and Linda Kauffman, Discourses of Desire: Gender, Genre and Epistolary Fictions (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), and, for a summary of recent critical views, Joan DeJean, Fictions of Sappho, 1546-1937 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 60-66.
9. See Mihoko Suzuki, Metamorphoses of Helen: Authority, Difference, and the Epic (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), on women in the epic as figures of difference.
10. Jacobson, 90.
11. Ovid's concern with the household is adapted from the Homeric epic's various stagings of hospitality, from orthodox guest-friendships emblematized in scenes of "heroic feasting," to portrayals of hostesses abused by heroic visitors. See M. I. Finley, The World of Odysseus (New York: Viking, 1954), 104-9 and 133-36, and see also Steve Reece, The Stranger's Welcome: Oral Theory and the Aesthetics of the Homeric Hospitality Scene (Ann Arbor: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993) and Julian Pitt-Rivers, The Fate of Schechem, or The Politics of Sex: Essays in the Anthropology of the Mediterranean (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 94-125.
12. See Brownlee, 25, and Ann Moss, Ovid in Renaissance France: A Survey of the Latin Editions of Ovid and Commentaries Printed in France before 1600 (London: The Warburg Institute, 1982), 11.
13. Ovid, Habes Candide Lector Pub. Ovidii Nasonis Heroides (Venice: Tacuino, 1538), 1v.
14. See T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1944), 2.239-42 and 2.417-53, and Moss, 8-16.
15. Quoted in Baldwin, 2.239.
16. Moss, 12-13.
17. Remigio Fiorentino, trans., Epistole d'Ovidio di Remigio Fiorentino, divisi in due libri, con la tavola (Venice: Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari et fratelli, 1555), 10. See also Camillo Camilli, trans., L'Epistole d'Ovidio tradotte in terza rima da Camillo Camilli, con gli argomenti al principio di ciascuna (Venice: G. B. Ciotti, 1587).
18. Quoted in Moss, 13.
19. See Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).
20. Remigio, 86.
21. See, for example, Lionardo Bruni, De studiis et literis (Concerning the Study of Literature), in Vittorino da Feltre and Other Humanist Educators, ed. William Harrison Woodward, Classics in Education, 18 (New York: Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1963), 126.
22. Bruni, 127.
23. Juan Luis Vives, Instruction of a Christian Woman (De institutione feminae christianae), trans. Richard Hyrde, in Vives and the Renascence Education of Women, ed. Foster Watson (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1912), 90. The Latin text is found in Juan Luis Vives, De institutione feminae christianae, in Omnia Opera, ed. Francisco Fabian et Fuero (1745; rpt. London: Gregg Press, 1964), 4:122.
24. Vives, Instruction, 34.
25. Vives, De institutione, 66.
26. Giovanni Bruto, La institutione di una fanciulla nata nobilmente (Antwerp, 1555), trans. Thomas Salter, The Mirrhor of Modestie (London: Edward White, 1579); rpt. ed. Janis Butler Holm (New York: Garland Press, 1987), 80.
27. Ibid., 95.
28. Ibid., 81. Interestingly, Bruni, 132, defends secular literature for women on the basis of the fictionality of Virgil's Dido episode, as opposed to the truth of troublesome scriptural narratives.
29. Vives, Instruction, 61.
30. Vives, De institutione, 89.
31. Vives, Instruction, 56.
32. Vives, De institutione, 85.
33. Moss, 11-12.
34. The anonymous Fable of Ovid treting of Narcissus (1560), Thomas Peend's Pleasant fable of Salmacis and Hermaphroditus (1565), and Golding's Metamorphoses (1565-67) all appeared with moral glosses. See Elizabeth Story Donno, Elizabethan Minor Epics (New York: Columbia University, 1963), 4.
35. Arthur Golding, The XV Bookes of P. Ovidius Naso, Entytuled Metamorphosis (1567; rpt. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1977), A3v.
36. For a conflicting view of the didactic character of Turberville's textual apparatus, see Deborah S. Greenhut, Feminine Rhetorical Culture: Tudor Adaptations of Ovid's "Heroides" (New York: Peter Lang, 1988), 43-91. I believe that Greenhut overstates the didacticism of Turberville's translation because she has not compared it with other editions and translations of the period.
37. Hyder E. Rollins, "New Facts about George Turberville," Modern Philology 15 (1918): 135, n.5.
38. Jonathan Bate, Shakespeare and Ovid (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 32.
39. For example, Turberville calls the incestuous affair of Canace and Machareus (Heroides 11) an unlawful and unnatural violation of the "bonds of kind" (140).
40. Giovanni della Casa, Galateo, trans. Robert Peterson (1576; rpt. New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1969), 3.
41. Heal, 32.
42. Stefano Guazzo, The Civile Conversation of M. Steeven Guazzo (1581 and 1586), trans. George Pettie and Bartholomew Young (rpt. New York: Knopf, 1925) 2:161-62.
43. Ibid., 2:75.
44. Edward Hake, A Touchstone for this Time Presently Declaring Such Ruines, Enormities and Abuses as Trouble the Churche of God (1574; rpt. Norwood, NJ: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1974), C4.
45. Ibid., C5v.
46. Quoted Don Cameron Allen, "Marlowe's Dido and the Tradition," in Essays on Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig, ed. Richard Hosley (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1962), 58-59.
47. For a similar view of the uses and threats of pleasure in male-authored works addressed to female readers, see Juliet Fleming, "The Ladie's Man in the Age of Elizabeth," in Sexuality and Gender in the Early Modern Europe: Institutions, Texts, Images, ed. James Grantham Turner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 158-81.
48. Heal, 4.
49. See Heal, 192-222 and Pitt-Rivers, 108-11.
50. Marlowe, 5.1.144-45.
51. Remigio, 218.
52. George Turberville, The Eclogues of Mantuan (1567), ed. Douglas Bush (New York: Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 1937), A3v.
53. See Lorna Hutson, The Usurer's Daughter: Male Friendship and Fictions of Women in Sixteenth-Century England (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 219.
54. See Brian Morris, "Introduction," The Taming of the Shrew: The Arden Edition of the Works of William Shakespeare (London and New York: Metheun, 1981), 1-150; 129-33.
55. For a complementary view, see Maureen Quilligan, "Staging Gender: William Shakespeare and Elizabeth Cary," in Sexuality and Gender in Early Modern Europe: Institutions, Texts, Images, ed. James Grantham Turner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 209.
56. See Lena Cowen Orlin, "The Performance of Things in The Taming of the Shrew," Yearbook of English Studies 23 (1993): 183.
57. John Lyly, Euphues. The Anatomy of Wit, in Works, ed. R. Warwick Bond (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), 1:200.
58. See M. P. Tilley, "Euphues, and Ovid's Heroical Epistles," Modern Language Notes 45 (1930): 301-8.
59. Bate, 33.
60. Lyly, 1:222.
61. More than a dozen echoes of Euphues occur in The Shrew: see notes to the Arden edition. John W. Velz, "Gascoigne, Lyly, and the Wooing of Bianca," Notes and Queries n.s. 20 (1973): 130-33, suggests that both 4.2 and the Latin lesson in 3.1 are derived from Mother Bombie.
62. Lyly, 1:185. See also Bate, 33 and Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957-1975), 1:60-68.
63. In a related argument, Leah Marcus, "The Shakespearean Editor as Shrew-Tamer," English Literary Renaissance 22 (1992): 182, observes that accepting the early version of the play as Shakespearean would amount to "leav[ing] the shrew (and the text) in disorder." On the long critical debate on the relationship between The Shrew and A Shrew, see Richard Hosley, "Sources and Analogues of The Taming of the Shrew," Huntington Library Quarterly 20 (1963/64): 285-95, and Morris, 12-50.
64. See Baldwin, 2.426, for evidence that "the Heroides is the ultimate source for Shakespere's [sic] knowledge of Leda."
65. See Bate, 127.
66. This meaning, along with an allusion to Lucentio's manipulation of hospitality, may be echoed in the commonly cited analogue to the scene in R. W.'s Three Lords and Three Ladies of London (1590; rpt. New York: AMS, 1912), where the aged Simplicity, reduced to poverty by the death of Hospitality, performs a Latin lesson at the wedding banquet of Pleasure and Conscience (I3v). See Kenneth Muir, The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), 20; Hosley, 306; and Velz, 130.
67. See Remigio, 10, and Vives, De institutione, 131. On Latin commentaries on Penelope, see Moss, 12.
68. See also Shakespeare, The Shrew, 4.2.8-9.
69. Marcus notes that, "In The Shrew, shrew taming is explicitly associated with humanist pedagogy: Petruchio's subduing and refinement of Kate operates parallel to the purported efforts of Bianca's tutors to teach the two sisters Vergil and the art of the lute. By learning to speak the pedagogue's language of social and familial order, Kate shows herself to be a better student of standard humanist doctrine than her sister" (182). The point, while astute, overlooks the manipulation of humanist didacticism enacted by the subversive interpreter Lucentio using the already subversive Ovidian text: the slippage in Marcus' description between Ovid and Virgil, in this respect, is a crucial one.
70. See Thomas Moisan, "Interlinear Trysting and 'household stuff': The Latin Lesson in The Taming of the Shrew," paper presented at the 1994 Shakespeare Association of America Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, April 14, 1994, 9-11.
71. For a complementary view, see Hutson, 214-15.
72. I borrow the phrase from Mary Beth Rose, The Expense of Spirit: Love and Sexuality in English Renaissance Drama (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988), 115-31, where it is used to describe the merger of domestic and heroic realms in Jacobean tragedy and Puritan treatises on marriage. See also Margaret Lael Mikesell, "'Love Wrought These Miracles': Marriage and Genre in The Taming of the Shrew," Renaissance Drama 20 (1989): 141-67.
73. Hutson, 210.
74. See Heal, 122-40.
75. William Whatley, A Bride-Bush, or Wedding Sermon (1617; rpt. New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1975), 16. On the patriarchal merger of images describing household and state, see Susan L. Amussen, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), and see Hutson, 17-51, for a persuasive discussion of the ways in which household literature grounds humanist education on the fiction of the well-governed housewife.
76. George Turberville, The Booke of Faulconrie or Hauking (1575; rpt. New York: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1969), A2.
77. See Rollins, 144-45.
78. Turberville, The Booke of Faulconrie, B2.
79. Idem.
80. Ibid., B2v.
81. Hosley, 301.
82. On the folklore sources for The Shrew, see Jan H. Brunvand, "The Folklore Origin of The Taming of the Shrew," Shakespeare Quarterly 17 (1966): 345-59, and Hosley, 295-99.
83. Hutson, 34.
84. John C. Bean, "Comic Structure and the Humanizing of Kate in The Taming of the Shrew," in The Woman's Part: Feminist Criticism of Shakespeare, ed. Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz, Gayle Greene and Carol Thomas Neely (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1980), 65, has divided critical responses to the speech into two camps of "revisionists," who view Kate's speech as ironic, and "anti-revisionists." Among the former are: Margie Burns, "The Ending of The Shrew," Shakespeare Studies 18 (1986): 41-64; Robert B. Heilman, "The Taming Untamed, or, The Return of the Shrew," Modern Language Quarterly 27 (1966): 147-61; Coppélia Kahn, Man's Estate: Masculine Identity in Shakespeare (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981); and Marcus. For the latter view, see Richard A. Burt, "Charisma, Coercion, and Comic Form in The Taming of the Shrew," Criticism 26 (1984): 295-311; David Daniell, "The Good Marriage of Katherine and Petruchio," Shakespeare Survey 37 (1984): 23-31; and Marianne Novy, Love's Argument: Gender Relations in Shakespeare (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). Quilligan, Karen Newman, Fashioning Femininity and English Renaissance Drama (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), and Orlin read Kate's speech, as I do, in terms of cultural constructions of gender.
85. Guazzo, 2:162.
86. Turberville, Heroycall Epistles, 25.
87. Quilligan, 221.
88. Orlin, 186.
89. I would like to thank Julia Reinhard Lupton for her comments on earlier versions of this essay.