Well, let's look at the internal evidence. Lady M. has borne at least one child and...
Read more...

Chris,

I've been searching for something that fits what you're looking for, but without great success. Probably the best approximation that's occurred to me is in ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL, Act IV, scene 2, where Bertram is trying to seduce Diana. Look around lines 29-34:

DIANA: ...therefore your oaths
Are words, and poor conditions, but unsealed--
At least in my opinion.

BERTRAM: Change it, change it!
Be not so holy-cruel. Love is holy,
And my integrity ne'er knew the crafts
That you do charge men with.

The situation is similar to what you are looking for (though neither party is in fact being honest about their agendas). It's a delightful scene, and can be quite funny, since he's so horny and she is so good at parrying his protestations. Read the whole scene and see if there's anything there you can use.

Best of luck, Julian

Just a quick observation: there seems to be a quality of the put-on artist built into Shakespeare's conception of Petruchio that makes it very hard to be sure about his motives. Maybe he purposely misleads us a little. Is he simply a golddigger, or a man sincerely motivated by affection, or as (Mr.? Ms.?) Swanson implies, does he perhaps move from the former to the latter? He seems determined to keep us guessing. And maybe it's all to the good: the ambiguity of P's search for the perfect wife-- whatever that means, whether rich, beautiful, spirited and/or determined to break the mold-- is exactly the kind of question that leaves the character (and play) wide open to interpretation, and keeps interest in it alive. I imagine Petruchio looking on amused from Shakespeare-character heaven as we try to tease out his true character-- much as, in a more serious context, we try to do with Iago. (Who, of course, would have to do it from Shakespeare-character Hell.)

Critics tend to denigrate the Falstaff of MERRY WIVES, regarding him as a greatly diminished figure in comparison with the classic Falstaff of the Henries. My personal opinion has always been a little different, though my affection for the MW Falstaff may be due in large part to my having done a fine production of the play as a young actor of 19, when my career was just starting out. What some commentators regard as slapdash characterization certainly may have to do with haste in the composition, if there's any truth to the tradition that the play was composed ad hoc, in a short period, in response to the Queen's expressed desire to see "Falstaff in love." Shakespeare must have realized that it was impossible to impose a true romantic sensibility on the majestic character he'd created-- being in love implies a vulnerability and a degree of selflessness which is fundamentally at odds with the Falstaffian characteristics of appetite and manipulativeness-- so he settled more for a "Falstaff in lust" strategy, seeing comic potential in the monstrous inappropriateness of an elderly fat man fancying himself as a "young gallant." The different demands of a farce plot require that this Falstaff be more of an ensemble performer, less a dominant figure in the plot; but much of his mastery of language still remains, and it's important that the actor honor that uniqueness of expression, in all its tawdry glory. Always in Shakespeare, language is action, and in Falstaff most of all. Find the vitality and color in that remarkable prose, and you'll be more than halfway there.

Julian