In many ways, "The Taming of the Shrew" is a typical Shakespearean comedy in the mode of classical new comedy. Young lovers seek to wed, but must overcome the objections of the girl's father. They ultimately do so and all the couples are happily united in the end. For modern readers, however, the play has notorious difficulties, particularly in its ending. How are we to read Kate's remarkable submissions, culminating in her final speech to the wives? It is tempting to read the speech as ironic, suggesting that Kate is not sincere and that rather than support the position, she satirizes it through exaggeration. Conversely, Kate's position, while conservative even by the standards of the day, is entirely in line with the thinking of many of Shakespeare's contemporaries, and thus may be intended to be taken in a more straightforward manner. Or, it may be that the specific ideological content is beside the point. The more important point may be the way in which Kate uses the conservative position that was once her enemy as her ally in her revenge against the Widow.

Nevertheless, a minority of female critics sometimes answered back, arguing that it was more frequently men, in their failings, their drunkenness and violence for instance, that led to an unhappy home. These women suggested that if women were shrewish, they very often had good reason to be that way. At the same time, by Shakespeare's day, it had become increasingly unacceptable for husbands to use violence as a means of disciplining their wives. In this light, Petruchio may be seen — from the sixteenth-century perspective if not from a twenty-first — as a progressive man, a modern man who is clever enough not to have to resort to the vulgar brutality of an earlier age (Detmer 237-74).

It is impossible to say categorically what the social status of women was in the period, but it is fair to say that, judged by today's standards, women tended to enjoy fewer privileges, less education, fewer legal rights and less power in general than did men of similar social class. Though some contemporaries suggested that it was foolish for a man to think of his wife as one of his servants, many men may have done just that (Weil 75-76). Either way, women were widely expected to be obedient to their husbands, and obedience typically included silence on important matters. Indeed, wifely subjection was conventionally given as one of the pillars of a happy household. It was vital, therefore, for husbands to control their wives, lest an overly ambitious woman disrupt the quiet balance of the home. When husbands seemed unable to control their wives, there were numerous social punishments — especially public shaming through physical abuse of various kinds — for women who spoke or acted too boldly (Boose 135-38).

Religion was often invoked as a justification for the subjection of women to their husbands, but occasionally as a defense of women, too. Some commentators pointed to biblical passages that emphasized women's submission and silence (see, for example, "1 Timothy" 2:11-12), but it was also possible to point to passages that celebrated women, not as silent servants, but as wise counselors to their families (see "Proverbs" 31:26). Some religious commentators went further and suggested that marriage was foundational for the happiness and well-being of any man, and that a wife was not an underling, but a fellow warrior in the battle against the Devil, and that the Devil would flee in fear from the man who was teamed with a strong wife.

Renaissance authorities tended to understand emotion and temperament in terms of the humoural physiology inherited from classical Greek and Roman authorities. Briefly, this school of thought suggested that the human body included four basic fluids, called humours. Ideally the four would be in perfect balance, but minor imbalances could result in particularities of character, while more severe imbalances could cause illness, including madness.

Humoural medicine sought to redress the imbalances through corrective measures such purges (what we would call laxatives), vomits, and bleeding. Along the same lines, considerable emphasis was put on diet, since food — in its type, preparation, and quantity — was understood to affect the humoural balance as well. Thus Petruchio refuses to allow his servants to serve over-cooked meat, "For it engenders choler" that humour which "planteth anger" (4.14.160). And while Petruchio is deliberately finding fault in this instance, his thinking is grounded in his medical knowledge. Similarly, Petruchio's decision to forbid Kate to eat or sleep is designed to "curb her mad and headstrong humour" (4.1.197).

William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1564, the son of a prominent local tradesman and civic official, John Shakespeare. Few specifics are known of Shakespeare's early life and scholars can only speculate as to how William became part of the emerging professional theatre in London. In any case, by the early 1590s, Shakespeare was one of the city's many rising young playwrights. Lacking the formal university training of many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare was, on at least one occasion, ridiculed for daring to write alongside more educated men like the firey Christopher Marlowe. Nevertheless, Shakespeare did write and "The Taming of the Shrew" is a fine example of the skill he brought to comedy even in the early years of his career. The exact date of composition is uncertain. The title does not appear in a 1598 list of Shakespeare's popular plays as recorded by Francis Meres, suggesting perhaps that the play was not as popular in its own time as it is today, or, and this is conjecture, that the play might have been known by another title, "Love's Labours Won."

Like Shakespeare's other early comedies, the tone is relatively light throughout. Although the play can be difficult for modern audiences, there is nothing approaching the level of troubling darkness that we will see in the later in Shakespeare's career. The abuse in this play — if that's what it is — is far less real and affecting than the abuse hurled at Shylock in "The Merchant of Venice" which comes later in the 1590s; similarly, the sexual machinations in "Shrew" are far less disturbing than the comedies of the early 17th century, particularly "Measure for Measure."