The following sections of this BookRags Literature Study Guide is offprint from Gale's For Students Series: Presenting Analysis, Context, and Criticism on Commonly Studied Works: Introduction, Author Biography, Plot Summary, Characters, Themes, Style, Historical Context, Critical Overview, Criticism and Critical Essays, Media Adaptations, Topics for Further Study, Compare & Contrast, What Do I Read Next?, For Further Study, and Sources.
(c)1998-2002; (c)2002 by Gale. Gale is an imprint of The Gale Group, Inc., a division of Thomson Learning, Inc. Gale and Design and Thomson Learning are trademarks used herein under license.
The following sections, if they exist, are offprint from Beacham's Encyclopedia of Popular Fiction: "Social Concerns", "Thematic Overview", "Techniques", "Literary Precedents", "Key Questions", "Related Titles", "Adaptations", "Related Web Sites". (c)1994-2005, by Walton Beacham.
The following sections, if they exist, are offprint from Beacham's Guide to Literature for Young Adults: "About the Author", "Overview", "Setting", "Literary Qualities", "Social Sensitivity", "Topics for Discussion", "Ideas for Reports and Papers". (c)1994-2005, by Walton Beacham.
All other sections in this Literature Study Guide are owned and copyrighted by BookRags, Inc.
In the Summer of 1594 a translation of a Latin Farce by the Roman Dramatist, Plautus, was made ready for publication in London. It may even have been published then, for, although the title page date is 1595, then, as often now, the issue was made in advance of date. Circulation in Ms., moreover, now unusual, was then common.
This translation was registered, at any rate, for publication, June 16, 1594, as “A Booke entitled Menaechmi, being a pleasant and fine conceited comedy taken out of the most wittie poet Plautus, chosen purposely from out the rest as being the least harmful and most delightful.”
Six months later, Shakespeare had made an English Farce out of this Latin one. He invented several new characters, arranged many new situations, and put a good deal more life-likeness in the relations of the characters, while yet it may be seen that, his new play, “The Comedie of Errors,” was directly drawn from the old one by Plautus.
The first record we have of Shakespeare as an actor before Queen Elizabeth relates to the performance in Christmas week of this same year of “twoe severall comedies.” This record in the Accounts of the Treasurer who paid out the money for the Plays acted before the Queen, runs as follows:
“To William Kempe, William Shakespeare, and Richard Burbage, servaunts to the Lord Chamberleyn upon the Councelles warrant dated at Whitehall xv. die. Marcij 1594 [1595], for twoe severall comedies or enterludes, shewed by them before her Majestie in Christmas tyme laste paste, viz., upon St. Stephen daye, [Dec. 26,] and Innocente’s day, [Dec. 28,] xiii^{li} vi^{s} viij^{d} and by way of her Majesties rewarde vi^{li} xiij^{s} iv^{d} in all xx^{li}.”
It is fair to infer that the “Comedie of Errors” was one of these two comedies, for on the evening of the 28th of December, 1594, there arose a sudden necessity to hire an entertainment to take the place at Gray’s Inn, one of the great Law Schools of London, of a Play by the students which had gone to pieces. In lieu of this amateur play, for which a great stage had been built in their Hall, it is recorded that the great throng assembled were forced, first, to “content themselves with ordinary dancing and revelling, and when that was over, with a Comedy of Errors like to Plautus his Menoechmus, which was played by the players.” That these “players” were public players is shown in the Gray’s Inn account of these Christmas festivities by another reference to this “company of base and common fellows” who were “foisted” in “to make up our disorders with a play of Errors and Confusions.”
Since this substitution of the “players” Play for the Play by the young gentlemen students was unexpected, we can be sure it was not made for this occasion. It seems obvious that whatever comedy was specially designed by Shakespeare and his fellow actors for their Christmas performances before the Queen at Greenwich, would be apt to be chosen for a sudden repetition at Gray’s Inn the same evening. And of course for such an institution of scholarly gentlemen as Gray’s Inn, a farce based on Plautus would be likely to be thought appropriate.
So Mrs. Charlotte Stopes argues, who brought into association these facts and dates. She brings out also, another curious incident or two concerning what we may take to be the earliest performances of “The Comedie of Errors.” One is that the mother of the Earl of Southampton,—the young nobleman who was Shakespeare’s patron and to whom the Poet dedicated “Venus and Adonis” and “Lucrece,”—was then acting officially for her late husband. Thus it fell to her care to make up his accounts as Treasurer of the Chamber, and she it was who wrote this particular notice of the acting of Shakespeare before Queen Elizabeth. Others acting as Treasurer did not find it worth their while to include the Actors’ names in their accounts. This notice of hers is the first and last to mention names in this way. Her son, being a Gray’s Inn man, would have been in a position to suggest the substitution of Shakespeare’s Play and as a friend of Shakespeare’s would desire to do so.
The other incident of biographical interest is that the Gray’s Inn students were much mortified by the uproar which caused the failure of the program of their chief of Revels called “The Prince of Purpoole,” and made it necessary for them to call in common players. The result of their desire “to recover their lost honor with some graver conceipt” was to give Jan. 3d, a learned Dialogue called “Divers Plots and Devices.” Bacon aided largely in this stately affair. In its course six Councillors one after the other deliver speeches on enrollment of Knights and Chivalry, the glory of War, the study of Philosophy, etc. The scorn felt for Shakespeare’s “Comedie” and the contrast with this rival specimen of academic dramatics is significant.
Out of the comparatively simple plot of Plautus, Shakespeare developed an amusing complexity of situations. These appear upon studying the progress of the story, Act by Act, as follows:
THE ARRIVAL OF CERTAIN STRANGERS IN EPHESUS
What has the arrest of the “Marchant” Egean to do with the rest of the Story? How soon does any connection appear?
The reference in scene ii, to the occurrence taking place in scene i, suggests a somewhat odd chance coincidence in the arrival from Syracuse on the same day of both of these strangers. By this casual reference the seemingly unrelated scenes are so innocently linked together that it rather blinds than opens the eyes of the audience to the deeper links of connection. It also acts at once as a warning to Antipholus, and explains why he also is not arrested under the same law from which Egean suffered.
The merchant who gives Antipholus this warning does not appear to be at all an intimate friend. Yet he seems to have met the stranger upon his arrival. Is this accounted for? What office does the scene show that he bears toward him? How recent an institution is the Bank and Letter of Credit for travellers? Was the lack of such facilities long filled in the way here exemplified?
Do these two men keep the appointment they made to meet at five o’clock? Why is it made? Does it serve any need of the Play?
The reference to Ephesus as a town given over to sorcery and witchcraft assists in giving the impression that the time of the Play falls within the Christian era, when the ancient customs of the Pagan inhabitants gave the City a bad repute of this particular kind. Was it derived from Plautus? Note whether sorcery and witchcraft are included in his account of the discreditableness of Ephesus. What conclusions may be gathered as to Shakespeare’s account of it from a comparison with the corresponding passage in Plautus (This extract is given in Note on I, ii, 102-107 in the “First Folio” Edition of Shakespeare’s Play). Show how this statement is useful in throwing light upon the character of Antipholus as well as on events.
The first complication in scene ii arises from mistaking Dromio of Ephesus for Dromio of Syracuse; but notice that this error is accounted for by the second source of the errors of the play—belief in witchcraft.
Is the audience as much in the dark over the first mystification as Antipholus is? Should it be? Is the play the better or worse for not being clear? If both Dromios are made to look exactly alike how can the audience know?
ANTIPHOLUS THE STRANGER DINES AT HOME
Notice how the last scene of the preceding Act is cleared up by the first scene of the present Act.
Are the errors of Act ii the results of those of Act I? The errors of Act I affect but a very few characters, but in Act ii how many? A new source of complication is brought forward in this Act, also. Show what it is, and how it both adds to the interest of the Play as a story and to the confusion begun by the mistaken identity and the witchcraft elements of the Plot.
The fooling dialogue of Scene ii gives the action pause. Is it therefore useless, or a dramatic mistake? The ease with which the right master and man fall into this talk after the earlier cross-purposes with the wrong man, seems to betray the fact that they do belong together. They are so readily familiar that the cross-purposes making up the plot seem to be no longer troublesome either to themselves or the audience. The interval of reassurance makes the return of strangeness more unaccountable. Antipholus is also now reassured about his gold, and the earlier cross-purpose seems only a jest.
Why does the mention of Dromio’s name (ii, ii, 156) cause both master and man to exclaim? Why should it not have led them to guess the truth?
Would this scene with Adriana and Luciana have been equally mystifying and skilful if the right master and man had not been together?
In the debate between the sisters upon patience in marriage is Adriana or Luciana the more justifiable? Has their argument anything to do with the plot? Is character interest or plot interest of the first importance, and how are they apportioned in this play?
Is Adriana’s argument that she is bound to share morally herself in the infidelity of her husband sophistical? Or has it a core of sound ethical value?
ANTIPHOLUS THE NATIVE INVITES FRIENDS TO DINE WITH HIM
How far are the errors of Act iii new? From which element of the plot, mistaken identity, or the domestic difficulties of the native-born Antipholus do they arise?
What effects are gained by bringing together in this Act the right pairs of master and man?
The closed door between the two groups, one within the house, the other without, is the only barrier to such an exhibition of the double resemblances as would clear up all difficulties immediately. Is the humor of the situation the better for this slightness of the barrier, or is it rendered altogether too unlikely by it? Notice also the narrow escapes from meeting and being seen together which masters and men are constantly making and the skill of the stage movements so that, for example, while one pair of twins is in the house, the other pair is absolutely unable to come there, and make clear the main cause of the errors.
What relation to the subordinate cause of the errors, i.e., the domestic difficulties of Antipholus the Native—has the new source of difficulty and bepuzzlement—the gold chain? Bring out the relation of the dialogue (iii, i, 23-35), between Antipholus and the friends he invites, to the welcome they find and discuss later. The irony of his confidence in welcome, at least, which is precisely what is lacking, is peculiarly true to such disappointments in life. For the fun and naturalness gained by it, therefore, the carefully planned arrangement of the dialogue to lead up to it, does not seem to be artificial. What would have happened to the plot if the plan proposed to force the door with a crow-bar had been carried out? Since the dramatist was so daring as to cause it to be suggested, it was incumbent upon him at once to devise something to prevent it from being done. The way in which he has accomplished this through Balthazar, puts both Antipholus and his guest in an estimable light. Show its effect upon the present scene and upon both the character-interest and the scenes to come in which the Courtisan figures. What expense does Antipholus refer to (iii, i, 169)?
Is Luciana’s advice so good that it accounts for the attraction she has for Antipholus the Stranger? Or do you think she is attractive in spite of it?
Is the dialogue in this Act between the right master and man as good as that in Act ii? Has it other excuse for being besides punning and fooling? Examine its value as compared with the other in introducing a new and amusing error, and educing puns that are suggested by this, and therefore not independent of the plot.
This Act closes with two new incidents of use in the sequel: What are they?
Why has Shakespeare chosen to make Antipholus the Stranger abhor Adriana, and be attracted to her sister instead? What is the result for the plot? Is it a mistake that the promised match between Luciana and the Stranger is not consummated at the close of the play? Is the reference then made to it the best imaginable? How, if so, is it reconcilable with the more rapid matches at the close of other plays, e.g. Oliver and Celia in “As You Like It?”
COMPLICATIONS GROW
The errors of the early Acts begin simply and proceed by begetting other errors and beginning, also, with but one of the twin masters and one of the twin men-servants proceed by involving every one in each of the two Antipholus groups. In this Act others outside the main groups are continually being interwoven in the net of complications. In which Act did these larger social complications arise, and how are they carried on in the present Act. Show how by means of these larger circles of complication, e.g., the arrests, the visits of the Courtisan to Adriana in the attempt to get back her ring, the conjurring scenes, etc., the confusion becomes extreme. And then show, also, how by the very means of these larger circles of complication the clearing up process is brought forward. To whom is the suggestion due that Antipholus the Native has gone mad? What fitness is there in that, especially in its being broached by a minor character? Trace the relation of the Goldsmith, his delays and his debts to the Plot. How does it come about effectively that in this Act the wrong master and man are together, the opposite of what has prevailed, earlier? Show how in the eagerness of Adriana to send the gold and the grief over what she jealously suspects to be the cause of it, a tragic situation is reached. In which scene is the most complex confusion reached.
Is the confusion of identity, the domestic discord or the bewitchment and supposed lunacy the most powerful factor in the plot of error. Which is the most comical and which the most tragic moment in this Act?
SOLUTIONS MAKE ALL THE STRANGERS FEEL AT HOME
The climax of bewilderment being reached in the evidence that the same man is both out of the Priory and in it, solutions follow. Trace the steps by which this is accomplished.
Why is the attack upon Antipholus the Stranger assigned to the Merchant who is the Goldsmith’s creditor instead of to the Goldsmith? Is it by chance or is there some reason for it? Why did not Antipholus explain that he had the chain through no option of his own? By means of the Merchant drawing his sword and detaining him, the scene with Adriana at the close of the preceding Act when his flight prevented her from having him bound as a mad man is carried on again, and refuge in the Priory forced upon him.
Why does the Abbess blame Adriana first because she did not find fault with her husband and then because she did? Is her sudden harsh turn against her explicable not as personal inconsistency or womanly prejudice, but as due to a gleam of insight? What clew to the case does Adriana’s meekness afford? Or else of the relationship of the Abbess to the twins? Why does she so peremptorily keep the man from his wife? Is not this conduct devised to mystify the audience rather than the characters?
Notice that the Abbess is more of a surprise in her relation to the plot than the condemned Egean is. The Abbess episode balances at the close of the Play the Egean episode at the opening of the story. Trace the links of connection with the main action of each and their relation to each other, showing how they bind into an absolute unity a peculiarly symmetrical plot. Why do the two Dromios end the Play instead of the main characters?
Is this Play the better or worse farce for the serious domestic situation and the pathos of the long separation of the shipwrecked family?
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT
In what sense can there be said to be a development of character in “The Comedie of Errors?” If no progress can be traced in the standpoint of any one character of the Play, save possibly in that of Adriana, is there yet not to be seen a gradual bringing forward of the traits inwardly differentiating the two pairs of twins, and stamping the personality of Adriana and Luciana and even in a slighter degree of the Goldsmith, the Creditor Merchant, Egean, and the Abbess?
Show what you deem this to be in each character, and by what means the result in each is effected.
Is Antipholus the Stranger of a gentler and more pious spirit than Antipholus the Native? What signs of this impression can you cite? Was Antipholus the Native popular in Ephesus? What calling had he followed? Why do we learn more of Antipholus the Stranger at once than of his brother? In what respects does this suit the plot and the circumstances?
Which Dromio do you think the wittier? Is one more a house servant and less of a personal attendant and professional fool than the other? Why, do you think, is Antipholus the Stranger made to beat his man so often? Is his quick temper, or a sort of horse-play fun at the bottom of it? Or is the ancient custom as to body servants exemplified?
Which Antipholus has been the more independently reared and is this signified in their characters? It has been supposed that Antipholus the Native married at the Duke’s bidding for money and not for love. What reason does the Play give for this supposition? Is Adriana’s jealousy a reason, or is he fonder of her than she realizes? Which of the Sisters do you like best, and why?
Why would Antipholus the Native be better mated with one than the other? In what respects of character would Luciana be apt to attract Antipholus the Stranger more than Adriana would? Are there signs to show that Adriana and her husband are the more stalwart pair? Show how admirably the riper characters of the father and mother set off the qualities and relationships of the younger group.
The resemblances of the twins externally are counter-balanced by diversities that are internal, so that the possibilities of confusion may be said to be only skin deep. Does this add to the improbableness of the plot sufficiently to make it a questionable quality of the plot that the characters are so much differentiated, or does it serve rather to enrich the Play and make it far more interesting? Are there signs of character in Adriana and her husband going to show that they are destined to be happier in their relation to each other than ever before?
SHAKESPEARE’S DEPARTURES FROM PLAUTUS
The omissions and changes Shakespeare made from Plautus’s plot are almost as important in lending his Play a new effect as the additions and entirely original inventions.
Notice the entire omission of the borrowed cloak taken from his wife, Mulier, by Menaechmus and given to the Courtisan, Erotium; also, of the character of the parasite, Peniculus, by means of whom as a spiteful informer the wife is told of her husband’s relations with Erotium and the dinner he proposes to take with her. Instead of Mulier’s father, Senex, Shakespeare creates the noble Egean, the father of the Twins. Introducing his plot with the incident of his arrest, he closes it with the still more notable character of the mother whom he gives an important part to play in the happy solution of the difficulties and the re-union. The part of the Duke and the trade relations of the two cities, the city in Sicily as in Plautus, the other Ephesus, instead of Epidamnum, as in Plautus, are ingenious changes of an external sort. What is effected by them? The different treatment of the dinner incident which causes the husband to mean to dine at home, until he finds he cannot, when with others he invites the courtisan to dine with them at an Inn, lends a different color to the story. What do you think it effects as to character, amusingness, and unity with the plot of mistaken identity? The courtisan’s open visit to the wife and direct effect upon the plot is in strong contrast to the intrigue of which the wife is informed by a third person. Bring this out, and show what the influence is.
Compare the argument of Plautus (For this see “First Folio Edition” of “Comedie of Errors,” p. 76) with the opening scene wherein Shakespeare causes Egean to tell the story out of which the Play grows. In what respects is this an improvement? (See Extract from Ten Brink, p. 183).
What is accomplished by the addition of the twin servants?—the two Dromios? (for special assistance in a comparative appreciation of Shakespeare’s farce and that of Plautus see Introduction also Sources in the “First Folio Edition” of this Play).
Is the complexity of Shakespeare’s plot over that of Plautus a disadvantage? If not, how does this fact agree with the common saying that simplicity in Art is the highest Art?
Are the farcical interest and the character interest carried on too far not to be seen to be inconsistent interests? Or is the secret of the Art of the Play the reconciliation and harmony of the farcical and the serious?
The unusual in this Comedy is due to its reflection of the ideals and manners of Chivalry in Love and Friendship as loyally professed by Valentine and Silvia and outraged by Protheus.
The plot is extremely simple and is carried on by means of causing its main characters successively to dominate in their influence upon the action.
VALENTINE VERSUS PROTHEUS AND JULIA
Valentine’s reasons for travel and those of Protheus for staying at home separate the two friends. Compare Valentine’s preference of Honor, and that of Protheus for Love, with the opening of “Love’s Labour’s Lost” and “Much Adoe.”
Show how the rest of the action, after the separation of the friends to suit this double thesis of life, depends upon illustrating the effect of Protheus’s love upon Julia’s fortunes, and of Valentine’s quest of honor upon the fortunes of Protheus. Notice how it happens that his own deception has a direct influence upon his father, so that his departure to join Valentine is as much due to his own lack of firmness in his desire to stay on Julia’s account, as to Valentine’s initiative in going.
Is Valentine’s or Protheus’s the more influential character upon the course of events thus far?
VALENTINE AND SILVIA
Tell the story of this Act.
Explain the courtship scene with which this Act opens as illustrating the service of love in systems of Chivalry. (For hints on this see Introduction to the Play in “First Folio Edition” also Note on ii, i, 97).
Contrast the earnestness of Valentine’s nature in this devotion to Silvia with the fickleness of Protheus.
The two servants, Speed and Launce, may be compared, their contrasts to each other shown, and their general resemblance to a similarly contrasted pair—the two Dromios in the “Comedie of Errors.”
Is the love of Protheus for Silvia a reflex influence from Valentine’s extreme enthusiasm?
Why does Lucetta distrust Protheus?
THE FALSE FRIEND
What effect has the arrival of Protheus at the Milanese Court? How does the new-comer manage to dominate this Act? Point out the skill of Protheus in making his disclosure to the Duke seem to be reluctantly wrung from him against the friendship he feels for Valentine and only because of a sense of duty toward the Duke.
What does this delicacy accomplish toward his own courtship of Silvia? If he had seemed eager to tell his friend’s secrets would not the Duke distrust him and suspect some self-interest on his part? What did his mention of Thurio’s suit do for himself?
Compare the nature of the two friends’ talk; how that of Protheus gives a better impression of himself than is true, that of Valentine, a worse. Show the consistency in wile of Protheus in his conduct toward the Duke, Thurio, Silvia, and Julia. Why does it succeed? Wherein is it likely to fail?
Is Protheus impossibly false as a character? Or is his duplicity an exemplification of the facility toward evil of this kind that is natural to an extremely impressionable nature which lacks stability?
In what does Valentine’s superiority consist? Are the maxims for the treatment of women which he gives the Duke due to artificial system learned from others or a part of his own experience?
SILVIA AND JULIA
Tell the story of the Act. All the main characters and one new one have their parts in the next steps in the plot? What are those parts?
Valentine’s fate and its result.
Silvia’s determination and its effect. Notice how her call upon Eglamoure for knightly service brings the action into the province of Chivalry again.
Julia’s office in the schemes of Protheus.
Is this Act dominated in its drift by the two women? How do they put their impress upon events?
Show how the villain Protheus is instrumental in bringing these two women together, and how this is equivalent to uniting against his evil policy, the good forces of the Play. The loyalty of Silvia to Julia considered as offsetting the falsity of Protheus to Valentine.
Is the most actively beneficial episode in this Act also the most charming.
VALENTINE, SILVIA AND JULIA VERSUS PROTHEUS
What are the results of Silvia’s flight?
Why does outlawry bring out the superiority of Valentine?
Does it serve also to bring out the inferiority of Protheus?
How does outlawry serve to defeat the purposes of the Duke and Thurio and bring about the conquest over them of Valentine?
How does Thurio’s nature inure to the credit
of Valentine’s with the
Duke?
Does outlawry here represent the injustices of civic life? To what degree? Or the natural life beneficent and innocent of Arden Forest in “As You Like It?” To what degree is this true?
Why did Julia swoon? Was the repentance of Protheus genuine?—and natural? What does Valentine mean by his forgiveness of Protheus and his proof of it—“All that was mine, in Silvia, I give thee?” could he give her, personally, against her will, in Chivalry? Or in true love? How could he mean anything then, but proving by this entrusting of her to his friend his belief in his loyalty and purity?
Why is Silvia silent? (See Introduction to the Play in “First Folio Edition,” also Selected Criticism and Notes on V, iv, 91, for hints on these latter queries).
A Play or mask within the Play is not uncommon in Shakespeare. A Play outside the Play especially distinguishes the arrangement of this Comedy.
Perhaps it serves to indicate that the theme of the taming of a wife is crude and primitive folk-farce, particularly suited to the taste of the drunken tinker before whom it is played.
Shakespeare’s handling of the tinker’s subject, however, like other rude and homely matters taken up by an acute mind is such as to fasten deeper attention and to overgo a tinker’s appreciation.
THE PLAY OUTSIDE THE PLAY
The effect of the Induction in dramatic presentation is not easy to estimate. Since there is no direct connection between it and the Play itself what do you see that it could be made to do for the action? Is it like a frame for a picture adapted to give the theme remoteness? Is this appropriate? Is it otherwise a mere cause for confusion? Or is it intended to add one more thread of amusement? Why does Shakespeare in “The Shrew” drop the tinker interregnum dialogue recurring regularly in “A Shrew?” May Shakespeare, therefore, be cited as finding only a limited use for “the Play outside the Play,” deeming it in the way later? How has he arranged for its gradual disappearance from attention? Is there a stage reason alone enough to account for it? (See suggestions in Notes on I, i, 266, and iv, iii, i, “First Folio Edition"). Compare the Tinker scenes in the version of 1594. (For these see Extracts in Sources, pp. 105-110, in “First Folio Edition"). Do the Slie of “A Shrew” and Christophero Sly of “The Shrew” differ as characters? As to their opinion of the Play: Are their between-the-act dialogues materially different?
What is the relation to the source and what has been altered from the old tale.
The local Warwickshire touches in the Induction and their explanation. (For these see “Story of the Induction” in the Play).
Ought the Induction play to be left out? How might it be made more effective by special treatment on the stage? Should the additional scenes be interpolated as was the stage custom, or should Shakespeare’s diminishing notice of them be adopted to produce the most artistic effect?
THE DOUBLE PLOT OF THE MAIN PLAY
In “A Shrew” and “The Shrew”: Show how the story, with respect to the Taming scenes, is the same substantially, with comparatively minor differences, except for the characterization. But with respect to the Bianca scenes it has been expanded and altered. This suggests, most naturally, that the part Shakespeare did not write or answer for in “A Shrew” was merely the Bianca scenes, and that his task in “The Shrew” was to cut out and rewrite the scenes that were not his so as to be unhampered with the disharmony of the two parts of the plot as it appears in the Quarto of 1594.
The story of the Play as it now stands consists of an interweaving of the Taming story and the story of Bianca’s Courtship in such a way that while they keep their separateness of necessity, they balance better in interest and are more continually brought to bear upon each other from time to time. What are their points of contact in each Act? The sisters with relation to their father and their suitors in Act I: How does this initiate the action?
With relation to each other and the Music Master in Act ii: How does this separate the action into two lines of Courtship.
After Katherine’s marriage in Act iii the interest divides between the Taming of Katherine and the Courtship of Bianca.
In Act iv two or three points of contact are arranged by means of the journey and what two characters?
In Act V how is contact both objective and moral obtained?
Alternative interest in the Bianca Courtship after Kate’s marriage and taming is attained by the elaborate scheme to make Lucentio the most successful suitor and the droll surprises and difficulties met with in the process.
Is the lack of unity in the Play sufficiently remedied by enriching the Bianca counterplot and arranging for alternate interest first in the plot and then in the counterplot, or is the original difficulty irremediable?
In which story is plot or else character the supreme interest?
Is the Bianca story or the Katherine story the more entertaining? Why?
BIANCA AND HER SUITORS
Lucentio’s errand in Padua, his breeding and relations to his servant qualify him as quite the conventional hero of a romantic love-story. How does he compare with the young noblemen of “Love’s Labour’s Lost?” What part of the study of Philosophy does he specially desire to take up and how does his temper toward learning fall in with theirs?
What light does Bianca on her appearance throw upon herself? Through the testimony of her sister and her father and the two suitors what else is to be gathered?
Her effect upon Lucentio: The parallelism with “A Midsommer Nights Dreame” (I, i, 156, and see p. 134 in the First Folio Edition of “The Shrew”) not appearing in “A Shrew,” considered as indicative of the favorite method of Shakespearian lovers in falling in love at first sight.
Katherine’s effect upon Tranio, lost upon Lucentio, in his daze over Bianca, leads to what plan of action? How does the part Hortensio and Gremio play in this reinforce the plot, and combine them all to instigate Petruchio to woo Katherine? How does the contest for the best sale of Bianca when Katherine is out of the way lead to a new plot? The money-contest of the suitors, judged by the father is supplemented by the mock teaching-contest of the lovers of which Bianca herself is the judge. Show how this constitutes the second step in the action and what complications and simplifications it prepares. Lucentio’s studies in the hedonistic Philosophy he professes and its victory over Music and Hortensio.
What is Bianca’s contribution to the gossip excited by Katherine’s wedding, and what impression does Act iii give you altogether of Bianca’s character? Is the bad report of it in Act iv, made by Hortensio, as the Musician, Lisio, with Tranio, quite fair to her?
The abusive opinion and jealousy of Hortensio assisted by the supposed Lucentio narrow down the uncertainties of the courtship so as to concentrate interest on the new scheme of the supposed father. How is this worked out? Explain the conflict with the arrival of the true father, and the amusing counter-play.
Why does Lucentio’s suit excel that of any other in interest?
Is Bianca wrong in acting independently of her father?
THE SHREW AND HER TAMER
Does the Shrew justify her reputation on her first appearance? What is said of her compared with what she does then and in Act ii? Why is Petruchio’s first approach with a combat of wit and a great bluff of compliment effective? Is Kate really impressed by it, or only fearful that she is being fooled? How do you account for her denial of him and his suit to her father in Act ii and her mortification when he does not arrive till late in Act iii? Does Petruchio’s speech to the others and before them (ii, i, 328-350) account for the change? His arrival at the wedding in such shabby attire and with so wretched an appearance as to retinue, with his sorry horse and man-servant contrasts strongly with the promises held out in this speech. What is the effect on Kate and why does it serve his purpose?
Is Kate’s entreaty to stay, or her action in showing her bridegroom the door the climax of the wedding scene? What is the point in the stage business of Petruchio’s speech warning others not to touch his chattel? Is she really being befriended by the bystanders when she declares they must go “forward to the bridall dinner” or is she so entirely alone in her opposition to Petruchio’s command to go, that his speech is the keenest satire upon her defencelessness in every direction but through him?
Is Petruchio’s conduct at home and the servants’ comment upon it such as to make Kate’s two entreaties explicable?
What light does Petruchio’s own account (iv, i, 183-207) of his method throw upon it?
In the eating and haberdasher scene (iv, iii) what is it Kate learns—merely that she cannot command by force and can have what she wants by another method? What is the secret of her tractableness in Scene v?
Are Katherine and Petruchio the most interesting characters in the Play? Why?
Is their prominence due to their personal attractiveness or to the Dramatist’s skill?
THE TRIPLE MARRIAGE AND THE MORAL
Why should the Play not end with Act iv?
What does Act V add?
Is the quality of the table-talk in keeping with the plot and characters?
The husbands’ talk and wager turns on what point, obedience to the husband, or agreement of husband and wife as mutually to their interest?
Show the drift of Kate’s expression of the moral of the Play, and state your own way of looking at it.
Did Petruchio and Kate give an impromptu performance of conjugal felicity, or one decided upon beforehand?
Was Kate quick-witted enough to guess there was money in it, or was she really, once of a different mind and reformed.
THE FOLK ORIGIN OF THE TAMING
Trace the antiquity of this schooling of a wife, and the resemblances and contrasts in the chief variants of the story (for help in this see Sources in “First Folio Edition").
Is there any progress to be discerned in the degree of bodily force deemed expedient?
Is any such scheme of the marriage-relation compatible with advanced civilization, or is it peculiar to crude notions of life in a taming age?
Is the folk-legend indicative of an inherent relation in marriage of the male and female natures, or is it merely an expression of established custom and legalized institution upon gaining for each the aims and line of conduct desired? If so, is the result of the process to gain a ground of mutual compromise and accommodation and a division of labor in joint life which will enable the process itself to fall into disuse.
Is coercion of others consistent with a high grade of individuality?
Did Petruchio play the Tamer in a “Pickwickian sense” and the whole thing being a bit of acting, did Kate see through it, finally, and play her part too?
The use of finesse in the Play (see Introduction to the Play “First Folio Edition").
Does Shakespeare’s way of handling the characters and the process of taming materially differ from the way prevailing both in the crude folk tales and in “A Shrew?”
Does he suggest that in both Petruchio’s and Kate’s case they are merely bent upon their own individual emotions until closer relation makes them join forces?
What is the modern bearing of Shakespeare’s way of putting the story?
Partnership and co-operation versus autocratic rule: Are the administrative advantages of the latter consonant with the good will and continual psychical development furthered by the former?
Does the intellectual advantage rest with the user of force or with the mind that accommodates itself to force by gaining its ends by stratagem and other indirect policies?
Is coercion as wise as persuasion which has no such penalties to pay?
Shakespeare makes us laugh in “Love’s Labour’s Lost” at the futility of the attempt of ascetic and academic men to shut out love and women from their schemes of life and study.
His early work in putting the past history of England into dramatic form may possibly have suggested to him to put more recent history on the stage by means of this Comedy. Light as it is, the point of it is to satirize the monastic and exclusive element in current educational schemes. Fictitious as the story is, it touches upon names and incidents belonging to actual history. So familiar were these actual happenings of the day to his audience that it could especially enjoy these veiled allusions to them.
The main idea of the plot of the Comedy—the “Academe,” was one that had a bearing upon various similarly named educational projects of that time in England.
One such scheme was drawn up about 1570, by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Sir Walter Raleigh’s half-brother, for the “education of her Majeste’s Wardes and others the youths of nobility and gentlemen.” This plan was, like Shakespeare’s arranged for a “three yeeres terme” (I, i, 20) and at the end of “every three years” some book was to be published which would represent the fruit of the Academy’s study during that period. Merely the title of this scheme—“Queen Elizabethes Achademy” may have suggested Shakespeare’s “Achademe” (I, i, 17). Of course, however, both Gilbert’s and Shakespeare’s adoption of the name are examples of the appropriation by educational groups of the classic academes of the Philosophers of Athens and their student followers. Another educational plan “for the bringing up in vertue and learning of the Queenes Majestis Wardes,” was devised by Sir Nicholas Bacon, in 1561. Later, in the reign of James I, the establishment of the “Academe Royal” by Bolton, is an example of the early vogue of the name, which has since become familiar everywhere, for educational and learned institutions.
A less important element in the formation of the plot is the allusion to current French politics which the situation of the characters of the Play suggests.
A King of Navarre and a Princess of France conferring in treaty over a disputed province and a claim of allowance for services rendered is an incident constituting a reference to a state of things in France then closely concerning England. The succession to the throne of France of Henry of Navarre, the champion of the Huguenots of France, was long contested. England was friendly to Navarre, the object of her foreign policy being to counterpoise the power of Spain and the Catholics of France, with whom Queen Elizabeth’s most formidable rival, Mary Stuart, was allied in interest.
No king of Navarre was ever named Ferdinand. Yet by making an entirely fictitious hero a king of Navarre and the suitor of a princess of France, the relationship of Henry of Navarre to dominance in France was suggested in an unobjectionable and amusing way. And the death of the King of France introduced at the close of the Play, involving the prospect as a probability that the hero might then succeed to the throne of France, could scarcely fail to remind Shakespeare’s audience of the actual struggle of the King of Navarre for the French crown, and also of the fact that on the death of the French King in August, 1589, Navarre then became heir presumptive, and after the battle of Ivry in 1590 Spain delayed but could not long obstruct his complete success.
In 1593 the most important cities of the Kingdom yielded him allegiance and in the Spring of 1594 Paris herself opened her gates to him. These dates 1589-1594 indicate the time, also, when “Love’s Labour’s Lost” is likely to have been timely in these references, and yield a clew to its date of composition.
The effect of these allusions to French political affairs, made more piquant by the downfall of Spain in her political opposition both to England and the party of Henry of Navarre, was intensified in Shakespeare’s Play by the names given to Navarre’s lords. Berowne, as the name appears in the Folio, is an English spelling of the French name Biron, to which it is changed in modernized editions of Shakespeare. Longavill is an English equivalent of Longueville, and Dumaine or Dumane of De Mayenne, names which also are changed in the modernized editions, although not consistently. All these names are associated with Navarre’s struggles in France. The Marechal de Biron and the Duc de Longueville fought prominently on Navarre’s side. The Duc de Mayenne, brother of Henry of Guise, fought on the opposite side. The Duc d’Alencon long a suitor for the hand of Queen Elizabeth, is mentioned as the father of Rosaline.
Another veiled reference to a Russian suitor of the Queen’s seems to be made in the incident introduced in the last Act. This scene of the wooing of the King and his lords when disguised as Russians makes fun, perhaps, of an actual embassy of Russians to the Court of Elizabeth, in 1583, when the Queen had arranged to put upon Lady Mary Hastings the suit which the Czar Ivan had originally hoped to proffer to the Queen herself. (For information upon these and other incidents of the period that may be used in the plot see Sources, pp. 106-116 also Notes in the “First Folio Edition” of this Play).
THE VOW AND ITS FIRST ANTAGONISTS
The theme of the Comedy—the exclusion of love for the sake of winning fame for learning, is made clear by the first speaker. The opposition Love will make to this is next expressed through another speaker, and then embodied in a practical example. Bring out the argument, in full, on both sides, as expressed by the King and his lords, on the one side, and by one lord who is less subservient on the other side. What does Berowne object to in the King’s idea about study and fame? He says, practically, that fame is a mere expression of opinion, and that as anybody can give anyone the name of being learned or the name of being anything, fame may be given by those who have very little notion of any real knowledge. Superficial knowledge is knowledge of names but real knowledge is that which names mean. In a word, we but dull our minds and blind our eyes in poring over the outsides of things, unless we study to understand life and act a beneficent part in it.
As children we are rightly put to task work in order to get the means to go on independently using life and all the products of life including books, in order to minister toward independent thought and life. But to start in with rules and restrictions when we are older and life itself is opening before us, is like climbing over a house to unlock the gate before it. Their artificial arrangements are not fitted to meet actual experience. Actual experience is bound to laugh at their exclusion of life. How does the message brought by Costard and Clowne bear on the argument? The fooling seems to be the dominant interest in Scene ii. Is it, nevertheless, only the vehicle by which the theme is developed? Show how also not alone by the confession Armado makes but also by the words in which he expressed it, the theme of the conflict of Love against the vow foreswearing it is made clear. Notice, too, that the symptom, so to speak, of the labour of Love or Cupid as opposed to the Herculean labor of “warre against your owne affections” is at once made evident in Armando. This symptom is the desire to write a Sonnet. In what way, then, does it appear from the Story of Act I, that witness will be borne to the success of love’s labor over the vow of the Achademe?
Does the sprightliness of the second scene obscure the scheme of the play advantageously or disadvantageously?
THE EMBASSY versus THE VOW
How is it made apparent that the effect of the Embassy of France to Navarre will be on the side of Love against the Vow? The ladies’ remarks upon the students of the Achademe throw light upon themselves and the drift of the story as well as upon their subjects. Show what may be gathered from their speeches? What does the Princess gather from them?
The King does not invite the Princess to his Court, and declares he will not violate his vow. Nevertheless he does do so. In what respect? Boyet’s observation of him goes still farther. What is this? And how does it seem to be justified? Is Boyet’s conclusion that “Navar is affected,” more a means of telling the Audience what is about to happen, than comment on what is to be seen? Or is it of use to show the Actor of the King’s part how he must bear himself? How does it fit with the name and scheme of the Play that Boyet who thinks the King has already fallen in love should be called Cupid’s grandfather?
Why does the Princess discount Boyet’s remarks and accuse him of joking? Does she give any clew to her own feelings?
THE CLOWN AS A LETTER-CARRIER
Why is it in keeping with the Play that Berowne should be the first of the Lords to be foresworn?
In making Armado the keeper of Costard, the Clown’s breaking of the vow has already been satirized by the King’s own act. Armado now takes his next turn at making Costard’s sentence a hollow mockery by sending him as a messenger to Jacquenetta. How is this first letter-carrying made to lead to a second, doubling the mockery and promising new confusions?
Has Moth anything to do with the scheme of the Play?
Who is the “Boy” of whom Berowne speaks repeatedly in his speech concluding this Act? What is the bearing of the reference to him upon the Play?
How is the joke of the rhyme in which the Boy got the better of his Master by selling him the “Goose” to be explained? It is commonly supposed that the interpolation from the Quarto, i.e., the lines put between brackets in the “First Folio Edition” (p. 31) are necessary. It is better however, to leave them out, as they are left out in the Folio text, if it is understood that the Boy Moth, repeats ll. 91-92, after Armado has said them. Then Armado begins the “lenvoy” with the intention that the Boy will also repeat that and that being the end, turn the laugh on himself by calling himself the Goose. But the Boy is too clever. He says it ends where it should. Costard declares the Boy has sold him, and both laugh to the bewilderment of Armado. If the Page added the “lenvoy” as the Quarto puts it the joke would already have been turned against him. The explanation has to be very elaborate and the poor little joke is too thin to stand it, if both texts be followed. It is easy to see that the repetition by the Page of ll. 91 and 92, on the stage, confused the hearer who set it down for the publisher of the Quarto, and also that the repetition would be a part of the stage business and the lines might not appear twice therefore in the MS. of the Play itself. The question growing out of this is—Ought not the bracketed part of the text to be left out?
Why does Berowne say that he loves “the worst of all” (III, i, 193)? Is this true? Does he think it true? Does it refer to her looks, or her disposition, or her brain? Is it said of her because she is the cleverest, and does Berowne really share the common prejudice of the male against a superior woman or only pretend to?
BEROWNE HEARS SOME SONNETS AND THE KING RECEIVES A LETTER
Does the Princess guess the truth of the matter when Costard delivers the wrong letter for Rosaline?
What relation has the second scene of Act IV to the Play? Of what use to the preceding action, and to the present? Of what use are all these new characters to the Plot? One has been before heard from, but is he of the most or least use here? Are they of use to the story in any other way, later? In what respects do their tricks of speech and affectation of learning suit the aim of the Comedy? Show how the Sonnet-writing is made the means of unmasking the lovers to each other and all of them to Berowne. Are the sonnets suited to the characters of the writers? Contrast the King’s and Berowne’s in this respect. Does the King suspect Berowne before Jaquenetta brings her letter? Why does Jaquenetta say it was treason? Would Berowne have confessed if he were not forced to? After having so unmercifully followed the example of the others in condemning them for doing what each was equally involved in, the climax of forced confession from him is more amusing than if any one of them had unmasked him, as Longaville did Dumain, the King Longaville, and Berowne the King. What special fitness was there in making Dumane find out that the torn letter was in Berowne’s hand and bore his signature?
Is Berowne’s speech to “salve” their “perjury” (IV, iii, 309-383) the moral of the piece? If so why should not the Play end here? How does Berowne’s final speech in this Act foreshadow the conclusion of the Play?
SPORT IS BY SPORT OVERTHROWN
What were the main events of the last Act and of this one, and how do they bear upon one another? Why is the revenge planned by the Princess both fair and prudent? Are the men more in earnest than they seem? Do the women seem less in earnest than they are? Which man first draws a lesson from being outwitted, and how is it justified? Show how this lesson suits the trend of the Play, and advances upon the outcome of the preceding Act. To whom is Berowne’s line (V, ii, 477)—“Speake for yourselves, my wit is at an end”—addressed? How is the King brought to confusion? Is the Princess too hard upon him? Why does Berowne scoff so fiercely at Boyet?
Is the presentation of the Nine Worthies too absurd in itself to mix well with the courtliness, learning, and elaborate wit of the rest of the Play? Note Berowne’s defence of it (V, ii, 569-571) and his rebuke to the King for despising it? The Princess’s defence of it and its correspondence with that of Theseus for the show of the “base mechanicals” in the “Midsommer Nights Dreame.” How does Berowne’s humility in accepting the parallel with their own wit-overthrown mask agree with his boisterous jeering at the mask of the Nine Worthies later? How does the attitude of the ladies toward it compare with that of the men and what comment upon it does it constitute in your opinion? How does it all prepare the way for the sudden sad message, and also for the decision of the Ladies to rebuff love that is not serious? What special point is there in the kind of trial Rosaline and her mistress each specially propose for Berowne and the King? Has it any relation to what has just been shown of each of them in their attitude towards others with respect to the humble performers of the Mask of the Nine Worthies? What makes wit an unalloyed pleasure?
Is the serious ending of this Comedy a disappointment? Is seriousness an ending artistically called for by this plot, or only morally called for? Compare with the serious strain in the “Comedie of Errors.” What does the contradictory little final dialogue between Winter and Spring add to the significance of the Play?
THE WIT OF THE PLAY
This has been called by Armitage Brown, “A Comedy of Conversation”; and the quibbles in which the Play abounds have been supposed by Dr. Johnson to give the Author “such delight, that he was content to sacrifice reason propriety and truth” for their sake. How far do these observations justly apply to the Play?
In what degree is the extravagant banter of the Play itself an imitation of current fashions of speech and itself an object of ridicule?
Its relations to Lyly and Euphuism. (See Extracts from Ward and from Landmann in “Selected Criticism,” in First Folio Edition of the Play).
Make a study of the lesser and larger wit of the play, showing how the former is merely incidental to the latter.
In what respects is the whimsical talk of the Play suited to certain groups and to special characters, so that there is more variety in it than appears at first.
Does the master wit of the Play consist in any one class of fun, as verbal conceits in the punning line; practical jokes; Euphuism, so-called; banter in speech and retort, versemaking and sonneteering, learned quips, or in the use of all these combined in a way to bring out the point of the Play—the clash of natural with artificial methods.
Is wit or purpose dominant in the Play?
Which is the wittiest scene? Is it also the most morally significant?
THE CHARACTERS
Three groups of characters appear in the play—the main group belonging to the Court; the learned group, Armado, the, schoolmaster, and the Curate; and the native group, Costard, Jaquenetta, Dull, and Moth. The two latter subordinate groups add much to the Play. Show in what respects: as to Plot interest what do they add? As to merriment and significance? Is the morality and wit of the Play contributed to by them? Are they of interest in themselves, apart from their relation to the other characters? Are Costard and Jaquenetta the only happy lovers in the Play? Why?
Is the King, kingly? In what respects, do you think, does he evince youth and inexperience? When does he begin seriously to be in love? Is the Princess justified in disciplining him? How much of her discipline is due to the event that cuts short the Play? Judging from his character, do you think he will stand the “twelvemonth” test?
Is Berowne the oldest as well as the deepest and wisest of the men? How does he show all this?
Why does Rosaline discipline him? Is she in insight superior to him as the Princess is to the King? Are the other court ladies equally wise in the probation period they allot?
Are all the men—Costard included—so much a prey to a sort of foppery of expression and love of animal spirits as to be properly subject to the satire the play provides for them? Are the women more sane in this respect, despite their wit, or not?
Is Shakespeare apparently on the women’s side?
Is Costard the bumpkin the best actor in the Mask of the Worthies? Why? Why is Jaquenetta the least and Moth the most discomfitted of the third group of characters?
Dowden says the women of the Play “have not the entire advantage on their side.” What do they lack? He also says, to bear this out, that “Berowne is yet a larger nature than the Princess or Rosaline.” What has this to do with their relative advantage in the Play itself, as Shakespeare shows it?
Who are the critics of the falseness of artifice in the Play? Is Berowne on the women’s side in the criticism which gives them their advantage?
THE MORAL OF THE PLAY
Is there a moral against the current educational methods and the affectations social and literary of Shakespeare’s time? The monastic and aristocratic elements in education considered as opposed to the progress of Women and the People. Show the general conditions of education prevailing after the Middle Ages, and the new spirit of the Renascence making itself felt, also the degree in which this appears in this plot. If Shakespeare’s spirit, as manifested in this Play, had been more influential practically, do you think a different road would have been taken? (For hints upon this line of thought see Introduction in the “First Folio Edition"). How far is Berowne to be taken as the spokesman of Shakespeare? Note what Pater says of him as “a reflex of Shakespeare himself,” and trace the truth of this as concerns the fact that he is never “quite in touch” with the level of the understanding shown by others of the Play, and state the bearing this has upon the Moral of the Play. (See Pater’s “Appreciations” or extract from same in “Selected Criticism,” pp. 242-248, “First Folio Edition").
Why does so frolicsome a Comedy end so seriously? Does that make it funnier?
Is there really a moral in the Play in favor of nature and sincerity or is it merely read into it?
Is Dowden right, who says “there is a serious intention in the play,” or Barrett Wendell who says: “like modern comic opera, such essentially lyric work as this has no profound meaning; its object is just to delight, to amuse; whoever searches for significance in such literature misunderstands it.”
In comparison with other comedies of Shakespeare, is a serious undercurrent discernible in all of them, but none in this?
SHAKESPEARE’S PLAY AND TENNYSON’S POEM ("THE PRINCESS”) UPON EDUCATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
Summarize story and outcome of Play and Poem in comparison and in contrast. Does Shakespeare’s exposition of the contemporary view of education account for the condition Tennyson criticises? If so, are women to blame for it? If not, how much does this modify Tennyson’s criticism of the educational exclusion that is the scheme of the College in “The Princess?” Shakespeare seems to point his moral against his male characters for their exclusiveness, Tennyson against his women characters? Which one goes the deeper? Wherein do they agree and disagree? How may they be made to supplement each other? Has Tennyson’s poem presented any phase of the question touching upon popular interest in exclusive educational schemes? Is Shakespeare, considering his time, the more democratic in his views of life, as shown by this Play, in comparison with those brought out in Tennyson’s Poem. Why does Shakespeare leave the women in moral and actual command of the situation?
Is co-education the right conclusion to draw from the exposition by the Poets of educational restraints and the relation of men and women to life?
What ideals of life as to Nature and Education must be included in educational schemes? Why does the Play not end with as many marriages as there are lovers? Is it possibly because Shakespeare did not mean to bring forward love between man and woman as if it were the only thing in life but as the typical experience of life that should open up the depths of knowledge not of love alone but of death and suffering in relation to it.
The title of this Comedy broadly describes its character, and is based upon the double meaning of “Nothing.” The events that constitute the plot are the result of “note-ing” or overhearing and so taking note of events which are deceptive in some way. Hence, in all the “note-ing” that takes place, there is, after all “nothing,” and the whole amusing plot constitutes much ado about nothing. The letter “h” in Nothing was often silent in Elizabethan pronunciation. The “h” in “Moth” in “Love’s Labour’s Lost” is another example.
Noting or overhearing as a factor of the plot is introduced also in “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” It is one of several links in workmanship with that Play and its use there may have suggested the production of a Play almost altogether built, as this is, on overhearing or taking critical notice such as Benedicke and Beatrice take of each other.
The part of the plot that is based on an already existent story does not develop this noteing element particularly. For that reason it is the likelier that it is a device of Shakespeare’s to make up his Comedy.
CLAUDIO NOTES HERO WITH FAVOR AND IS NOTED WITH DISFAVOR
The Story of Act I results, on the arrival of the Prince and his suite, in making it known that Claudio has noted Hero as “the sweetest Ladie” that ever he “lookt on.” Show how it also comes out in Scene i that a noting of a severer kind has passed between Benedicke and Beatrice. The two kinds of special interest—the openly admiring noting of Claudio, and the captious notice of each other shown by Beatrice and Benedicke, initiate the two channels of action in which the plot will run. The normal sex-agreement of the one pair of characters is varied by contrast with the more unusual sex-warfare that asserts itself humorously both in Beatrice and Benedicke. Bring out pertinent examples of their defiance of love and marriage. What is to be gathered of Hero and her point of view from this Act? How much from others, from little from herself? And how much from her of others? Contrast with hers the witness given of herself by Beatrice. Is Claudio taciturn, too, when compared with Benedicke?
What noting goes on in scene ii? Is it in accordance with what has already taken place between Claudio and the Prince? What additional noting comes out in Sc. iii. Is this in accordance with Scene i or Scene ii? Act I closes with a sense of some confusion which Act II is required to clear up. In addition to the inconsistency, notice Don John’s enmity to Claudio, and its menace of disaster.
Is the inconsistency of the last three scenes misleading and puzzling rather than alluring to the curiosity of the reader?
Could it be made more interesting on the stage by the way of enacting the part of Brother Anthony?
THE PRINCE PLOTS FOR TRUE NOTING AND HIS BROTHER FOR FALSE
Tell the story of the masked ball. What new light is thrown, first, on the characters and, then, on the plot by means of these fragmentary bits of dialogue heard as the revellers pass on and off stage together.
Is Don John really misled as to his Brother’s intentions toward Hero?
What does Hero herself think?
Does Don Pedro himself show that he is acting for another—that the god, Love, dwells beneath his visor? The modernized edition spoils one of the references to this office in which the Prince labors for Love and does a labor of love in whose disinterestedness some doubt is expressed. By changing Love to Jove (in II, i, 92) a literal correction is made in accord with the legend referred to, but in entire destruction of the point made by the Prince, if Shakespeare means to adapt the allusion to his special purpose. Note also Benedicke’s name for Claudio (II, iii, 34). What is your opinion of this? (See Note on II, i, 91, in “First Folio Edition"). Compare another instance where the Prince shows that he is acting for Cupid (II, i, 358-367). Is Don Pedro the most active spirit in the plot? Show how in Acts I and II, it is made clear that the plot will consist in the prevalence of either a favorable or unfavorable influence upon the happiness of the characters. Who represents each influence?
Notice that the favorable influence in its first action in favor of Claudio’s happiness is misunderstood, discounted and disbelieved in several directions. Is Claudio led to distrust of the Prince by others or by his own jealousy?
In the second action of the favorable influence initiated by the Prince, which of the characters share? Does the unfavorable influence work against Benedicke’s happiness?
What is Borachio’s place in the action of the unfavorable influence?
Noteing or overhearing is itself nothing or has a large element of the deceptive in it. How is it made to work well in Benedicke’s case? Is the element of truth the only one that is effective?
THE NOTE-ING IS NOTED
Show that the action taking the Story on consists in the “note-ing” already planned being enacted and being noted as true. How does this work with Beatrice in Scene i?
In Scene ii the unfavorable influence makes its preparation to carry on the plot disastrously by the same method. How is this made clear?
In Scene iii the “note-ing” is as effective for evil as that in scene i, is for good. But a counter influence is brought to bear upon it which consists in “noteing” the falsity of the first “noteing.” Show how this is arranged and promises to solve all difficulty. But the marriage is shown next to be in active preparation, and then the promise of intervention in time to frustrate Hero’s disgrace is in scene v itself frustrated by the bestowal of all Dogberry’s “tediousness” upon Leonato and by his own impatience. Show the place in the action of the hurrying on of scene iv, and the tediousness of scene v, and of both on the humor of the Play.
Are the Prince and Claudio justified in the action they propose?
Is the element of chance, which both destroys the falseness of the evidence by means of Borachio’s talk, and prevents it from being known by Dogberry’s, especially fitting? Why?
HERO IS REPUDIATED AND BEFRIENDED
Does Claudio’s demeanor in the repudiation scene betray the violence of love?
What is to be inferred from the Prince’s words and those of his bastard brother Don John?
Is it natural for Leonato to be convinced and to know his daughter no better?
Why is the Friar on her side? Notice how the Friar represents the Church as Dogberry does the Law. As institutional forces of civic life, outside the circle of the central group of characters, they intervene in the action of the drama when it is properly amenable to outside influences and civic instrumentalities. And both are brought into the sphere of the Play by a means in sympathy with the artistic method belonging to it. Observe how Dogberry is made humorously to desire to have everything noted down, and how the Friar has come to the conclusion that Hero is innocent “by noting of the Ladie.” With the Friar on her side, Hero and her one staunch friend—Beatrice are enabled to follow a policy of resistance to her disgrace and of re-establishment, first, of her good fame and, then, of her happiness. How is this brought about? The share of the Friar in rallying her friends to be loyal, and the share of Beatrice in instituting a counter-movement to the accusation combine to what effect? How does it suit with the scheme of the action that the love of Benedicke and Beatrice here attains its climax?
What does scene ii accomplish for the plot?
Is the injection of tragedy at this Fourth Act into the Comedy effective? Does it change the character of the Comedy or merely intensify it?
Does Beatrice ask an unreasonable deed of Benedicke when she says “Kill Claudio”? Suppose it were to prove true, instead of to be prevented as may be already guessed, by the defeat of Don John’s false witness and evil influence: Is Beatrice justified in refusing Benedicke if he will not kill his friend because it shows “there is no love” in him?
THE DOUBLE WEDDING
The valor and humor of the two old men against the two young ones has especial value in restoring the comic vein. How does this somewhat belated loyalty of Leonato act upon our sympathy with him? Does the forbearance of Claudio and the Prince toward the two men raise our esteem of them or lead to further dislike?
What effect has the mock heroics of their ineffective challenge on Benedicke’s earnest championship of Hero? Is the Prince’s satiric speech (V, i, 208-209) to be interpreted as complimentary to Benedicke? Notice Claudio’s next speech in comment upon it, and explain the implications intended.
What does Leonato mean by blaming Borachio less than the three nobles? How far do you think him justified—the relations of master to man at the time being considered?
Was Margaret to blame? Why did she not make the cheat known? (Cf. V, iv, 5-7 with V, i, 311-314). Is it worth while to spend much time on making all minor details clear?
Is Claudio’s consent to a second marriage creditable, natural, or a clumsy expedient which only the entire hollowness of the whole plot of false noting as to Hero renders endurable? Can you imagine any way of acting the part of Claudio that would make it seem attractive?
Do you find it in character at the wedding that one couple says so little, the other so much?
Is the ending of the Plot happily contrived in too forced and unreal a way?
Which is the most stirring scheme in the Play and why?
Which is the funniest, and is it possible to say why?
Does this Play succeed in giving so extremely definite and varied an impression of the characters that it is chiefly notable for that? To bring out this idea of the plot as successful less in itself than because it illuminates the quality and humor of the characters, compare with the “Comedie of Errors” or any of the Plays where events figure more prominently. Show how the events of this Play may be said to be created by the Characters. The Prince and his Brother (and their tools on each side who lend themselves to their plans with Dogberry, the highly unconscious, and the Friar, the highly conscious character) by being what they are constitute the diverse means of influencing the whole turn of events. These persons may all be considered with reference to what they are themselves, in character, and through that, in relation to the other characters of the Comedy.
These two loving couples reveal their special characters most vividly by means of their contrasting and supplementary relations to each other. Show how Benedicke and Beatrice do not throw Claudio and Hero too much in the shade by their superior brilliancy, because through the love of the minor couple their own love is enabled to ripen. Is their character heightened or lessened in wit and individual interest by love?
The minor characters: Show how the adversity of the family brings out the heroic element lying unobserved in Brother Anthony of the “dry hand,” and kindles his philosophy into something martial.
The merry maids, Ursula and Margaret and their light-hearted parts in the plot.
Beatrice “is a tarter,—and, if a natural woman, is not a pleasing representative of her sex.” She “will provoke her Benedicke to give her much and just conjugal castigation,” says Campbell. Is he right, and will Benedicke feel so?—or is Swinburne right, who says she is “a decidedly more perfect woman than could properly or permissibly have trod the stage of Congreve or Moliere” and who speaks of her “light true heart”?
Is the superficial Claudio worthy of Hero?
Are the faults in the plot of the Play, such as are necessitated by the design of using the characters themselves and their “noting” of one another as the source of events, and, therefore, in the last analysis not faults, a study of their relation to the design leading us, as Hartley Coleridge puts it, never to censure Shakespeare without finding reason to eat our words?
Having read “A Midsommer Nights Dreame” as a whole, if it be not already fresh in the mind, or, if possible, having seen it acted, then consider more carefully the characteristics of its dramatic structure, studying the plot and progress of the story as it is unfolded act by act, also the sources, the characters, and so forth, as suggested in the following study.
THE CROSSED LOVERS
Sum up the incidents and characters introduced in the first Act and ascertain which are most important in influencing the rest of the story.
It may be noticed that Theseus and Hippolyta and their marriage festivities are personages and events which make up a decorative external sort of frame for the whole play, but that the centre of the action takes its start, primarily, from the conflict of Hermia’s love for Lysander with her father’s choice of Demetrius, and, secondarily, from the clash of Helena’s love for Demetrius with his suit for Hermia. Show how the brisk bit of dialogue between Hermia and Lysander (I. i. 141-166) implies the forthcoming plot. For example, it may be shown that ‘to be enthrall’d to love’ (the first folio reading is love instead of low, which was an emendation of Theobald’s,) [Footnote: See foot note in First Folio edition.] and to have ‘sympathy in choice’ made as ’momentary as a sound, swift as a shadow, short as any dream,’ is to be the fate of all the lovers in the play, except Theseus and Hippolyta, and to constitute the substance of the action.
Consider what relation the second scene has to the story. Is it more extraneous to the movement than the scene presenting the Duke and his bride? It is linked to the crossed lovers group, on the one side, by the part the chief of the ‘rude mechanicals,’ Bottom, is to assume with Titania, although this does not appear in the first Act, and Shakespeare’s intention to do something special with this character is only shadowed forth here by its prominence. On the other side it is linked to the ducal group still more superficially, merely by the rehearsal of a piece to be played at the wedding. It may be contrasted with the preparation in ‘Hamlet’ for a piece similarly played before the Court, but which had a vital connection with the action and characters which is lacking here. Can there be said to be an artistic design, however, though of a more external sort, in the contrast between the Court scene and the rehearsal scene, and the realistic offset the latter scene supplies to the fairy fantasies that are to follow in the next acts? For instance, it may be shown that the merriment the clownish scene provides balances the dignity of the ducal scene. His audience, having put a yoke upon the dramatists by requiring a clown, his genius is betokened here by his making it an artistic advantage.
POINTS 1. ‘The ancient privilege of Athens,’ I. i. 49. What was the position of the father toward the family in Attica? 2. ’On Dian’s altar to protest,’ i. 98. Did the service of Diana offer women a respite from masculine dictation? Compare the myth of Iphigenia’s salvation by Diana. 3. ’To that place the sharp Athenian law cannot pursue,’ i. 172. What Grecian states had laws more lenient to women? 4. What traces can be found in history or legend of the victory of Theseus over the Amazons, and the rise of a new civic order on the ruins of a matriarchate? 5. The story of Pyramus and Thisbe (see Chaucer’s ‘Legend of Good Women’ for an early English use of the story). 6. Explanation of allusions to Phoebe, Cupid, Ercles, etc.
QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION
Upon what does the interest centre in Act I? In the marriage of Hippolyta and Theseus, or the love affairs of the four lovers?
Is Hermia, whose determination not to be forced to marry starts the plot, the best-drawn character in the first Act?
THE FAIRIES’ QUARREL
Show how in this Act a new agency of a fairies’ quarrel is devised and set forth.
Point out how this is made to crystallize in Oberon’s scheme for revenge on Titania, and also how, in the course of disentangling their own love-snarl, it is made to develop the conflict between the crossed lovers. This, it may be emphasized, is the second step in the movement, as Hermia’s and Helena’s love was the first, and these two main factors of the action are taken up together in this act.
Are the other two groups which were introduced in the first act, the Duke’s party and Bottom’s set, interwoven with the new fairy group in any way in this Act? See if the new fairy element now shows any disposition in the person of Oberon to smooth out the difficulties of the mortals.
Oberon’s intentions, however, were one thing, and his deeds another. Through Puck as his instrument, his jealousy at once begins to make matters worse instead of better for the lovers. Notice the delicate appropriateness of Oberon’s means of influence, namely Puck and the two flowers, the first being ’Cupid’s flower,’—Love in idleness—the second ‘Dian’s bud,’ introduced later to correct the influence of the first. The first flower assists in the development of a plot which is to enact the ‘momentariness’ of ‘sympathy in choice.’ The cross-purpose, fostered by Puck’s mistake, seems to provide the comparatively grosser sort of merriment for this Act which Bottom and his friends supplied for the first; and the dainty humor and sprightly novelty attending the introduction of the fairies on the scene, the description of their quarrel, and the foreshadowing of the influence they are to have on the next stages of the story, may be shown to occupy the chief place in the plot at this period, the crossed lovers, who predominated in the first Act, now falling into a relatively subordinate position.
POINTS 1. Robin Goodfellow and the traditions about him. 2. Fairies and changelings. 3. The stories of Theseus’s loves. 4. Explanation of allusions to nine men’s morris, old Hiems, etc. 5. Account of theories as to meaning of references to the imperiall votresse, a little westerne flower, a mearemaide on a dolphins backe, etc. Warburton says the mermaid was meant for Mary Queen of Scots. N.H. Halpin thinks that by Cynthia is meant Queen Elizabeth; by Tellus, Lady Douglas; by the little ‘western flower,’ Lettice, wife of Walter, Earl of Essex, while Cupid is Leicester. (See “First Folio Edition” for particulars). 6. Explain use of ‘Lob,’ II. i. 15; ‘wodde,’ 200. 7. ’The starres shot madly from their Spheares,’ i. 159. Look up Ptolemaic system of astronomy for explanation of the idea. Compare “Merchant of Venice,” V. i. 71-75, and notes on same in “First Folio Edition” of that play. 8. What is “Love in idleness”? (See Introduction to “First Folio Edition” of “A Midsommer Nights Dreame” for references to this flower in Chaucer’s poem of “The Flower and the Leaf.”) Compare “The Taming of the Shrew,” I. i. 156. 9. What are “Cankers” in the musk rosebuds? II. ii. 4.
Is it probable that the various passages in this act said to allude to current incidents were so intended? In that case what effect do they have upon the beauty of a Play set in Athens?
Is the interest of this Act a divided one?
CROSS-EFFECTS OF OBERON’S SPELL
Analyze the scenes constituting this Act. Observe that scene i. takes up Bottom and his fellows, the group not as yet brought into relation with the fairy group, and initiates them in the magic of fairy land by means of the new but appropriate head Puck bestows upon Bottom. Why is Bottom picked out for this favor? The ‘ass-head’ as a symbolic piece of stage furniture. Show how this transformation makes the mismating of Titania with Bottom more gross and obvious to the audience; also how this is the next direct effect of Oberon’s revenge.
Notice that scene ii. takes up the cross-effect already worked upon Lysander by Puck’s mistake, instead of on Demetrius, as Oberon intended, and sets forth its further effects upon Helena and Hermia. The dialogues between the two pairs of lovers now overheard by Oberon makes the error clear, and so enables him to take the first step in clearing up the tangle. Meantime, the poet and his audience agree with Puck that they are so far ’glad it so did sort, As this their jangling’ is esteemed ‘a sport.’
POINTS 1. Explain ‘It shall be written in eight and sixe,’ III. i. 23-4. 2. The custom in Shakespeare’s day as to the women’s parts. Would it have been as amusing to the audience then as it would be to us when Quince says ‘Robin Starveling, you play Thisbies mother’? 3. Pyramus and Thisbe. This may have been derived from Ovid, or from Chaucer’s “Legend of Good Women,” or C. Robinson’s “Handful of Pleasant Delights.” (1504.) 4. Explain ’Two of the first like coats in heraldry,’ III. ii. 220. 5. Describe the personal appearance of the heroines from the references made.
Is Puck or Bottom the presiding genius of this act?
Does the jangling between the two women belittle them as heroines, and is it, therefore, a blot upon the beauty of the play?
HARMONIZING EFFECTS OF OBERON’S SPELL
Trace throughout this act the smoothing-out process.
Why does Oberon himself release Titania while Puck is made to minister to the other victims of the charm? Is Oberon’s explanation of the Fairy Queen’s sudden change of heart about the changeling quite satisfactory, or does it simply appear so by a sort of artistic sleight-of-hand characteristic of Shakespeare in small touches at the close of a plot?
Show how poetically suitable as a stage effect the entry of Theseus and his huntsmen is,—shedding the first rays of morning on the night-enchanted lovers.
Why is Bottom made to waken last? Perhaps because he helps to denote the prose of broad daylight. Show what relation scene ii. has to the completion of the smoothing-out process.
POINTS. 1. ‘I was with Hercules and Cadmus once,’ IV. i. 126. What relation had Hippolyta to these Greek heroes? 2. Account of May-day rites. 3. Traditions of St. Valentine. 4. Rites of Midsummer Eve.
Why is the choice of Hermia’s father for her no longer supported by the Duke? Does this imply a criticism on the inconsistency of allowing men their choice, and their brides none, with which Shakespeare was in sympathy, or is this only apparent to some modern minds?
THE THREEFOLD MASK
If the central action of the play be considered as virtually concluded with the fourth Act, what office is performed by the fifth Act?
Notice that in it the three groups of characters constituting the play—the court group with the lovers; the ‘rude mechanicals’ and their ‘tedious brief scene,’ and the fairy train—are in this Act all brought upon the stage, the whole spectacle being set in the palace at Athens, in celebration of the wedding festivities of the ducal pair, which, as before noticed, is used as a sort of decorative frame for the play as a whole.
Examine the working-out of this unified presentation of all the personages. How are we to account for the silence of the women who were made to do so much towards the institution of the action? Show the poetic reasons for the entrance of Puck and the fairies last of all, and when the stage is empty.
POINTS. 1. Explanation of all mythical allusions. 2. Account of theories as to meaning of ‘The thrice three muses,’ etc., V. i. 59. 3. What is a ‘Bergomask dance’? 4. The date and occasion of the play: This play appears in Meres’s list of 1598 and in the Quartos of 1600. Titania’s description of the unseasonable weather (II. i. 92, foll.) may refer to the year 1594. Note that Chaucer in the ‘Knight’s Tale’ speaks of the tempest at Hippolyta’s home-coming. Many critics have believed that the play was written on the occasion of some marriage in high life, but they do not agree as to whose it was.
Upon what does the interest of the last Act centre? How does the ending suit the various threads of the Play?
Is Theseus or Hippolyta the wiser critic of ‘the story of the night’; and which of them is the wiser critic of the play of Pyramus and Thisbe?
1. WHERE SHAKESPEARE FOUND SUGGESTIONS FOR HIS MORTALS
In Plutarch’s ‘Life of Theseus’ will be found passages which furnished Shakespeare with some points for his drama. Chaucer’s ‘Knight’s Tale’ is also said to have given him material. The editor of the “First Folio Edition” suggests in the introduction that a reading by Shakespeare of a poem in his day supposed to be Chaucer’s, ’The Flower and the Leaf,’ gave him an important hint for his plot. Examine for yourself, and state what indebtedness you find in any of these sources. In I. i. 20, Theseus says to Hippolyta, ’I woo’d thee with my sword.’ Compare this with the account given in Chaucer. According to another version of the story Hercules gave Hippolyta to his kinsman Theseus in marriage. Compare ‘The Two Noble Kinsmen’ and the ’Knight’s Tale’ with Shakespeare’s ‘Dreame.’
2. WHERE SHAKESPEARE FOUND SUGGESTIONS FOR HIS FAIRIES
The models in literature from which Shakespeare drew may have been ‘Huon of Bordeaux,’ where he got little, however, but the name Oberon. The name Titania may have been derived from Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses.’ The Fairy Queen in Shakespeare’s day usually went by the name of Queen Mab. Puck’s characteristics seem to have been derived from the little tract of ‘Robin Goodfellow, His Mad Pranks and Merry Jests.’ Rolfe, in the notes to his edition of the play, says that White argues that this was probably written after “A Midsommer Nights Dreame.” Ward thinks that the entire machinery of Oberon and his court may have been derived from Greene’s ‘Scottish History of James IV,’ and that Titania may have been suggested by Chaucer’s ‘Wife of Bath’s Tale.’ He probably owed his fairies in great measure to tradition or folk-lore. The folk-lore of England was originally made up of Teutonic elements, which have been modified by Danish and Norman invasions, by remnants of old Keltic belief, and by the introduction of Christianity, which last degraded the good fairies into mischievous elves. (See Hazlitt, ‘Fairy Mythology of Shakespeare,’ Halliwell’s ’Illustrations of the Fairy Mythology of Midsummer Night’s Dream,’ also Poet-Lore, April, 1891, ‘Fairy-lore in Midsummer Night’s Dream.’)
3. SOLAR ORIGIN OF THE FAIRIES
According to some authorities the Teutonic mythology was of cosmic origin. In the fairies may be seen many reflections of cosmic characteristics. Oberon and Titania are fairies of the night, and the old battle between light and darkness shows itself in the mad pranks which they play on unsuspecting mortals. But as the daylight comes they are obliged to flee. Puck reflects the characteristics of a wind god. (See Cox, ‘Myths of the Aryan Nations;’ also Korner, ’Solar Myths in Midsummer Night’s Dream,’ Poet-Lore, Jan., 1891). Compare his character with that of Hermes in the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (Shelley’s Translation).
1. THE LOVERS
1. Hermia and Helena are hardly worth considering, but if anything Helena is to be preferred to Hermia because she is so humble, and shows no sign of jealousy of Hermia. 2. If Hermia had been more dignified when she found that both the lovers had turned their attention to Helena, she would better have carried out the promise of her character in the first Act when she declared she would rather die than wed the man chosen by her father.
2. HIPPOLYTA AND THESEUS
1. The only indication we have of the character of Hippolyta is in the last act, where she is so bored by the play of ‘Pyramus and Thisbe.’ Does this show stupidity on her part or exceptional development? 2. Do you agree with Dowden that there is no figure in the early drama of Shakespeare so magnificent as Theseus? His insistence in Act I. that Hermia should obey her father against her own inclinations is certainly not very praiseworthy, but might be excused on the score of the times in which he lived. 3. His complaisance toward Quince and his companions has been considered an indication that he was a most perfect gentleman; does he not rather conceitedly patronize them?
3. THE FAIRIES
1. Have the Fairies any idea of morality? 2. Oberon was perfectly justified in wishing to get the changeling from his wife, and shows himself worthy of becoming a mortal for insisting on his rights as a husband. 3. Titania is the most developed woman character in the play, because she insists on her individual right to the changeling. 4. Is Puck a more developed fairy than Ariel in ‘The Tempest’?
4. THE PLAYERS
1. Is Shakespeare making fun of the stupidity of Quince and his companions, or is he gently satirizing the stage and the exaggerated style of writing for the stage which prevailed at this time? 2. If the last is true, is not Shakespeare in the last act making fun of the audience, as well as of the players, who with a superior air pass judgment upon the play and indulge in very lame wit, while the real meaning of it quite escapes them.
Every member of the class or club should bring in a short paper giving his favorite passage in the play and why he likes it, including his criticism of the metre, of the metaphors and similes, and the thought contained.
1. Which characters in the play are original with Shakespeare? 2. What is to be thought of Shakespeare for bringing together in one play Greek mythology, English folk-lore, and English workmen of his own age? Does this commixture of elements make the Play seem unnatural or incongruous? Has he skilfully harmonised these diverse elements by giving the Play its dream-like character? 3. That this play is charming cannot be disputed. Is its chief charm its humor, its fancy, its dramatic construction, or subtle developments of character?
Sufficiently indirect use of contemporary political events in a Play was a cause of popularity without seeming dangerous to the State.
As “Love’s Labour’s Lost” is an early example of a plot woven out of masked allusions to current topics, so even as definitely plotted a comedy as “The Merchant of Venice” here and there worked in an animating shred of contemporary reference.
After Dr. Roderigo Lopez, the Queen’s physician, was accused by Don Antonio of Portugal, and executed June 7, 1594, on the charge of being bribed by the King of Spain to poison Queen Elizabeth, the story of a Shylock’s defeat and the rescue from his clutches of an Anthonio had just enough relevance to be popular without definiteness enough to be obtrusive.
SHYLOCK’S “MERRIE BOND”
Why is Anthonio sad? Is it presentiment? Is it, despite his unselfish willingness to furnish forth Bassanio to sue at Belmont for Portia, some sense of loss in friendship through this love? Anthonio and Bassanio may be considered as examples of that devoted friendship illustrated by Valentine’s feelings towards Protheus in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona.”
The group of young and gay courtiers circling about the two friends bring them into brighter relief.
Unlike Protheus, though perhaps younger and less wrapped up in the sense of friendship than Anthonio is, Bassanio is worthy of such regard. Do the “faire speechless messages” he has received from Portia’s eyes and his praise of her as “nothing undervalued to Brutus’s Portia” tell the cause of his quest better than what is said of her wealth? Notice that even what he says of that is as a mere grace of her person: “her sunny locks Hang on her temples,” etc. (I. i. 177-181).
What reasons had Shylock for hating Anthonio?
Does Anthonio’s demand that he lend the money to him as an enemy justify the terms of the bond?
Is Bassanio right in distrusting, and wrong in accepting such a bond?
The long pedigree of Jewish and Christian antipathy and its illustration in this bond by the characters that are its exemplars.
What is to be gathered of Portia in this Act before she meets again with Bassanio?
Are Anthonio and Shylock more individual than typical?
Does the Act close with assurance of good luck or foreboding of bad?
Is Bassanio a fortune hunter?
Is he to blame for what follows?
PORTIA’S CASKETS
Why is Jessica’s story intertwined with Portia’s? What dramatic purposes does it serve? Are Jessica and Launce alike justified in leaving Shylock? Why? (See Introduction to the Play in First Folio Edition for suggestion). Is the Jew’s lament for his daughter although piteous, inadequate.
Is the choice of the gold and the silver by the Moor and Spaniard significant of their natures?
What reason is there to find in the symbolism and the persuasion to choice each suitor employs that Portia’s father has used the wisdom of a seer in prescribing the choice from the three caskets?
Do you like Jessica? Why? In what ways are Portia and Jessica alike in the generousness of love though opposite in circumstances?
Is Jessica’s elopement to blame for her father’s joy in the wreckage of Anthonio’s ships and his final exaction of the bond? Was it introduced in the Plot for this purpose?
BASSANIO’S LUCK AND ANTHONIO’S LOSS
Shakespeare’s creed of love as engendered in the eyes may be illustrated by passages in many other plays as well as this. What is meant by it?
Is Bassanio’s daring in venturing so much for his chance with Portia itself a sign of his fitness, or the reverse? How is his casket significant of this test-stone—i.e., adventurousness?
Is the match of Nerissa and Gratiano an irrelevance to Portia’s and Bassanio’s courtship or an enhancement of their happiness? Show how the two points of climax in event and feeling balance absolutely but do not sacrifice each other? Are Shakespeare’s experiments in bold juxtaposition of extreme fortune and happiness and utterly irretrievable devastation anywhere so poignant as the arrival of Anthonio’s letter at the betrothal of Bassanio and Portia?
Is the secret of Bassanio’s adventurousness the supreme honor in which he holds love? Nothing else being of so much consequence, he yields everything to love. Does Jessica, also?
The “manners” of Portia, according to Gildon, “are not always agreeable or convenient to her Sex and Quality; particularly where she scarce preserves her modesty in the expression.” What is to be thought of this?
Is Anthonio’s letter characteristic of his nobleness as a friend, or is it too insistent upon bringing Bassanio to him, since to send such a letter was equivalent to fetching him?
Is it Portia’s best warrant as a noble bride and wife that she appreciates Anthonio’s message and friendship?
THE LUCK REDEEMS THE LOSS
By means of Bassanio’s luck in winning Portia’s love and hand Shylock is finally defeated of his malicious purpose. Portia considered as the embodiment of Bassanio’s luck and the instrument bringing Shylock to confusion.
Does it matter whether the law-point is disputable or not since the traditional stories on which the Play is built up afford the opportunity for its use?
Does Shylock get Justice, since he had refused mercy?
Illustrate the legal knowledge and studies of Italian women of the Renaissance affording a parallel for Portia’s sagacity and leadership. (For hints see pp. 256-260 in “First Folio Edition.”)
Do you think Shylock is wronged?
Does Shylock so preponderate the Play as to destroy its balance, and outweighing all other characters make them insignificant?
Are Actors justified in acting the Play so as to dwarf the Love plot and cut out Act V as needless?
Is Portia the proper counterpart in consummate character creation to Shylock? To whom does, if properly played, the ultimate interest of the Play belong?
Why does this position belong to no other character’s part?
THE RINGS
What is the business of Act V?
How is it linked to the preceding Act? Since reunion and rejoicing are not alone the business of the plot; since recognition and declaration to the two husbands, and to Anthonio, especially, are needed, as well as to the others, of the part played by the wives in solving the difficulties of the plot, the Ring scenes constitute the due dramatic conclusion of the Play. Note that the threat of quarrel over the reluctant but requisite giving away of the rings in the preceding Act makes a deceptively serious difficulty. It is happily to be solved as a result of the wives’ preceding action. This difficulty and this solution at this final stage of the plot constitute a little character play that is an epitome of the action. The whole is the more happily and amusingly solved that the Audience is wise and the characters still in the dark are really perplexed.
Point out the value of the exchange of Rings as made clear in these two ways, by bringing out the characters of Gratiano, Bassanio, and especially of Anthonio as peace-maker; and by bringing out to them the fact that to the wives’ love and skill the victory over the difficulties they suffered is due.
Are the rings the sole test of this?
What other news adds to the general denouement of all difficulties?
Is the summing up of the Play a victory of love and intelligence over hate and narrow-mindedness?
Show how the rings symbolize this, and music and moonlight provide the proper atmosphere for its operation. The appropriateness of the moonlight for a calm out of strife, brought about by women, is matched by the fitness of music and the reference to the harmony of the spheres to suggest that earth-harmony to which Portia was presiding Angel.
Is any incident of Act V without relevance to the plot?
Is the Play the nobler or the weaker dramatically for the poetic and symbolic influence shed upon it by Act V?
If this Comedy was written, as tradition reports at the bidding of Queen Elizabeth in order to show Falstaffe in love, it is interesting to see that Shakespeare confines his love-making to mercenary motives, and by causing him to make love to two at once renders him as a lover merely a cheat.
So keeping the word of promise to the ear, he obeys by breaking it to the sense. To show Falstaffe as a lover amounts to showing him as no lover at all.
In this sense, the Play might be called a courteous satire upon the Queen’s request.
FALSTAFFE IS FORCED TO “CONICATCH”
How Falstaffe falls into trouble, turns away his followers and begins a new enterprise: How do his followers take revenge? What light upon this opening of the story do scenes i. and iii. show?
What is the underplot as shown in scenes ii. and iv and a part of scene i?
Do they appear to have anything to do with each other?
Which of her suitors does Anne prefer? Which is to be preferred?
Is the grievance of Shallow against Falstaffe a necessity of the plot to show the fat knight in love, or an episode introduced out of Shakespeare’s grudge towards Sir Thomas Lucy? (See pp. 117-119, 138-141, etc., “First Folio Edition.”)
THE MERRY WIVES AND FORD LAY PLOTS
In Act II a third under-intrigue that of Ford with Falstaffe is added to the two before introduced.
Show how the Merry Wives reveal their separate personalities in their reception of the duplicate letters, and their plot to dupe Falstaffe.
Contrast their two husbands as their natures and marital relations are shown by their different manner of taking the information given them by Nym and Pistol. Ford, considered as Shakespeare’s first study of jealousy. How does he compare with Leontes?
How does Ford assist in the plot of the Play?
What pertinence to Ford’s jealousy is there
in the allusion to Queen
Elizabeth’s Sonnet? (II, ii, 199-200).
The Sources of the Merry Wives’ intrigue and what Shakespeare has done with them. (See “Sources,” First Folio Edition). How is the Duel scene related to the underplot?
What characters belong in common to plot and counterplot?
Does Falstaffe show any material differences in character as he appears in this Play, in comparison with the way he appears in “Henry IV?”
THE DOUBLE DUPERY
Contrast the feelings of Falstaffe before and after the Buckbasket episode?
In which scene is Ford the worst duped?
Give an account of Dame Quickly’s relations to the intrigues, and show how her multitudinous offices as go-between interfere with each other so that she is “slacke” in one of her errands. What is the effect of her slackness on the contradictions in the time of the action. (See Duration of the Action, in “First Folio Edition"). Are they only seeming contradictions? The Sources of the Ford intrigue and what Shakespeare has done with them.
Anne and her father and mother as characterized in this act, with relation to the suitors.
Is Anne the only character one can thoroughly sympathize with?
Are the situations such as owe their fun largely to coincidence, like those in the “Comedie of Errors,” or to a teeming variousness in the human naturalness of all the characters?
FORD’S ENLIGHTENMENT
Why is the Old Woman of Brentford trick a climax upon that of the Buckbasket?
Falstaffe’s wish that all the world might be cheated is true to the method of the Play. Show in exemplification of this, how a fourth intrigue grows out of the third, and is introduced as late as this fourth Act. How is the joke of the Host against Dr. Caius and Sir Hugh Evans avenged? Is this reference to the “three Cozen Jermans” that are said to run away with the Host’s horses, liklier to be an allusion seriously made to a real event or to make use of it as an entirely fictitious intrigue and practical joke in the Play? Is this mock happening such as could be clear by the method of enacting it and one entirely consonant with this Comedy as a farce-mosaic of laughable tricks? (See pp. 120-121, 179-180, also Note on IV. iii. 6). Discuss probabilities. The turn taken in the plot: Show how all combine against Falstaffe; also the place of this intrigue in making material for Act V.
Has the “Merry Wives” any serious or tragic moments such as belong usually to Shakespeare’s Comedies?
Compare the jealousy of Ford with the jealousy of Adriana in the “Comedie of Errors.” Which exemplifies the riper treatment and why?
THE DEFEAT OF MERCENARY LOVEMAKING
Make clear the ins and outs of the Fairy trap, first for its actors, then for the dupes? Can the apparent inconsistencies in the wearing of green or white and the mention of “Quickly” for “Queene” be accounted for on the supposition that everybody is deceived except Nan and Fenton? (See Notes on V. v. 421, 205-209).
The compliments to Queen Elizabeth in the Play: What are they and how is their appropriateness to the Plot made good?
Consider the “humors” of the Welsh and French speeches and episodes as exploitations and developments of the similar humors of Fluellen and the Frenchmen of “Henry V.”
The fairy scenes and effects of this Play compared with those of the wedding night feast at the end of “A Midsommer Nights Dreame.”
What indications are there in the Falstaffe of “Henry IV.” that he is superficially affected by the Puritanism about him? Is he any more deeply affected by it in the present Play? What is the difference in his appearance in this Play with respect to Puritanic morals: Is he more affected by them, at the last, when he is so grossly their victim, or have they grown, and put him out of date in England except as an atavism?
Have Page and his Wife any loftier standpoint as to mercenary love than Falstaffe himself? Is Fenton’s speech (V. v. 225-235) the moral of the last Act or is Ford’s (237-238)?
Is the main design of the Play to “cure Ford of his unreasonable jealousy,” as Rowe says, or to dupe and reform Falstaffe? Is the total aim sport to laugh over “by a Countrie fire?” Is it a Comedy of irony turned against all mercenary motives in love?
THE DRAMATIC CONDUCT OF THE PLAY: THE WRESTLING MATCH
How much of the situation existing in the play comes out in Act I. i.? And what action takes place?
The strained relation existing between the brothers Orlando and Oliver is revealed through Orlando’s conversation with Adam and with his brother Oliver. The situation at court is also revealed through the conversation of Oliver with the wrestler Charles, and also the loving relation existing between Celia and Rosalind; thus we are at once put into the possession of three emotional or passional causes for action—Oliver’s hatred of his younger brother, the younger Duke’s hatred of his older brother, and the love of Celia for Rosalind. Of these causes for action only one bears any fruit in this scene, namely, Oliver arranges with the wrestler to kill Orlando. What are the connections existing between sc. ii. and sc. i.? First there is a picture of the loving relationship existing between Rosalind and Celia (already mentioned by Oliver in sc. i.) which reveals very subtly differences in their natures. The action set going by Oliver in sc. i. is consummated in the wrestling match, but with a result different from that hoped for by Oliver, thus leaving Oliver’s hatred still present as a cause of action. Out of the wrestling match what further passional and emotional causes of action are set up? Duke Frederick’s hatred for Orlando is aroused because he learns he is the son of a man he had considered his enemy, and action against him is the immediate result. Orlando is warned by Le Beau that he is not safe at the court. The Duke’s hatred of his brother bears further fruit in its extension to Rosalind. The meeting of Rosalind and Orlando brought about by the wrestling match gives rise to a fresh emotional force in their budding love for each other. In Sc. iii., the state of Rosalind’s heart as to Orlando, hinted at in sc. ii., is fully revealed; the Duke’s hatred takes shape in his sentence of banishment or death, giving rise to a new direction for action, and the emotion of Celia’s love for Rosalind bears fruit in her determination to go with Rosalind into banishment.
LIFE IN THE FOREST OF ARDEN
In Act II. how are the elements of action, character delineation and emotion intermingled?
Sc. i. gives us a picture of the banished Duke and his followers in the Forest of Arden, already prepared for in Act I., introduces us to the personality of the Duke, and in the conversation with the lords prepares us for coming delights in the personality of Jaques. It does not advance the action, at all. In sc. ii., the result of Celia’s act in going with Rosalind is shown in the bad Duke’s consternation, who determines that they shall be found, thus starting another thread of action to be developed later. Sc. iii. the passional cause of action in Oliver’s hatred of Orlando reaches a crisis; Orlando is obliged to flee to save himself from death. Sc. iv. shows Celia and Rosalind arrived at their journey’s end in the Forest of Arden, and making arrangements with a shepherd for a comfortable little house to rusticate in; thus is closed the thread of action started by the Duke in banishing Rosalind. In the conversation of their new companions, Corin and Silvius, we learn of the love of Silvius for the scornful Phebe, which is another emotional impulse to action, later blending itself with the plot. In sc. v. we meet Jaques, already mentioned, and get another glimpse of the pleasant company in the forest, but they are still quite detached from the active elements of the play. Sc. vi. shows us how far Orlando and Adam have gone in their flight, and sc. vii. presents again the good Duke’s court, develops further the personality of Jaques, and prepares us, through his conversation about the fool whom he had met in the forest, for the contact of one of the threads of action with the element of inaction represented by this good Duke’s forest court, while in the sudden breaking in upon them of Orlando it is brought into contact with another of the threads of action.
LOVE IN THE FOREST OF ARDEN
At the opening of Act III. what results have been brought about by the action so far? Everybody in the play except Oliver and the bad Duke has arrived in the Forest of Arden. In sc. i. of Act III. the hatred of the Duke is still active as a force, and Oliver through this means is also sent off to finally bring up in the Forest of Arden. The Duke’s attitude as a motive force having worked itself out in its relation to Orlando and Rosalind, the emotional cause of action in the love of Rosalind and Orlando is free to develop, and the remainder of Act III. is devoted chiefly to the presentation of the situation between the lovers, which, owing to the disguise assumed by Rosalind, gives rise to the charming inconsistencies attending the wooing of a proxy Rosalind who is in reality Rosalind herself. Around these central lovers, whose characters Shakespeare unfolds, revolve other interesting personalities. Touchstone meets his fate in Audrey. Phebe still scorns Corin and perversely falls in love with Ganymede. The action is only advanced to the extent that Rosalind learns the state of Orlando’s mind while he still remains in ignorance as to hers.
HATRED BECOMES LOVE IN ARDEN
Are there any fresh elements or developments in Act IV.?
Sc. i. merely continues the love-making of Act III. Sc. ii. gives another glimpse of the good Duke’s court; in sc. iii. the love of Phebe bears fruit in a letter to Ganymede, and Oliver finds his way to the forest. The bad Duke’s intentions toward Orlando in sending Oliver after him are, however, frustrated by the sudden change of heart against a bad Duke is a good Duke. Contrast their actions throughout the play. Contrast also the two brothers, Orlando and Oliver. What are the resemblances between the characters of Oliver and Duke Frederick?—between Orlando and the banished Duke? Is Orlando’s rebellion against his brother’s injustice or the banished Duke’s acceptance of his brother’s injustice the more to be praised? Compare his attitude with that of Prospero under similar circumstances. Whose repentance is the more sincere, Oliver’s or Duke Frederick’s? Note that Oliver has lost all when he repents, while the Duke gives up everything just as he is about to realize his aim. Is the repentance of the usurping Duke merely a ruse of Shakespeare’s to bring the play to a happy ending? In Lodge’s story he does not repent, but is proceeded against by his brother. Contrast Jaques and Touchstone. Is Jaques’s melancholy affected? What is the main difference between Rosalind and Celia? Which is the more the friend of the other? (For valuable suggestions on these points see ’Characters in “As You Like It,"’ Poet-lore, Vol. IV. pp. 31 and 81, Jan. and Feb., 1892.)
Which is the better philosopher, Jaques or Touchstone, and which is more closely related to the philosophy of the play?
The characters of the two Dukes are not developed; they are merely walking gentlemen, whose office it is to keep the play in motion.
2. The Lovers of the Play.
The Different Kinds of Love in ‘As You Like It.’ Examples of love at first sight in Shakespeare. Note Orlando’s surprise at the suddenness of Oliver’s and Celia’s love. Was his own less sudden? Consider Hymen’s song and Jaques’s remarks in the last scene as descriptive of the various couples. Does the comic element of the play, as represented by Touchstone, discredit sentiment in the play? Notice the madrigal in Lodge’s novel (given in Poet-lore, Vol. III., in the article on Lodge, Dec, 1891), and consider whether Shakespeare has borrowed anything from it in characterizing Rosalind’s wooing? Contrast Lodge’s Montanus as a lover with Shakespeare’s Silvius. Is Montanus too much of a “tame snake” to be natural? Or does this constancy in love make him a superior figure? Is it a sign of Silvius’s inferiority that love has its own way with him? Can love be true that changes if it is unrequited?
Are those actors right, do you think, who play Oliver as guessing who Ganymede is when she swoons? Is Rosalind’s conduct unwomanly? Is her disguise unlikely?
It is best for the man to love the most; and therefore has Silvius and Phebe’s unequal love-match a better chance for happiness than Rosalind’s and Orlando’s?
THE PASTORAL ELOPMENT
The Rise of Pastoral Poetry, and Shakespeare’s Use of it in ’As You Like It.’
Compare Spenser’s ‘Shepherd’s Calendar,’ Fletcher’s ’Faithful Shepherdess,’ etc. Point out any differences you find between Shakespeare’s and Spenser’s pastoral poetry. Modern literary use of the pastoral element, Wordsworth’s ‘Michael.’ Is the pastoral life of literature always artificial? Can a progress toward realism be shown? The humor of the play. Discuss in particular the humorous comments on contrasts between court and country life. Compare modern instances of the refinements and artifices of city life and the crudeness of work and pleasure in the country.
Special Points.—1. The Forest of Arden: Is it in England, France, or Shakespeare’s imagination? 2. “Old Robin Hood of England.” What are the legends concerning him? 3. The archaic words in the play. (See Prof. Sinclair Korner’s ’Shakespeare’s Inheritance from the Fourteenth Century,’ in Poet-lore, Vol. II., p. 410, Aug., 1890.)
Is the opposition shown in the play between life at court and in the country truly shown to be to the advantage of the country.
THE MORAL ELEMENT
The moral side of the Play consists, according to the Introduction in the First Folio Edition, in its persuasion toward an Arden of the disposition, or a spirit of happy good will toward all men. How far does this cover the lesson of the Play?
What is to be thought of the idea in the ‘Ethics of “As You Like It"’ (Poet-lore, Vol. III., p. 498, Oct., 1891), that Touchstone’s opinion of a shepherd’s life (III. ii.) is the key-note of the play? Are the references to fortune in the play significant? Dr. F.J. Furnivall says: “What we most prize is misfortune borne with cheery mind, the sun of man’s spirit shining through and dispersing the clouds which try to shade it. This is the spirit of the play.” Of this Dr. Ingleby says: “The moral of the play is much more concrete than this. It is not how to bear misfortune with a cheery mind, but how to read the lessons in the vicissitudes of physical nature.” C.A. Wurtzburg says: “The deep truths that may be gathered from the play are the innate dignity of the human spirit, before which every conventionality of birth, rank, education, even of natural ties, must give way.” Give arguments drawn from the play in favor of or against all of these suggestions. Is it an evidence of Shakespeare’s intention to be a moral teacher that he altered the fate of Duke Frederick?
Has the play any moral that is not gently satirized in it?
THE SOURCE OF THE PLOT
Shakespeare’s Variations from Lodge.
Compare Lodge’s ‘Rosalind’ with ‘As You Like It.’
(For this story, see “Shakespeare’s Library”
or Extracts in Notes and
Comment in Sources in “First Folio Edition").
Is the story better without the parts Shakespeare leaves out (e. g., Adam’s proposal to Rosader to cut his veins and suck the blood; his nose-bleed; the incident of the robbers accounting for Aliena’s sudden love, etc.)? Why is the “Green and gilded snake” added? Isn’t the “lioness” enough? Is Rosader or Orlando the finer character, and why? The new characters introduced—Audrey and William—considered as embodying real instead of ideal pastoral life. Do Shakespeare’s changes affect the plot, the characters, or the moral of the story? (For an examination of the plot of the play, see ’An Inductive Study of “As You Like It,"’ in Poet-lore, Vol. III., p. 341.)
A Sketch of Lodge’s Life and Work. (See ’An
Elizabethan Lyrist: Thomas
Lodge,’ in Poet-lore, Vol. III.,
p. 593, Dec, 1891.)
Is Shakespeare’s framing of the plot of ‘As You Like It’ not to be admired, because it is borrowed?
THE MUSIC OF THE PLAY
This may consist of a brief paper on the subject illustrated by a program of the songs with the old and more modern settings. (See New Shakespeare Society’s Papers, on this subject; ’Shakespeare and Music,’ by E.W. Naylor.)
The winsomeness of this poetic comedy rightly makes the reader or the hearer hesitate to count its petals or scrutinize the stages of its growth, which are marked by its acts as symmetrically as leaf buds are ranged about a stalk. And yet, one may find that to take note of such beautiful orderliness in the delicate structure and sprightly blossoming of the poet’s design enhances the appreciation of its artistic quality. Regarding it first as a whole, sum up the stages of the action, first; then the caprices its allusions denote; then the characters; and finally the poetic fancy and wit exhaled by the whole play like a fragrance.
THE STORY OF THE PLAY
Act I. scene i. puts us in possession of what facts concerning the Duke and Olivia? What do we learn from the conversation of Viola and the Captain in scene ii., and what course does Viola decide upon? What do we discover from scene iii. in regard to the state of things in Olivia’s household? In scene iv., what relation has been established between the Duke and Viola? What three new characters are introduced in scene v., and what is the event of the scene? Act II. scene i.: What is learned of Sebastian and his intentions? In scene ii., what are shown to be the feelings of Olivia? In what previous scene was this prepared for? Does scene iii. advance the story at all? What is it taken up with? Does scene iv. advance the story? Of what scene is it almost a repetition? If it does not advance the action, what does it do? Of what previous scene is scene v. the result? What previous scene leads up to scene i. of Act III? and of what scene is it in purpose a repetition? What new turn is given to affairs in scene ii., and through whom is it brought about? Whose doings do we get a glimpse of in scene iii? Of whose plot do we see further developments in scene iv? What other issues in the progress of events come to a climax in this Act? Act IV. scene i.: Describe the complication of affairs which arises in this scene. What previous scenes do we see the result of in scene ii? and what happens that will bring about a change in the situation? What important event occurs in this scene iii? Act V. scene i.: Describe how in this scene all the complications are unravelled, and by what means all the characters are brought upon the stage. What do you think of the device to call Malvolio upon the stage? Does it not seem rather clumsy, or do you think it a further humorous touch that Viola should have to depend on Malvolio to find her ’woman’s weeds again’?
What becomes evident after tracing the events of the play through in this way? That the interest of the play does not depend so much upon the story itself, as, first, upon the amusing situations resultant from the story, and, second, upon the scenes which introduce the characters in Olivia’s household who are really not at all concerned in the development of the plot, but who are the occasion of many added amusing situations.
What constitutes the real interest of the two short scenes between Sebastian and Antonio? Their bearing, mainly, on scene iv. of Act III. By means of them we are shown that Antonio has an enemy in Orsino, and thus his arrest is prepared for, also how Antonio gives his purse to Sebastian, the real purpose of the arrest being to bring about a reason for Antonio’s requiring his purse again from Cesario, whom he takes for Sebastian, and so to add complication to the situation arising from the resemblance between the brother and sister.
What are the situations which the story gives Shakespeare a chance to develop? On the one hand, is the Duke pouring out his love for another woman to his supposed page, who is in love with him, and thus giving rise to the series of scenes between the Duke and Viola. On the other hand, is the supposed page pressing his master’s suit to a woman who loves the supposed page, and thus giving rise to the series of scenes between Viola and Olivia. Out of this love of Olivia for Viola grows the absurd situation of Viola’s being obliged to fight a duel, which is made still more ridiculous through the circumstance of her challenger being a fool. Out of Viola’s resemblance to her brother and her disguise grows the absurd situation of Olivia’s claiming her as a husband, and that of Sir Andrew taking for his unwilling duellist the all-too-willing Sebastian.
To these situations which naturally result from the story, Shakespeare has added in Olivia’s household a set of characters whose personality is such that amusing situations are multiplied. Thus we may say that the play is one of situation rather than of action, since whatever of action there is in it leads to situation, and whatever of character there is in it leads also to situation.
1. If attention is constantly given to creating humorous situations, will character-development necessarily suffer? 2. Do you agree with the Shakespearian critic Verplanck that this play bears no indication either of an original groundwork of incident, afterwards enriched by the additions of a fuller mind, or of thoughts, situations, and characters accidentally suggested, or growing unexpectedly out of the story, as the author proceeded?
THE WHIMSICAL AND OTHER ALLUSIONS IN THE PLAY
Pick out and explain the curious allusions in the play, noticing that these may be classed as geographical, mythological, astrological, or referable to persons or customs of the time, or books of the day. For examples of the latter class, note Sir Toby’s ‘diluculo surgere’ (II. iii.), for ‘Saluberrimum est dilucolu surgere,’ an adage from Lilly’s Grammar, doubtless one of Shakespeare’s text-books at the Edward VI. School in Stratford; and Viola’s ’Some Mollification for your giant sweet lady’ (I. v.),—an allusion to the innumerable romances whose fair ladies are guarded by giants; for Maria, being very small, Viola ironically calls her giant, and asks Olivia to pacify her because she has opposed her message. (For Shakespeare’s education and school-books, see Bayne’s remarks on this subject in Brit. Encyc. art. Shakespeare.) The whole incident of the ‘possession’ of Malvolio, and the visit of Sir Topas, probably alludes to a tract published in 1599 by Dr. Harsnett,—’A Discovery of the Fraudulent Practices of John Darrel,’—in which is narrated how the Starkeys’ children
Are the odd allusions in the play a result of the corrupt text, ignorance, ridicule of learning? Or are they introduced to give a lively and contemporaneous effect?
THE DUKE AND SEBASTIAN
How does the play set off these two lovers against each other? Which has the more constant nature? Note the evidences of the Duke’s restlessness and changeableness; how soon he tires of the music he calls for, of the clown’s song (II. iv.). Is his first speech to Viola, on woman’s constancy before the song, consistent with his second, after it? Is his own report of himself true,—’Unstaid and skittish in all motions else Save in the constant image of the one beloved’? Is Olivia’s unattainableness the main source of her desirableness for him? How is it with Sebastian? Does his loyalty in love seem to be of the sort that suffers impairment when he can win love easily? The Duke craves excess in music in order that his ‘appetite may sicken and so die;’ Sebastian wishes ’to steep his soul in Lethe.’ Do you think Sebastian and Viola alike in more than appearance? Which is the quicker-witted? Is the Duke’s amicable acceptance of the inevitable and transference of his love to Viola in keeping with his character? Do you think Viola shows promise of special facility for preventing the moody Duke from tiring of her? Note that he calls her his ‘fancy’s queen.’
Is the Duke important chiefly as the inspirer of Viola’s devoted love?
VIOLA AND OLIVIA
In what respects are the situations of Viola and Olivia alike? When the play opens, both are mourning the loss of a brother, and while this is made to point out the individuality of Olivia, after the first few lines we hear little more of Viola’s grief. Can you suggest any reason for this? Does Viola’s love for the Duke absorb her any more than Olivia’s love absorbs her when she comes to feel the same? Viola and Olivia are also alike in giving their love without solicitation; but Olivia woos directly, Viola, in disguise, implies her love, and though her innuendoes are all understood by the audience, they are unappreciated by the Duke. What justification can be made for the unblushing love-making of Olivia? It could be justified by her rank, which was so much higher than that of the supposed page that advances should come from her. What signs are there that Viola’s love was superior to Olivia’s? Olivia’s seems to have been founded on external liking, else she would not have been as satisfied with Sebastian as with Cesario; while Viola’s, though it may have had no deeper foundation, was signalized by unselfishness, for she used every eloquent art of which she was capable to urge her master’s suit. Notice in the first scene between Viola and the Duke how she tries to get out of going to Olivia, doubting her own ability, etc. Do you think she really doubted it, or that it was difficult for her on account of her own love for the Duke? Notice in the scene with Olivia her woman’s anxiety to see her rival’s face. What do you think instigated her remark, ‘Excellently done, if God did all.’ Was it a sudden touch of jealousy? It was clearly not the proper thing for an ambassador pressing his master’s suit to say. How is it with the rest of the interview? Is her sarcastic tone judicious? Does it pique the nonchalant Olivia? Does her eloquence later, when she is assured of Olivia’s obstinacy, reflect her own feelings for the Duke? What effect does it have on Olivia? Is it well-calculated to arouse her interest? In Act II. scene iv., which do you think had the right conception of woman’s love,—the Duke or Cesario? What do you think of Olivia’s saying that ‘Love sought is good, but given unsought is better’? Which of the two characters show the more humor? Notice Viola’s readiness in parrying questions that trench upon her sex. Olivia, on the other hand, can hold her own in a bout of wit with the fool, but she is perhaps not so quick-witted as Viola. We can imagine Viola at once seeing through Malvolio’s attempt at pleasing Olivia, instead of taking him for mad, as Olivia did.
Which is the best lover, the Duke, Sebastian, Olivia, or Viola?
SIR TOBY AND MARIA, AND THEIR BUTTS OR DUPES
Show how the droll situations of the play are mainly contrived by some of the characters in order to make others their laughing-stocks. Who are Sir Toby’s butts? Is Sir Toby attached to Sir Andrew, or does he only make use of him for profit as well as fun? (See Sir Toby’s reply to Fabian (III. iii.)). Other instances to the same effect? Why does Maria join forces with Sir Toby? Is she in fact the leader of the scheme, or is Fabian’s story of its origin true? What part does the fool play in the game, and why? Note his private grudge against Malvolio. Is it a dramatic mistake that even the heroine is made the butt of these merry-makers? Trace Fabian’s part in the duelling plot against Sir Andrew and Viola. Do these plots recoil in any way against the plotters? Sir Toby and Sir Andrew both get some home-truths from Malvolio while they are eavesdropping, while for Fabian and Maria these thrusts of Malvolio’s are just as good fun as that which the knights enjoy better. How does some of the later fun recoil against Toby and Sir Andrew? Are the Puritans made fun of in Malvolio’s person?
Are the characters least scathed by the fun for that reason superior to the others?
MINOR CHARACTERS
The fun of the play is capped by the presence of a particularly clever fool whose function of making every one the butt of his wit makes one of the least important of the characters represent the special drollery of the whole play. The only grudge he bears is against the man who does not appreciate fun—who calls him a ‘barren rascal.’ Describe the passages in which he particularly shines. Of the minor characters the fool is minor only through his station and unimportance in the plot; he really occupies much space in the play and in fact pervades it. How is Antonio connected with the plot? What traits of his does the play bring out? Is his fondness for Sebastian unnatural? How is he concerned in the foolery of the play? Is he necessary to the plot? As the fool represents the merry-making spirit of the play, so Malvolio stands for the dupes of it. Does any one sympathize with him? Who shows the clearest understanding of his faults? (I. v.). What signs are there in the play of Malvolio’s being a Puritan? Is there any evidence against it? Is Maria right, for example, when she says, ‘The Devil a Puritan he is or anything constantly but a time-server,’ etc.? That the character of Malvolio was generally taken on the stage as a portrait of the Puritan, and that Shakespeare must have known it would borrow some of its popularity from being so considered, seems not to be denied; on the other hand, it may hardly seem to be proven that Shakespeare thought he was drawing a genuine Puritan. Show Malvolio’s character, his connection with the other characters and with the plot and the foolery of the play, and state the argument for and against Shakespeare’s meaning to make fun of him as a Puritan.
Is it a defect in the play that the fool, who has less to do with the plot, is more important than Antonio, who has somewhat more to do with it? Does it show that the main interest of the play is in comic situation rather than in character or dramatic motive?
THE POETIC FIGURES IN THE PLAY
Observe the various figures used throughout the play, as to whether they are drawn from nature or from other sources; for example, the first speech of the Duke bristles with metaphor. Note that he speaks of music as the food of love, and bids the musicians play on that the appetite may have a surfeit, images drawn from physical nature; then that the music came o’er his ear like the sweet sound that breathes upon a bank of violets, stealing and giving odor. We should expect here some continuation in the language of sound; but the Duke continues as if he had said wind instead of sound, and then wind is personified, for it breathes instead of blows on the bank of violets, and it steals their odor and gives it to him,—the music is so sweet that it seems as if its sounds came laden with the scent of violets to his ear. Here sound is personified at first as merely breathing, then it takes on moral attributes and steals and gives. Pick out and explain other figures in the same way. Which of the characters use the most beautiful imagery? Are there any who use none at all?
Is there any special fitness in the imagery used to the character using it? Does the imagery used help you to form an opinion of the characters?
THE WIT OF THE PLAY
What are the main causes of amusement in the play? The audience, notice, is not kept in the dark one instant about any of the characters. Thus one of the sources of amusement lies in the fact that while the audience occupies somewhat the attitude of omnipotence, it has the pleasure of observing the characters of the play living their lives in the purblind way usual to mortals. Lessing said that a comedy should make us laugh at vices, but the vices must be those of characters who have good qualities also. Does ‘Twelfe Night’ answer to this description? Analyze the causes why the fun of the play is funny.
Which of the characters cause amusement as the result of circumstances over which they have no control? How do each of these cause amusement unconsciously? Which of the characters cause amusement through a conscious intention of making fun?
Until a few years ago no one had succeeded in finding the Play or Novel on which the European part of the plot of “The Tempest” was founded.
An early German Play, “The Fair Sidea” had been brought forward on account of some resemblances to “The Tempest.” Yet it is obviously not its source but rather an imitation or variant indirectly drawn from a similar foundation story.
Edmund Dorer, a special student of Spanish Literature first called attention (Jan. 31, 1885,) to the story more closely resembling “The Tempest” than any other, as it occurs in a collection of tales by Antonio de Eslava, called Las Noches de Invierno, or “Winter Nights,” published in Madrid in 1609.
Like other such collections of stories, such as the Italian collection of Bandello, and the French of Belleforest, used by Shakespeare, Eslava’s collection was translated, and, in default of the original from one of the later editions, as translated into German in 1683 (Noches de Invierno Winternachte aus dem Spanischen in die Deutsche sprach versetzet) a summary of this story was given in English for the first time as a satisfactory source of “The Tempest” in the “First Folio Edition” of the Play (see pp. 85-93 and Introduction; also for an extract and summary of “The Fair Sidea,” pp. 94-95).
What may be called the American half of the plot evidently owes suggestions to pamphlet accounts of the storm and wreck and other experiences met with by Sir Thomas Gates, Sir George Sommers and others during their voyage of discovery to the Bermudas in 1610 (see pp. 92, 99, and Notes pp. 114, 125-127, etc., for extracts.)
Gonzalo’s speech, too, follows pretty closely a passage in Florio’s Montaigue. (For this passage see Note on II. i. 153-160).
THE SCHEMES OF PROSPERO.
The first scene shows the storm in progress. Is there any clew given to the reader that it is a magic tempest? What is Prospero’s main object in having the ship’s crew and passengers cast upon his island? Is it to wreak vengeance on his enemies, to work the charm of love between Ferdinand and Miranda, or by means of that to reinstate himself? In what way would this love work to his advantage? Notice the natural way in which the reader is put in possession of the necessary information about the past of Prospero and Miranda. Warburton says of this that it is the finest example he knows of retrospective narration for the sake of informing the audience of the plot. How much of the plot is permitted to come out in this act? Why does Prospero so repeatedly urge Miranda’s attention? Is she abstracted, is he, or is she already beginning to be drowsy? Why was Ferdinand the first to quit the ship? Since Prospero already knows, why does he ask Ariel what time it is?
POINTS. 1. Explain the nautical terms. ‘Master’s whistle.’ In Shakespeare’s time naval commanders wore great whistles of gold. A modern boatswain’s badge is a silver whistle suspended to the neck by a lanyard. Holt extols the excellence of Shakespeare’s sea-terms, but makes an exception of Gonzalo’s ‘cable,’ which he says is of no use unless the ship is at anchor, and here it is plainly sailing; to which Furness replies, Shakespeare anchors Gonzalo’s hopes on the boatswain’s ‘gallows complexion,’ and the cable of that anchor was the hangman’s rope. 2. ‘Washing of ten tides.’ An allusion to the custom of hanging pirates at low-water mark. (See Notes I. i. 67 First Folio Edition). 3. Compare this storm with that in ’Pericles,’—’Do not assist the storm,’ etc., with ‘Per.’ III. i. 51-60. 4. Explain ’To trash for over-topping,’ I. ii. 98, which is a blending of two metaphors. Trash refers to the habit of hanging a weight round the neck of the fleetest of a pack of hounds, to keep him from getting ahead of the rest; and ‘overtopping’ to trees shooting up above the others in a grove, which have to be lopped to keep them even. 5. What does Prospero mean by saying, ‘Now I arise’? Simply, now I get up, and now my fortunes change? 6. ‘Still vex’d Bermoothes.’ Bermudas, spelled in several ways in Shakespeare’s time, and called ‘still vex’d,’ from accounts of tempests prevailing there. 7. ‘Argier.’ The name of Algiers till after the Restoration. 8. ‘One thing she did.’ What? Are we anywhere told what?
Does the long monologue of Prospero in this act detract from its dramatic force? Did the arrangement of Shakespeare’s stage make this convenient. (See description of the threefold stage of the Globe Theatre in “Anthonie and Cleopatra,” pp. 172-173). Is the monologue rightly disused in modern plays? Why? Compare Ibsen’s plays in this respect.
THE COUNTERPLOT
Tell the story of Act II, showing how its main event is the conspiracy of Antonio and Sebastian against Alonzo and Gonzalo. Is the issue left undecided long, so that it threatens the result? How and why does Ariel prevent the success of it? Might it not have been to Prospero’s advantage to have the King killed, since Ferdinand would then succeed to the throne of Naples? Did Ariel’s intervention kill the plot? What light is thrown on the characters by scene i. of this act? Do you think it is intended to be shown that Gonzalo is prosy and tiresome, although good, or only that the lower and more frivolous characters find him so? Which is the likelier, that Shakespeare intended the dialogue about Gonzalo’s ideal commonwealth to be a satire upon it, or favorable to Utopian schemes? Which comes out the better at last in the wit-combat,—the quick Antonio and Sebastian, or the thoughtful Gonzalo? Is
POINTS. 1. The jokes of Act II: their explanation (i.e., ‘dollar’ and ‘dolour,’ the ‘eye of green,’ etc.). 2. When were watches first used in Europe? 3. Tell the story of AEneas and Dido. 4. What myth is alluded to in ‘his word is more than the miraculous harp’? 5. Gonzalo’s Commonwealth—its origin from Montaigne. It is commonly supposed that Shakespeare must have borrowed this reference from the translation. He may have taken it directly from the French. 6. Show the bearing of Sebastian’s phrase, ‘I am standing water,’ with its context. (That is, at the turn of the tide between ebb and full.) 7. ‘The man i’ the moon,’ and the folk-lore about it. 8. Natural history on the island. (Poet-Lore, April, 1894. Notes and News).
Is it a defect in the action of the play that the danger arising from the most important counter-plot is allayed so soon?
NEW PLOTS AGAINST PROSPERO
What new turns are given events in Act III? Scene i continues Ferdinand’s love-making, and shows no hinddrances there to Prospero’s plans; but scene ii develops Caliban’s plot, and scene iii shows Sebastian and Antonio making ready to carry out the purpose which had at first been defeated. Give an account of the scene in Act II which leads up to this plot in connection with its sequel in this act. Ariel is baffled in his attempts to breed contention between the conspirators by Trinculo’s good nature, but finally he leads them off with his music. Scene iii represents Alonzo and his courtiers bewildered and tired by their fruitless tramps through the island, and in just the temper to be confused by the dumb-show and the harpies. Note the dependence placed, throughout ‘The Tempest,’ on the effect of ‘solemn and strange music.’ Antonio’s plot, being resumed, is blocked by Ariel’s magic show and his accusation. Note how the supernatural quality of the scene makes his speech affect their consciences as if they were themselves accusing themselves, and how it drives them into mental disorder. Dr. Bucknill, a specialist in brain disease, who has commented on Shakespeare’s knowledge of such maladies, explains that Alonzo’s frenzy leads him by an imaginative melancholy to the idea of suicide, while the madness of Antonio and Sebastian expresses itself in the idea of desperate fight.
POINTS. 1. What is a ‘catch,’ a ‘tabor’? Give an account of the music in the play, and show the fitness of its different effects on the different characters. 2. Explain the allusions, ‘unicorns,’ ’one tree, the Phoenix throne,’ ‘mountaineers,’ with ‘wallets of flesh,’ etc. 3. What is a harpy? Give an account of the mention of harpies in Virgil (AEneid, Book III), and ‘Paradise Regained’ (Book II). What appropriateness to the purpose in this ‘quaint device’?
Do the counter-plots introduced in this act mainly affect events or character?
THE CONFUSION OF THE PLOTTERS
Show how the story of Act IV consists in the smoothing down of all that disturbs Prospero’s designs, and foreshadows the complete reconciliation of the last act. The lovers, whose readiness to fall in with Prospero’s plan has made his task light so far as they are concerned, could only imperil his and their future by a premature union; and Ferdinand, having stood the test of hard work, is now induced, by an awed and holy mood, produced by art, to keep his good resolutions. Describe the mask, and show its meaning and fitness for Prospero’s purposes. Why is Prospero so disturbed at the reminder of so paltry a plot as that of Caliban and his associates? Is it likely that these drunken fellows could frame any plot that would be but as gossamer before his art? Is it natural that so low a creature as Caliban should show more intelligence than Stephano and Trinculo in disregarding Ariel’s ‘stale’ set to catch them? How do you explain his superior caution? Describe the device employed by Prospero and Ariel to rout these plotters. Would it be effective on an English stage?
POINTS. 1. Explanation of classical allusions. ‘Hymen’s lamps,’ ‘Phoebus’ steeds,’ Ceres, Iris, Juno, etc.; ‘dusky Dis,’ ‘Paphos,’ etc. 2. The botany of Act IV. What is ‘stover,’ ‘furze,’ gorse? 3. Was Prospero’s ‘line’ a lime-tree or a clothes-line? 4. Explanation of the jokes of the act. 5. Natural history on the island again: the ’blind mole,’ ‘barnacles,’ ‘apes,’ ‘pard,’ etc.
Why is the punishment devised for the lesser plotters corporal and for the greater ones psychical?
PROSPERO’S TRIUMPH
Sum up the results consummated by Prospero’s magic. Note Gonzalo’s account of the play, and show the ethical results, and Ariel’s part in Prospero’s course of reconciliation. Explain how, if Prospero had regained his dukedom, and yet, if ‘all of us,’ as Gonzalo says, had not found ourselves, the triumph would have been material, not ethical. Show how this effect is enhanced by the plan to awaken dismay and
POINTS. 1. The ‘Faerie’ of the play. Compare with that of ’Midsummer Night’s Dream.’ (See ‘Fairy-lore of Midsummer Night’s Dream,’ Poet Lore, Vol. III, p. 177, April, 1891.) Victor Hugo notes the contrast as follows: ’"Midsummer Night’s Dream” depicts the action of the invisible world on man; “The Tempest” symbolizes the action of man on the invisible world.’ (See also the ’Supernatural in Shakespeare’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream."’ in Poet Lore, Vol. V, p. 490, October, 1893; in Shakespeare’s ‘Tempest,’ p. 557, November, 1893.)
2. The duration of the play. Explain how it follows the ‘unities’; and in this connection show the probable equality of ‘three glasses’ to three hours, and Shakespeare’s mistake. (Shakespeare’s use of nautical terms, approved by all seamen, seems to be here at fault in supposing a ‘glass’ equal to one, instead of to a half, hour.)
3. The game of chess and its pertinence here: Because so wise a father would have taught his daughter so intellectual a game; because Queen Elizabeth was fond of it, and it was par excellence a ‘royal game’; or because Naples was the source and center of the chess furore at just this time?
4. Where is the scene of the ‘Tempest’ laid? Is the island real or unreal? (The main conjectures for a known place are Hunter’s that it was Lampedusa, and Elze’s that it was Pantelaria. Both argue that each island was so situated in the Mediterranean, between Milan or its port and Algiers, whence the sailors landed Sycorax, as to suit the requirements. Elze further urges the name of a town on the opposite African coast, Calibia, as suggesting Caliban’s name. For an argument that the island is vaguely placed in the Mediterranean to suit the Old World plot and yet by many details made suggestive of the New World, see Introduction to ‘The Tempest’ in First Folio Edition.)
5. The influence of the New World on the writing of ‘The Tempest,’ and all allusions traceable to it. (See Notes of same edition for extracts from pamphlets on America, etc.)
What constitutes the interest in ’The Tempest,’—character, dramatic situations, movements, plot, poetry, or moral purpose?
CHARACTER STUDIES
With the first word Shakespeare introduces Prospero as one who can raise and calm such a tempest as scene i describes, and the magician admits the power Miranda ascribes to him. Show from the story what his plans and motives were likely to prove. Would a sense of his own former neglect of duty be likely to embitter him against his brother or make him excuse him? Does he show signs of either? Prospero’s magic, his garment, books, staff. How far is his magic in accord with the popular notions of such art? (See ‘Prospero and Magic,’ Poet Lore, Vol. III, p. 144, March, 1891.)
Show Ariel’s qualities. What caused his first impatience? Is Prospero unnecessarily harsh and imperious with him? Aside from the popular supposition that spirits or familiars obeying magicians were always reluctant to serve longer than one hour (and, therefore, says Scot’s ‘Discovery of Witchcraft,’ ’the magician must be careful to dismiss him’), how can you explain this quarrel,—as a dramatic expedient giving occasion for telling Ariel’s story, or revealing the characters of both Prospero and Ariel? Note, also, its further use in introducing Prospero’s second servant, Caliban, and his story. How do you explain Ariel’s irrelevant rejoinder: ‘Yes, Caliban, her son’; and Prospero’s angry, ‘Dull thing, I say so,’ etc.? Do you think Moulton right in supposing that Prospero governs ’this incarnation of caprice by outcapricing him’; Rolfe, in supposing that Prospero is irritable because under the strain and suspense of conducting affairs within three hours perfectly, and upon which accuracy hangs his future and the happiness of his daughter? This was also his only chance of retrieving his own past error.
Contrast Ariel with Caliban. Show the skill of Caliban’s first appearance as some slow-moving thing, half of water, half of earth, in contrast with Ariel’s second appearance as a nymph. What may be learned of Caliban’s traits from Miranda’s speech (as in the Folio, but by various editors given to Prospero): ‘Abhorred slave,’ etc.? Do you think this speech should be given to Prospero? What signs are there of Caliban’s having a good mind? Do you think Prospero’s tyranny over Caliban altogether justified? Is Caliban’s penitence consistent with his nature? How far does Ariel proceed independently of Prospero? Is he really fond of him?
Is there any bond of love between Prospero and his servants? Do the relations between them illustrate the impossibility of gratitude?
2. THE LOVERS
Is the love of Ferdinand and Miranda an enchantment caused by Prospero, or an emotion he can help, but not cause? If not caused by him, does Shakespeare depart from magic to the detriment of the play? Would it be better, for example, if a love philter was introduced for consistency’s sake? (For literary use of the love philter, see Tennyson’s ‘Lucretius.’) Does it reflect against Ferdinand’s courage that he was first to quit the ship? Are Miranda’s speeches about her grandmother (I, ii, 140) and to Caliban inconsistent with the maidenly innocence assumed to be characteristic of her? Do you consider her talk with Ferdinand (III, i) in character? Is she undutiful to her father? Unmaidenly in her speedy declaration of love (III, i, 67, 89, 94-106, 110)? Should she be represented as ignorant or innocent of the world, or as in love? Describe the characters and relations to each other of the lovers from all that is given about them. Compare with Florizel and Perdita in ‘The Winter’s Tale.’
Are Miranda and Ferdinand undeveloped characters whose relation to each other is more important to the play than they themselves are?
3. THE MINOR CHARACTERS
Which is the most important of the lesser characters and why? Is Gonzalo blamable at all under the circumstances for following the command to turn Prospero and Miranda adrift? Why is Gonzalo of better cheer than his companions? What do you think of his philosophy in itself and as an index to his character? Is his knowledge superior to that of his companions? Does he suspect the evil intent of Antonio and Sebastian? Show how his frankness and loyalty came out in Act III, and how his uprightness is rewarded in Act V. Do you think it significant that he closes the play? Francisco considered as the least important personage in the play: should his speech describing Ferdinand’s swimming be given to Gonzalo? The sailors considered as examples of Shakespeare’s skill in outline portraits. Are Stephano and Trinculo more highly developed types than Caliban? Would the play be better if they were left out?
Is Gonzalo more like Polonius in ‘Hamlet’ or Rent in ‘Lear’?
A STUDY OF ARTISTIC DESIGN
THE SYMBOLISM OF ‘THE TEMPEST’
Did Shakespeare typify himself as Prospero? Prospero (says Montegut) alludes to his own age, and intimates that the time has come for retirement to private life. What indications can you find that Prospero images Shakespeare? If he is so interpreted, what parts may Ariel and Caliban be supposed to play? Is the history of the Enchanted Island and the transformation wrought a parallel with the history of the Stage and the transformation Shakespeare wrought? According
Is ‘The Tempest’ an allegory? Is it in any sense an autobiographical play? Does its symbolism have much in common with that of modern symbolistic plays, such as Maeterlinck’s ‘Joyzelle,’ for example? In what respects may it be said, do you think, as Maeterlinck himself has informed us, that ‘Joyzelle’ grew from ‘The Tempest?’
CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH GREENE’S ‘PANDOSTO’ AND THE ‘ALKESTIS’ OF EURIPIDES
SHAKESPEARE’S INDEBTEDNESS TO GREENE
The story of ‘Pandosto’ falls into two distinct divisions; first, the story of Pandosto and Bellaria; second, the story of Dorastus and Fawnia. Compare each of these two stories with the two stories interwoven in the play, noting all the analogous passages and the use Shakespeare has made of them. (For Greene’s ‘Pandosto’ or ’History of Dorastus and Fawnia’ see ‘Shakespeare’s Library,’ or pp. 118-125 and Notes in First Folio Edition.)
Do Shakespeare’s borrowed and additional archaisms and his confusion of names and places show carelessness? Is his continuation of the story merely a playwright’s device to join the two parts of the plot and make a good stage piece end happily? (As to Coast of Bohemia see Poet Lore, April, 1894), also in “First Folio Edition,” pp. 176-177.
THE RESEMBLANCES TO THE ‘ALKESTIS’ OF EURIPIDES
In Greene and in Shakespeare the King wishes the Queen’s death because he is uncomfortable so long as she lives, and he prefers his comfort to aught else, taking it as his conjugal right and royal prerogative. (See ii. 3, 1 and 204.) The Queen, understanding this, says, “My life stands in the level of your dreams, which I’ll lay down.” To her she says, “can life be no commodity” when love, “the crown and comfort of her life,” is gone. So Alkestis (see any translation of Euripides, in Bohn edition, literal prose translation, vol. i. p. 223) says she “was not willing to live bereft” of Admetos, therefore she did not spare herself to die for him, “though possessing the gifts of bloomy youth wherein” she “delighted.” This point of correspondence may have occurred to Shakespeare and suggested his continuation of Greene’s novel. Admetos’ image of his wife, that he would have made by the cunning hands of artists, is possibly a prototype of the statue of the Queen in ‘The Winter’s Tale,’ the piece “newly performed by that rare Italian master, Julio Romano.” Compare also, Herakles’ trial of Admetos with Paulina’s trial of Leontes (v. i); and Herakles’ restoration of the unknown Alkestis to her husband with Paulina’s bringing the statue of the Queen to life.
Is Shakespeare’s use of a striking incident from the ‘Alkestis’ too close not to have been suggested by it? Does it show his intention to portray in Hermione a new Alkestis?
SHAKESPEARE’S ORIGINALITY IN WORKING OVER HIS MATERIAL
Note Shakespeare’s departures from Greene and their significance. Do they serve two ends,—make the play more effective for stage representation, make the characters stronger? Does he make Leontes more attractive than Greene does in the first part of the play? Does he make him worse or better than Pandosto in the second part? What is the sole trace left in Shakespeare of the father’s guilty passion for his daughter? Garinter, in Greene, dies without any cause. See Shakespeare’s explanation of this, also his use of the news of Mamillius’ death to strike shame to the king’s heart. Greene makes the king relent as soon as he hears the oracle. Contrast Shakespeare’s conduct of the scene at this point.
Notice the difference in his treatment of the character of the cup-bearer. Does he make it his chief care to enhance the character of the Queen? Note the new characters introduced,—Paulina, Antigonus, Autolycus, the clown (in place of the wife in Greene). Conjecture any reason for his different names. The introduction of Autolycus makes the play more amusing on the stage, but is his part as well planned as Capnio’s for leading up to the denouement? Greene lets his mariners off alive after they set Fawnia afloat. Shakespeare wrecks his, and makes a bear eat Antigonus, to what end? What does Shakespeare gain by prolonging the life of Hermione?
Does Shakespeare’s remodelling of Greene’s story show chiefly a higher ideal than Greene’s of womanhood and of love?
THE ALKESTIS STORIES IN LITERATURE
The sacrifice of the Queen to ease her husband, and the final restoration, being the two main points of contact with Euripides’ version of the story, compare with these the stories of Alkestis told by William Morris in ‘The Earthly Paradise,’—’June’; ’The Love of Alcestis,’ by Emma Lazarus, in ‘Admetos,’—’Poems,’ vol. i.; by Robert Browning in ‘Balustion’s Adventure;’ by Longfellow in ’The Golden Legend.’ See also articles in Poet-lore,—’The Alkestis of Euripides and of Browning,’ July, 1890; ‘Old and New Ideals of Womanhood’; ’The Iphigenia’ and ‘Alkestis Stories,’ May, 1891; ’Longfellow’s Golden Legend and its Analogues,’ February, 1892. In comparing, note first general resemblances, then slighter points of resemblance and of difference.
Is development in literature of the ideal of womanhood away from self-sacrifice and toward self-development?
Is woman’s task for the future a reconciliation of them?
THE OUTCAST CHILD IN CULTURE-LORE AND FOLK-LORE
A few of the outcast children in culture-lore are Krishna, Zeus, Paris, Oedipus, King Arthur, Claribel’s child in the ‘Faerie Queene’ (canto xii.), etc. For the stories in folk-lore, see the English Folk-lore Journal. For the solar theory of the origin of this story, see Cox, ‘Mythology of the Aryan Nations.’
Collier says that Shakespeare changed Greene’s pretty description of turning Fawnia adrift in a boat because he had used much the same incident in “The Tempest.” Does Shakespeare’s new treatment of Greene’s “pretty incident” add dramatic force and moral purpose to the play?
CHARACTER STUDIES
1. PAULINA; LEONTES; HERMIONE
Note Paulina’s likeness to Emilia in “Othello.” Jealousy in Shakespeare: Resemblances in Leontes to Posthumus ("Cymbeline”) and to Othello. “The jealousy of Leontes,” says Dowden, “is not a detailed dramatic study like the love and jealousy of Othello. It is a gross madness, which mounts to the brain and turns his whole nature into unreasoning passion.” Is Hermione more highly developed than others of Shakespeare’s suspected wives,—Desdemona, Imogen? Likeness or superiority to Alkestis, Compare with Queen Katharine in ‘Henry VIII.’ Is she hard, having made her husband do penance for sixteen years? “Deep and even quick feeling never renders Hermione incapable of an admirable justice,” writes Dowden, “nor deprives her of a true sense of pity for him who so gravely wrongs both her and himself.”
2. THE YOUNG LOVERS
Notice the high and pure character of their love as shown in the facts that Florizel did not find it fitting to buy pedler’s “knacks” for Perdita,—a trait not in Greene. Her independent and uncringing nature as shown in another little touch of Shakespeare (see IV. iv. 492-497). Compare these two lovers with Ferdinand and Miranda in “The Tempest.”
3. THE ORIGINALITY OF SHAKESPEARE’S AUTOLYCUS
For suggestions see Poet-lore, April, 1891. (’Notes and News.’) Compare the Hermes of the Homeric Hymn with the Autolycus and Sisyphos of mythology, also the folk-lore tales of the master-thief (Cox). To discuss the probable originality with Shakespeare of a conception which is one of the universal inheritances of the Aryan race is futile; the type existed, and Shakespeare’s part was to make an individual of the type.
Is Leontes’ jealousy too gross and unfounded to be likely?
Is Hermione, not hard, but slow to be satisfied, because her love is noble?
Is Mamillus not too precocious to be natural?
A STUDY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PLOT
Has Shakespeare welded the two parts of the story together in such a way as to unify the plot? Does Autolycus contribute anything to the development of the plot? How does it compare with “Julius Caesar” or “Macbeth,” for example, in the construction of the plot? Is the movement more rapid in the last half of the play or in the first? Note the expedient introduced by Shakespeare to bridge over the lapse of time between the first part and the last part; compare with other examples of the same sort in Shakespeare.
Does the dramatic interest of ‘The Winter’s Tale’ suffer because the plot is of less importance than the incidents and characters.
SHAKESPEARE’S WORKMANSHIP IN “THE WINTER’S TALE”
The versification is that of Shakespeare’s latest group of plays. Dowden says, “No five-measure lines are rhymed and run on lines, and double endings are numerous.” Give examples of the construction of the lines from “Love’s Labour’s Lost” as an earlier play, “Merchant of Venice” as a riper play. It has been said that the difficulties of style in the play are accounted for by the endeavor of the author to reflect the changing moods of Leontes. Compare with Prospero’s diction and construction in “The Tempest.” Give examples of these.
Does the lawlessness of poetic workmanship in “The Winter’s Tale,” together with the looseness of the dramatic construction, show a deterioration from the ripe power of Shakespeare’s middle period, or that practised artistic mastery which is free from art by means of perfect art?
PERDITA’S GARDEN
The flower-imagery of “The Winter’s Tale” compared with other flower-scenes in Shakespeare,—in “A Midsommer Nights Dreame” and “Hamlet.” The classic and folk-lore allusions. The pastoral element in “As you Like It” and “Winter’s Tale.”
The rustic scenes have little bearing on the play; are they necessary to Shakespeare’s art in order to throw a clear light on the character of his protagonists?
THE ETHICS OF “THE WINTER’S TALE”
“The Winter’s Tale” gives examples of meritorious actions losing their virtue with the progress of ideas; for example, the civic virtue, allegiance to the king, is what Leontes depends upon in his talk with Camillo, with Antigonus, and the other lords. Note Camillo’s reason for not poisoning Polixenes to order,—that it is risky to kill a king even at command of a king. That such a reason would be considered small moral support to-day appears, for example, in the indignation or amusement expressed in the newspapers on the German Emperor’s address to his army on the soldier’s duty of obedience. In Shakespeare’s day a king had taken matters in his own hands in the trial of his wife, much as Leontes did (see “Henry VIII".). The moral significance of Hermione’s patience under accusation appears in the long reparation she requires. Paulina is made to speak for her during her seclusion.
What are the “secret purposes” which Shakespeare makes her subserve? Observe that, if the fulfilment of the oracle and the restoration of the child were all Paulina anticipates, there would be no use in her remonstrances against a second marriage and in her goading the king to remorse.
Does Shakespeare’s ideal of love and constancy, as revealed in ’The Winter’s Tale,’ imply that second marriages are offences against the first. Has the objection Paulina makes to his re-marriage such a cause or is it a necessity of the plot?
Does the way of telling “The Winter’s Tale” indicate the passing away of aristocratic and the formation of democratic ideals, and the dawning change in the status both of woman and the commoner?