Shakespeare Study Programs; The Comedies by Charlotte Porter and Helen A. Clarke

C >> Charlotte Porter and Helen A. Clarke >> Shakespeare Study Programs; The Comedies

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

SHAKESPEARE STUDY PROGRAMS: THE COMEDIES

by

CHARLOTTE PORTER & HELEN A. CLARKE

Authors of _The Tragedies_
Editors of the _Pembroke Shakespeare_, the _First Folio Shakespeare_,
_Poet Lore_, etc.

Boston: Richard G. Badger
Toronto: The Copp Clark Co., Limited
The Gorham Press, Boston, U.S.A.

[Illustration: ARTI et VERITATI]

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

The Shakespeare Study Programs appeared originally in _Poet Lore_.
They have met with marked favor, and have been reprinted as the back
numbers went out of print. The steady demand for these programs
prompts the present issue in book-form. Several new programs have been
added, and those reprinted have been revised.

The references in this volume are to the "First Folio Edition" of
Shakespeare, edited by Charlotte Porter.

"Criticism is the endeavour to find, to know, to love, to recommend
not only the best, but all the good that has been known and thought
and written in the world. ... It shows how to grasp and how to
enjoy;... it helps the ear to listen when the horns of England blow."

--GEORGE SAINTSBURY, "History of Criticism."

CONTENTS

The Comedie of Errors

The Two Gentlemen of Verona

The Taming of the Shrew

Love's Labour's Lost

Much Adoe About Nothing

A Midsommer Nights Dreame

The Merchant of Venice

The Merry Wives of Windsor

As You Like It

Twelfe Night

The Tempest

The Winter's Tale

THE COMEDIE OF ERRORS

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:

ACT I

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

ACT II

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

ACT III

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?"

ACT IV

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

ACT V

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is this Play the better or worse farce for the serious domestic
situation and the pathos of the long separation of the shipwrecked
family?

VI

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

VII

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).

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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 TWO GENTLEMEN OF VERONA

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.

ACT I

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is Valentine's or Protheus's the more influential character upon the
course of events thus far?

ACT II

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."

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is the love of Protheus for Silvia a reflex influence from Valentine's
extreme enthusiasm?

Why does Lucetta distrust Protheus?

ACT III

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?

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7