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

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

ACT IV

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Is the most actively beneficial episode in this Act also the most
charming.

ACT V

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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).

THE TAMING OF THE SHREW

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.

I

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).

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

II

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

III

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Why does Lucentio's suit excel that of any other in interest?

Is Bianca wrong in acting independently of her father?

IV

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

V

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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.

VI

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

LOVE'S LABOUR'S LOST

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).

ACT I

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?

ACT II

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

Why does the Princess discount Boyet's remarks and accuse him of
joking? Does she give any clew to her own feelings?

ACT III

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

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