ACT I

E-text prepared bu Ted Garvin, Keith M. Eckrich, and the Project Gutenberg

Online Distributed Proofreading Team

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 Menæchmi, 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?

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 Maréchal 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'Alençon 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?

ACT IV

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

ACT V

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

VI

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

VII

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

VIII

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?

IX

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?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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.

MUCH ADOE ABOUT NOTHING

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.

ACT I

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.

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

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?