English Literature Coursework

Comedy

Much Ado About Nothing

Name:

Teacher: K CowinScene Summaries

Scene Summaries – Act OneAct One, Scene One

Leonato, governor of Messina, receives news that Don Pedro of Aragon will soon be arriving. Don Pedro and his followers are returning having successfully quashed a rebellion by Don Pedro’s brother, Don John. The messenger also tells Leonato that a young Florentine called Claudio has excelled in his military duties and is in the favour of both Don Pedro and Benedick of Padua.

Leonato’s niece, Beatrice, is especially keen to know of Benedick’s fate. Beatrice’s scathing remarks about Benedick seem to imply she dislikes him. However, the messenger reports that Benedick has also performed well in the battle and is now one of Claudio’s companions.

Soon after, Don Pedro arrives with Claudio, Benedick, Don John and other soldiers. Leonato invites the men to stay at his with him for the coming month.

The stage is then cleared but for Benedick and Beatrice who remain. It is at this point that the ‘merry war’ between the two – so central to the narrative of the play – is first witnessed by the audience. Both characters trade insults and taunts with one another.

The scene concludes with the revelation that Claudio intends to seek Hero for his wife. He confides to Benedick who derides the very idea of marriage. In turn, he also attempts to dissuade Claudio by insulting Hero.

On hearing the news, Don Pedro encourages Claudio and promises that he will approach both Hero and her father during the celebrations that evening.

Act One, Scene Two

In this brief scene, Antonio confides to his brother, Leonato, that Don Pedro is in love with Hero and explains that he intends to approach her during the evening’s dance.

Act One, Scene Three

Don John laments his position in life. He is the illegitimate brother of the celebrated Don Pedro; recently defeated in his military endeavours and without the habits to conform to the strict social propriety of Messina.

Borachio arrives and announces that he has overheard the conversation between Don Pedro and Claudio.

Don John detects an opportunity to inflict his misery upon others, and against the two very people who symbolise that which he cannot be: Don Pedro – the celebrated military hero – and Claudio – the youthful embodiment of vitality and vibrancy. Don John expresses his desire to poison the guests.

Scene Summaries – Act Two

Act Two, Scene One

The dance setting of this scene allows for a series of short but crucial encounters between the different characters. The sense of confusion in this scene is aided by the fact that many of the characters – with the exception of Don John and Borachio – are masked throughout.

Initially, Leonato, Antonio, Hero and Beatrice appear and comment explicitly on Don John’s melancholic appearance. Afterwards, Beatrice attacks Benedick showing once more their vitriolic and combustible relationship. However, Antonio and Leonato warn Beatrice that she is destined for a future of loneliness and spinsterhood if she maintains the attitude towards men exemplified in her exchanges with Benedick. In contrast, both men then urge the silent Hero to be courteous to Don Pedro’s advances during the evening.

As more of the guests begin to arrive, Antonio orders them to wear masks and begin the festivities. At this point, only Don John and Borachio are without masks. What follows is a series of brief encounters between the different characters. Don Pedro dances with Hero’ Balthasar and Margaret flirt along with Antonio and Ursula. There then follows a brief conversation between Benedick and Beatrice. It seems as this stage that Beatrice does not recognise Benedick who is wearing a mask; in turn, she begins to complain about Benedick's treatment of her.

At this stage, Don John decides to put his plan into operation. Borachio identifies Claudio (who is masked) and points him out to Don John. Don John then tells Claudio that Don Pedro has sworn his love for Hero and desires her for himself. Claudio is left to dwell on

the Don Pedro’s alleged betrayal. Benedick attempts to joke with Claudio about his loss; Claudio leaves in distress.

Benedick then announces Claudio’s feelings to Don Pedro who has appeared. Don Pedro is immediately surprised by the revelation. In turn, he re-affirms his desire to court Hero but only for Claudio’s benefit.

Claudio returns and Don Pedro takes the opportunity to make clear to him that – as agreed – he spoke to Hero only for Claudio’s benefit. Claudio, revitalised by Don Pedro’s affirmation of their original agreement, expresses his renewed hope and happiness. Hero, conversely, is much more subdued. Attention then turns to the question of how to find a husband for Beatrice. It is at this point, and after the departure of Beatrice, that Don Pedro hatches a scheme to unite Beatrice and Benedick. Leonato, Claudio and Hero all subscribe to the idea and agree to help.

Act Two, Scene Two

Don John’s failure to sabotage the marriage of Claudio and Hero is left to lament his failings. However, Borachio devises a way that will allow Don John to disrupt the marriage in the future. He says that if Don John were to bring Don Pedro and Claudio beneath Hero’s window the night before the marriage, he would embrace Margaret to create the impression that Hero had been unfaithful. Don John, energised by the idea, promises rich rewards to Borachio should the plan succeed.

Act Two, Scene Three

Benedick, alone, begins to consider the ways that Claudio has changed since his engagement to Hero. He draws comparison between the man Claudio used to be – in battle for instance – and the man he has become. Benedick wonders what kind of woman it would be who might make him feel the same way about a woman.

Benedick’s meditation is interrupted by the oncoming Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro who he hears coming towards him. Benedick decides to hide in the arbour to overhear their conversation.Aware of Benedick’s presence, Don Pedro asks the musician, Balthasar, to play for them. Balthasar’s song is deliberately concerned with the central issues of the play and the ‘games’ that exist between the genders.

Once the singer leaves, Don Pedro, Leonato and Claudio converse loudly about how much Beatrice loves Benedick. They discern from

her behaviour that the reason why she cannot tell Benedick is because she fears that he will reject her.

Once the men have left, Benedick emerges from the arbour, shocked by what he has heard. He is then faced with having to reconcile his previously contemptuous view of marriage with the knowledge that Beatrice is in love with him. Although he initially admits that he had no intention of marrying anyone – let alone Beatrice – he decides that he could change for her. It then dawns on him that Beatrice has all of the virtues of a woman he had previously identified as desirable.

Beatrice then appears to call him for dinner; Benedick attempts to engage her politely, however, she replies coldly. In the midst of his new-found feelings, Benedick is left to read love into her words.

Scene Summaries - Act Three

Act Three, Scene One

In an intriguingly symmetrical way to the previous scene, Hero and her attendants plan how they can ensure that Beatrice overhears them discussing Benedick’s love for her. Margaret leaves to tell Beatrice that Hero and Ursula are talking about her.

Beatrice, on Margaret’s advice, hides herself so that she can overhear the women talking about her. Benedick, Hero announces, is overcome with love for Beatrice. She goes on to reveal that Don Pedro and Claudio want to tell Beatrice but they she feels it must remain hidden for fear that Benedick will be the object of Beatrice’s ridicule.

Instead, Hero determines that Benedick must fight against his longing for Beatrice. They go on to outline Benedick’s virtues and his high standing in their society. Beatrice, overcome by what she has heard, emerges from her hiding place. Like Benedick in the previous scene, she determines to change her ways and to reciprocate Benedick’s affection.

Act Three, Scene Two

Following the wedding, Don Pedro announces, both he and Benedick will leave Messina. Benedick announces to the men that he is a reformed character as illustrated by his newly shaven beard – a source of mockery from the others. Claudio points out to Don Pedro that Beatrice has heard the conversation between Hero and Margaret.

Don John arrives and immediately seeks his brother before announcing that Hero has been disloyal to Claudio. Claudio is both shocked and dismisses the report. Don John, as part of his plan, asks that both Claudio and Don Pedro join him beneath Hero’s window that evening so that they may see for themselves. Claudio, enraged, determines that Hero should be publicly shamed if she is found to be guilty.

Act Three, Scene Three

Borachio and Conrade discuss – unaware that they are being overheard by the other night watchmen – the plan that will unfold this evening. Borachio explains that he intends embrace Margaret – who will appear as Hero – in front of both Don Pedro and Claudio, in an attempt to bring shame upon her. Borachio also details the reward that Don John has offered to him should the plan be successful. This deception leads to both men being arrested by the watchmen.

Act Three, Scene Four

Hero is being prepared for her wedding. Ursula is sent by Hero to bring Beatrice. Margaret criticises what Hero has chosen to wear for the wedding but Hero scolds her. Beatrice arrives complaining that she feels unwell. Margaret teases her that the illness is a disguise for the fact that she is in love. The men arrive to take Hero to the church.

Act Three, Scene Five

Dogberry and Verges stop Leonato as he makes his way to the wedding in order to tell him about the two men that they have arrested. In a long-winded and overly complex explanation, they ask Leonato to arrange a hearing. Exasperated by their verbosity, Leonato orders them to take statements from both men. He tells them that he will deal with them after the wedding.

Scene Summaries – Act Four

Act Four, Scene 1

Leonato instructs that Friar to keep the marriage ceremony as brief as possible. As the wedding begins the Friar asks if there is any reason why Claudio and Hero cannot be married. Claudio takes the opportunity to challenge Hero about her alleged infidelity. Claudio condemns Hero as a ‘rotten orange’ who blushes with guilt referring

to her as a ‘common stale’. Hero, when Claudio challenges her, denies that anyone was in her window on the evening before. However, Hero is damned by the witness testimony of both Don Pedro and Claudio who claim to have witnessed her betrayal.

Leonato, shamed by his daughter alleged behaviour, begins to curse his daughter and pray for her death. Beatrice, meanwhile, maintains that Hero is innocent, and, in turn, Benedick wants to believe her. The Friar also implies that both Don Pedro and Claudio are mistaken. He suggests that Hero is hidden away under the pretence that the shock of the accusation has killed her. Benedick announces his suspicion that Don John has played some part in the events. The new deception is approved by everyone in the hope that Claudio will realise the error of his judgement and return to grieve for Hero.

As the other characters move off, Benedick and Beatrice are left alone once more and they profess their love for one another. Benedick asks Beatrice how he might prove his love for her, and she asks him to kill Claudio. After some protestation, Benedick finally agrees to challenge Claudio.

Act Four, Scene Two

Dogberry and his men prepare to interrogate the prisoners about the deception. Despite the bumbling efforts of Dogberry some semblance of the evening’s events becomes apparent. George Seacoal gives evidence claiming that he overheard the men discussing Don John’s promise of rich reward if Borachio’s plan proved a success.

The sexton then informs the men that Don John has left and Hero has died. The sexton then orders that the men be taken to Leonato for judgement. Dogberry, in the final moments of the scene, is then insulted by Conrade to which he takes considerable offence.

Scene Summaries – Act Five

Act Five, Scene One

Leonato challenges Claudio to a dual; he is furious at the way that Claudio has allowed Hero’s reputation to be besmirched, and, in turn caused her death. Don Pedro maintains the view that the accusation against Hero was true. The two elders, Antonio and Leonato leave them enraged.

As Benedick arrives he also accuses Claudio of ruining Hero’s reputation and challenges him to a dual. Equally, he informs Don Pedro that he will no longer be a member of his company and that

Don John has disappeared. Before leaving, Benedick repeats his challenge to Claudio. Once he has left, the other characters are concerned by Benedick’s behaviour.

As the prisoners are brought in to face Leonato, Don Pedro demands to know what they have done wrong. Borachio confesses to the plot to shame Hero outlining how they were deceived underneath Hero’s window. Don Pedro and Claudio recoil in shock, realising that Hero – or so they think – lies dead because of their false accusation.

Leonato then confronts Borachio who confesses. In turn, Leonato demands that Claudio and Don Pedro spread the news of Hero’s innocence across Messina. Leonato demands that they appear at her tomb that evening. Leonato then announces that he needs to find Margaret to ascertain whether she knew she was actively participating in a plot to tarnish Hero’s reputation. Meanwhile, Claudio is ordered to Hero’s tomb to hang an epitaph. He also agrees to marry Antonio’s daughter – even though he has never met her – the following day.

Claudio promises to mourn at Hero’s tomb that night before leaving.

Act Five, Scene 2

Benedick – having dismissed Margaret to find Beatrice – is left to practice the song that he has written for her. Beatrice arrives and is immediately concerned with the dual to which Benedick has challenged Claudio. Benedick tries to turn the direction of the conversation away from the dual to the elements of his character that she first found attractive. The scene plays out with this playful conversation marking a stark contrast with the previously adversarial encounters of the two characters. Ursula arrives to summon Beatrice to her uncle. Ursula reveals Don John’s plot to Beatrice.

Act Five Scene Three

Just before dawn, Claudio and Don Pedro mourn for Hero at Leonato’s family tomb. Firstly, Claudio reads a verse that he has written aloud. There then follows a song of mourning. As dawn breaks, both characters leave to prepare for Claudio’s wedding to Antonio’s daughter.

Act Five, Scene Four

The Friar opens the plays final scene by reminding all of the characters that he never doubted Hero’s innocence. Leonato then forgives Claudio and Don Pedro and plans for the final deception.

Benedick seeks permission from Leonato for his marriage to Beatrice to be performed.

Claudio and Don Pedro appear. Claudio is preparing himself to marry Antonio’s daughter as promised. The veiled women enter with Antonio. As soon as Claudio vows publicly to marry this stranger, Hero reveals herself. Claudio, in turn, is overcome with love for her.

Meanwhile, Benedick asks which of the veiled ladies is Beatrice and asks if she loves him. The usual denials and quick repartee continue until Claudio and Hero produce love poems that they have both written for one another. They accept each other. Benedick suggests that the dancing begin, even before the marriage has taken place.

The festivities are interrupted by a messenger who brings news that Don John has been arrested and is being brought back to Messina. Benedick urges everybody to deal with Don John the following day.

CharacterisationOppositions

The characters in Much Ado About Nothing essentially work as opposites to one another. This is true when we consider the four principal characters, Benedick, Beatrice, Claudio and Hero. Indeed, the oppositions that define the characters can also be split along the lines of gender such that we see the two men and two women both representing opposites of one another. As the play progresses this becomes much more complex. If for example, Beatrice is witty and erudite then Hero is passive and reserved; equally, if Benedick is cynical and misogynistic then Claudio idealistic and respectful. In turn, we can come to see that there is a duality of characterisation at work in the play: that is, Claudio’s idealism is the perfect foil to highlight Benedick’s cynicism whereas Hero’s subservience is counter to, and emphasises further, Beatrice’s adversarial nature. The immediate dramatic purpose of the play’s characterisation is clear: Shakespeare establishes these oppositions to enhance the play’s drama and the final reversal as it concludes. Equally, they tell us something of the society in which the characters exist.

Conformity and Defiance

Many of the characters in the play exhibit attitudes or behaviours that either conform to, defy, or affirm a particular perspective on Messina and its society. In a play that is centrally concerned with propriety and its observance, or otherwise, it is inevitable that

characters will come to embody elements of that societies values, prejudices and virtues.

Conflict

Conflict is central to Much Ado About Nothing, and the conflicts between the characters essentially drive the plot of the play. Indeed, conflict between the characters is what immediately opens the play – the return of the soldiers from battle to quash Don John’s rebellion. More significantly, it is conflict between the ideals, values and aspirations of the different characters that drive the central axis of the play; that is, the very process of deception itself is driven by one person’s desire to manipulate another.

Allegiances Conversely, allegiance is another central part of the narrative. In a play that is arguably about codes of honour among men, the allegiances that the different male characters make are important. Some of the allegiances that the different characters make vary in their legitimacy: some are genuine others just part of the many deceptions in the play.

Heirarchy

In a society like Messina during the period of the play, the idea of hierarchy was an important tool for imposing order on society. In Much Ado About Nothing we see different types of hierarchy: military, nepotistic, age, and gender. All of these things determine how the levels of power and influence that each character possesses at different points, and in various exchanges, throughout the play.

Objectification

One of the most interesting elements of Much Ado About Nothing is the way that characters are valued. Most obviously, this objectification is driven by the male characters. Conversely, it is the subservient female – Hero – who threatens the safety and pillars of the patriarchal Messina of the play. In turn, we can discern an important tension in the play surrounding both who is objectified and for what reasons.

Themes

Themes are the broader abstract ideas that the writer is presenting in their text

Community & Social Order

As Much Ado About Nothing begins we are introduced to the importance of community in the play. Leonato invites Don Pedro and his men to stay with him ‘at the least a month’ in the hope that ‘some occasion may detain [them] longer’ (1.1). Immediately Shakespeare draws the focus of the audience to Messina: this is the location in which all of the characters – good and bad – are enmeshed for the duration of the play. In turn, the rules of that society then become central in determining both the power relationships and codes of conduct to which the characters must subscribe. Messina itself is a shelter from war; instead it is an environment concerned with domestic battles relating to gender, marriage and social rank. However, underpinning all of these individualistic concerns is an all pervasive propriety to which the characters must conform. The emphasis on dances, celebrations and open displays of allegiance emphasise the very public lives that the characters live in Messina. Indeed, when Hero’s alleged infidelity is exposed, we see the horrific consequences of Messina’s patriarchal rule: the helpless female is cast to a fictional death while the men folk of the community reconcile themselves with their actions. Furthermore, the concerns of the men at this point focus on themselves; the men see Hero’s supposed betrayal of Claudio as an affront to their own sensibilities. That Shakespeare should allow the men to construct their own downfall is telling: it emphasises the male-centric values underpinning the community in Messina. Equally, there are characters who seek to polarise themselves from the expectations of their community; both Benedick and Beatrice – in the early parts of the play – both shun marriage and the conventions of both male and female behaviour in their society. Furthermore, Beatrice is an anachronism: she does not subjugate herself to the male domination of Messina in the same way that Hero does; instead, she is erudite, witty and intelligent, and prepared to challenge male figures in the play. So, while Messina has a clear sense of community that seems to outwardly embrace people from both inside and out, it is peopled by characters that challenge, question and pervert the values by which it is governed.

Gender

Elizabethan perceptions of the roles of men and women were becoming increasingly problematised by the time Elizabeth I took to the throne. Elizabeth’s own image was conflicted: she projected a complex and ambiguous persona that defied gender expectations of

the period. Equally, Elizabethan literature was also increasingly interested in the role of women. Much Ado About Nothing examines the problems at the centre of relationships between men and women. However, the question of gender in the play is far more complex than it might first appear: that is, while it is a comfortable means of classification to accuse the men of misogyny, it dismisses the problem of a character like the essentially passive Hero. This tension is crystallised in Act IV, Scene I: as the men turn in on themselves, concerned with how her alleged infidelity might impact on them, Hero remains virtually silent in the face of their condemnation. Indeed, this increasing male-centricity problematises our understanding of what the play is actually about: the suffering of the female at the hands of the men? Or an attack on the selfishness of the men who objectify women like Hero purely as a commodity to be treated as a bargaining chip in their pursuit of social and personal position? Indeed, it is plausible to read the play primarily as one about men and how they propose to destroy one another. Don John’s plot essentially hopes to shame not just Hero but to ensure that Claudio’s ‘jealousy shall be called assurance’ (II.II). It seems that Borachio and Don John are concerned more with the effect of Claudio’s jealousy rather than Hero. In turn, Hero becomes only an object which makes possible their intended outcome.

The idea that the play is essentially about men is advanced when we consider the role of Beatrice. Beatrice is the embodiment of a literary character who rejects gender expectations: she is intelligent, combative and forthright in her views. In a time when female characters were expected to exemplify subservience and restraint, Beatrice is both dramatically intriguing and an anachronism. She represents the very characteristics of her ‘opposite’ Benedick in the play. That Shakespeare allows her to speak in the Euphuistic prose style of Benedick, for example, imbues her with a masculinity and intellect much against social expectation. However, this is problematic because it again raises the question of which gender Shakespeare is concerned with in the play; in a sense Beatrice is a mirror held up to the men – particularly before her transformation – to identify their weaknesses. That we might find Beatrice cold, aggressive and, at times, inappropriate unsettles us. However, the effect of this is to make us question those very weaknesses in the male characters that she simply represents in her views.

Most interesting, however, is the endings that Shakespeare chooses for his women. Hero must be forced to feign death in the hope that the men might reconcile themselves with their errors; while Beatrice is married to Benedick. While this might suggest the traditional ending of a Shakespearean comedy, it is also problematic. Both women are the objects of their society: Hero, of its men, and

Beatrice of the other women whose actions force her to a level of conformity that she had previously rejected. The marriage of Beatrice and Benedick is crucial to our understanding of gender in the play because it is so contrived. Beatrice is convinced of Benedick’s love because she overhears Hero and Ursula’s conversation in Act III, Scene I. In turn, she transforms from an anti-man, anti-marriage agenda to a woman who becomes almost the archetypal romantic heroine; that she asks Benedick to prove his love by challenging Claudio to a dual in the aftermath of Hero’s ‘death’ affirms the transformation. The dual, with all of its romantic and literary connotations, is the affirmation of Beatrice’s transformation from cold anachronism to bona fide romantic figure. However, this transformation only occurs because of the will of other members of her society. In turn, we are left to question the validity – and indeed romance – of Beatrice’s transformation. Our hope that she might have found ‘love’ is tempered by an underlying sense that she has been forced into social conformity: the erudite, autonomous female has become the subservient object of the men once more.

In turn, if this is a play about Elizabethan men, then it not only offers a critique of the gender but also an affirmation that their control of women is inevitable. All of the women who dare to challenge – whether by choice or circumstance – are reformed to make them conform to a social expectation that they either rejected or of which they were a victim.

Fraternity

When Benedick returns in the aftermath of Hero’s ‘death’ he announces to Don Pedro that he must ‘discontinue your company’ (V.i); Benedick is resigning from his service to Don Pedro. In turn, our focus is drawn to the importance of allegiance and, perhaps more specifically, the centrality of fraternity in the play. These men are all united in arms, yet it is not the battlefield that has divided them, but domesticity. Benedick, presumably appalled at the conduct of his brothers in arms, can no longer serve with these men because they have broken the code by which they are all united.

Much Ado About Nothing is a play that considers the relationships between men both in war and at peace. As the play opens and the men arrive in Messina, the messenger has already recounted to Leonato the success that they have enjoyed. At the outset of the play, Shakespeare constructs the fraternal relationships for us: Don Pedro ‘hath bestowed much honour’ (I.i) on Claudio; Benedick ‘hath done good service’, and he is ‘in the company of the right noble Claudio’ (I.i). At first the bond seems to withstand the usual obstacles of the period: all the men are from different – and

disparate – geographical locations: Don Pedro from Aragon; Claudio a ‘young Florentine’ (I.i), and Benedick from Padua. This is a bond not based on something as amorphous as geography; instead, it is a tangible bond created in the very real world of combat.

However, as the characters become consumed by events in Messina, the bonds that unite them become strained. The most obvious antagonist is Don John who has led a rebellion against his brother Don Pedro, who once he has arrived in Messina, sets out to derail and sabotage the marriage of Claudio and Hero. The series of events that unfold as a consequence of Don John’s conspiracy then bring into focus the relationships of the other men in the play.

Shakespeare creates a sense of fraternity in the play by locating all of the men – Don Pedro, Claudio, Benedick, for example – in the same military regiment. By its very nature, a military regiment functions on the observance of particular codes. Once those codes have been broken, so too has the bond that unites the men. This again leads us to question the very focus of the play. The regimental code, like so many of the absolutes in the play – matrimonial chastity, for example – crumbles when tested most ferociously. Most crucially, these absolutes are constructed by men: chastity, for example, designed to preserve the pride of the men rather than the virtue of the woman; military honour to emphasise the status of the men who have served in combat. As Act IV, Scene 1 unfolds, Don Pedro laments that he is ‘dishonoured’ because he has ‘link[ed] his friend to a common stale’ (IV.i). His concern, it would seem, is not about Hero – or even Claudio – but what this means for his standing in Messina society. In turn, his anguish is centred on the destruction of the absolute that unites them, which, in typical military tradition, is concerned with honour. The domestic setting of the play disembodies the values by which these men are linked and instead confronts them with matters of the heart. In turn, we see the collapse of the bonds themselves as the men – Benedick specifically – realise the incongruity of a brotherhood based on the battlefield in a locality concerned with matrimony and propriety. Perception & Deception

As he confronts Hero with her supposed infidelity, Claudio condemns her as a ‘rotten orange’. Herein lays the play’s concern with perception and, conversely, deception. In his 1617 text, Work Concerning the Trueness of Christian Religion, Philip De Mornay writes ‘The rinde of the Orrendge is hot, and the meat within it is colde’. De Mornay’s text informs our reading of this otherwise peculiar Shakespearean insult: the orange a product of nature in all its fullness is offered as a microcosmic representation of the central tensions in man. Shakespeare’s invocation of the ‘rotten orange’ is telling, particularly when we remind ourselves that it is the subject

of De Mornay’s work on religion. The moral absolutes by which the men of Messina live by – and the women are subjugated because of – are drawn from their religious teachings. It seems that De Mornay holds the orange up as an example of nature’s – and in turn, God’s – duplicity: he views the world, and specifically the Christian world, as a complex duality between what things ‘appear’ to be outwardly, and what they actually ‘are’ internally. De Mornay refers to the ‘hot’ outward skin – which by its very nature is ephemeral and disintegrates – and the coldness of the ‘meat’ internally, which to continue the logic, is permanent. Furthermore, inherent in De Mornay’s analogy, there is a certain negativity towards the duality: that is, in his view of Christianity, the emphasis appears to be on the outward conformist tendency juxtaposed with the internal, inherent, desire to challenge and confront orthodoxy.

Claudio appears to sustain the idea further. Outwardly Hero is a woman of ‘simple virtue’ (VI.i) but she ‘knows the heat of a luxurious bed’ (V.i). To Claudio at this stage, Hero is a woman who outwardly possesses the subservience and chastity required of a ‘maid’, but internally she is driven by the desire and longing of a ‘stale’. Claudio draws on this dichotomy later in the scene when he refers to ‘Hero’s virtue’ (V.i). Shakespeare draws on the Greek legend of Hero, a priestess of Venus, who despite her religious vocation, inspires the love of Leander. In order to demonstrate his love for Hero, Leander swims the Hellespont and drowns. In turn, Leander – as a symbol of her devotion – swims to the same spot of the river and drowns herself such that they may be joined in eternity. The invocation of Hero, the Greek literary heroine, is crucial here because it immediately locates Hero – in the play – as an object of both artifice and dissimulation. That is, the fictionality of Hero’s literary antecedent illuminates the possibility that she is created by Shakespeare to confront the men with the reality of the ‘living woman’ as opposed to one constrained by their absolutes. In other words, Shakespeare invokes Hero, the Greek priestess, to show the men that loyalty and carnality are not disparate polarities but part of a logical composite. However, Claudio – and the other men, like her father, Leonato – are not confronted with a representation of reality, but one of dissimulation: that is, they see Hero as a woman who has ‘cover[ed]’ her carnality beneath a veneer of piety. In turn, the men folk of the play derive the same dissimulation as Chapman in his 1616 translation of Musaeus’ Hero and Leander where, according to Barbara Lewalski, ‘Hero becomes an emblem of dissimulation in regard to chastity, in that she continues as a priestess despite her love for Leander, and is hence denounced by Venus (Lewalski, ‘Namesake’, 178). What both Chapman’s Hero and Leander, and the men of the play, have failed to recognise is the initial genesis of the story itself: Hero desires a man for whom she would sacrifice her own life as a symbol of loyalty to him.

In turn, we begin to see that the theme of perception and deception in Much Ado About Nothing is complicated by the characters who present ‘reality’, in other words: the men, this is exemplified when Claudio demands ‘Are our eyes our own?’ (IV.i). The male sense of reality has been compromised by the breaking of their absolute faith in the chastity of women. The male perception of female chastity is not holistic; it is relative to their desire to uphold particular absolutes. Interestingly, the absolutes that the men demand of the women are, by their very nature, the ones that they demand of other men: honour, loyalty, allegiance. In turn, their perception of reality is weighed against the value of their absolutes. This explains – somewhat paradoxically – the male obsession with invoking moral physiognomy to prove Hero’s guilt. Claudio refers to Hero’s ‘blush’ as a sign of guilt; the willingness of the men to fall back on logic of this kind is again symptomatic of their absolutist agenda: conformity to their absolutes is gauged in measurable and logical ways which is an extension of the rigidity with which the men apply them. However, this is problematised when they are confronted with a situation – like Hero’s – when logic is bereft of solutions. Instead, the men manipulate reality to conform to the outcome they desire.

LoveLove in Much Ado About Nothing is not romantic but pragmatic. Unlike many Shakespearean comedies where love is imbued with an incomprehensible mystery and a magical quality, in Much Ado, love is much more concerned with the reality of a society where great store is placed by the institution of marriage. In turn, love becomes a façade which people use to justify their matrimonial unions. Benedick and Beatrice are inherently opposed to the very idea of love, yet they are fascinating and intriguing in other ways. Their respective suspicion of, and disinclination towards, love provides the play with some of its most fascinating and dramatic dialogue, for example. Equally, in a society where the objectification of women is institutionalised, the audience are always left to question the validity of the love-matches in the play.

Even the play’s seemingly most romantic character, Claudio, declares his love for Hero in terms of a saleable commodity, ‘a jewel’ (I.i). Immediately this problematises, for the audience, the presence of romantic love in the play. To the audience, love is unquantifiable; yet the central love story that they are asked to accept, is quantified by its material value. Indeed, this incongruity extends itself when we consider how Benedick, for example, sees the consequences of falling in love: a ‘predestinate scratched face’ (I.i). As the idea develops, it seems Benedick begins to see falling love akin to a kind of self-mutilation. That is, the consequences of

laying oneself open to the fortunes of a woman are inviting a harming of the self.

In turn, this means that the symmetrical conversion of both Beatrice and Benedick, the play’s greatest critics of love, is – at best – contrived, and – at worst – incredible. However, these moments of conversion help to locate the focus of Shakespeare’s interest in love throughout Much Ado About Nothing: he is concerned with the compatibility of romantic love in a setting of intense pragmatism. Equally, the conversion of Benedick and Beatrice aside, that the Hero-Claudio relationship should encounter such difficulty, alerts the audience to the idea that Shakespeare is subverting his own generic type. Shakespeare is confronting the audience with the problematic concept of ‘romantic love’ in a place where its characters are anything but romantic.

Language, Form and StructureProse & Verse

Prose has a particularly prominent place in Much Ado About Nothing; nearly three quarters of the play is written in prose. The earthy, pragmatic and realistic views of central characters like Beatrice and Benedick suit the prose style that Shakespeare uses in Much Ado. Much Ado is counter to the generic structures and techniques that Shakespeare employs in many of his other plays concerning romantic love: in Much Ado love is pragmatic and realistic, its characters therefore, speak in a style that is commensurate with their outlook. In Much Ado About Nothing Shakespeare undermines the critical view that prose is primarily the domain of characters of lesser social status – although it is the language of the Watch, for example – instead, he chooses to match the pragmatism of his socially superior characters with a style akin to their sentiments. Indeed, much of the humour – coarseness in fact – that is generated by Benedick and Beatrice’s ‘merry war’ is delivered in prose. However, it also marks a much more subtle deviation on the part of the characters: that is, the cultural expectation of the playgoer was that characters of status should speak in verse. However, when a character fails to meet this expectation, it precludes that they themselves are deviating from the social norms of the play’s world. Only a brief consideration of Benedick and Beatrice’s outlook on marriage would indicate that they are deviating from the social norms of their time. In a society where marriage is central to the social order, Benedick and Beatrice locate themselves outside of such expectation. In turn, Shakespeare indicates this to the audience because Benedick and Beatrice are created to reject the stylistic conventions of Elizabethan drama. Equally, there are pressures of credibility at

work in Shakespeare’s creation of Benedick and Beatrice: if the audience are to accept their transformation in the second half of the play, they must at first find something intriguing about them. The prose style – akin as some critics have identified to the patterns of common speech – is much more accessible to the world of the playgoer than the elevated and complex world of the poetic. In turn, the chasm between the worlds of the drama and the playgoer are narrowed somewhat. This can be seen too when we consider the Benedick’s extensive use of common proverb in his dialogue; clearly there is a deliberate engagement, on Shakespeare’s part, with the world of the ‘common man’.

Verse therefore has a very deliberate purpose in Much Ado About Nothing: it is conserved for moments that aspire to the dramatic. The moment when Hero is exposed is a case in point: both Claudio and Leonato speak in verse, firstly to reject and then condemn her, which marks both a point of intense drama but also the notion of hierarchy coming to bear on the moment. In direct opposition to Benedick and Beatrice’s earthiness, the moment when Hero is exposed demands that the characters – or more specifically, the men – impose order and control over the moral chaos that has broken out. However, this does not follow the simple logic that prose is the preserve of higher order characters; instead, it highlights it as a tool of power and control in the play. Logically, both Claudio – ‘O, what men dare do! – and Leonato – ‘Why doth not every earthly thing/Cry shame upon her? – are bereft of understanding following the accusations made against Hero. In turn, Shakespeare provides them with a linguistic device to regain control: verse. The eloquence of the verse crystallises the raw emotion of both men – though reprehensible it might be – and, in turn, centres them for the audience as the dramatic authorities on the stage at this point. Consequently, where the prose helps the audience to relate to the pragmatism of Benedick and Beatrice earlier in the play; here the verse creates a suitable distance for the magnitude of the events to have a defining impact on the other characters, and, the audience. There is a sense, in turn, of a society rocked to its core by the revelations that have just played out on stage. That the two central males – Claudio and Leonato – should use verse alludes to the real crisis here: that a woman has confronted – theoretically at least – the men with a proposition that is at odds with the moral absolutism that they live by. In order to establish order and authority once more, we see the characters revert to verse because of the dramatic weight that it carries in the understanding of the theatre goer.

The idea of male authority and language is central to Much Ado About Nothing. The play is concerned with modes of expression and how they directly reflect the rank, social position, moral perspectives and dramatic hierarchy. Much Ado, therefore, is

arguably an experiment in prose and verse styles: it enables Shakespeare to explore the politics, morals and virtues of Messina by imbuing his characters with permanently fluctuating levels of power and status.

Euphuism

Shakespeare’s prose in Much Ado About Nothing draws on a specific style and construction called Euphuism. The style comes from the works of John Lyle (1553-1606) titled Euphues: The Anatomy of Wit (1578) and Euphues and his England (1580). In both texts, Lyle explores the fashionable traditions of England in a style that is deliberately mannered and elevated. Lyle’s work became one of the central influences on Shakespeare’s own writing. In addition to the exchanges between Benedick and Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing, both Polonius in Hamlet and Moth in Love’s Labour’s Lost, employ the Euphuistic style in their dialogue.

Criticism of Euphuism

The Euphuistic style was used less frequently into the seventeenth century because it was regarded as overly ornate and artificial. However, it provides a telling insight into the cultural and fashionable concerns of its period. Some royal historians argue that the style influenced the language of the royal court throughout the period.

The characteristics of Euphuism

Euphuism – taken from the name of Lyle’s character Euphues meaning ‘graceful’ and ‘witty’ in Greek – is constructed using very particular rhetorical techniques.

Antithetical balance – sentences are comprised of two matched clauses which have a contrasting meaning.

Oppositions – the contrasts in the sentences are often denoted by phonological patterning like alliteration or assonance, and by words, which although different in meaning, are similar in spelling or pronunciation.

Conflicting Meaning – the conflict in meanings are generated in this style because of the way that puns are used; references to common proverbials and natural history, for example, where there is some play-on the duality of meaning.

Aural Ornateness – the balance and antithesis of Euphuism gives rise to a distinctive tone in its delivery.

Prose Only – Euphuism is a prose form only and cannot be discerned in verse.

Read the extract below, which is the initial exchange of hostility between Benedick and Beatrice in Act I, Scene I.

The Comic GenreUnlike ‘tragedy’ for which we have Aristotle’s Poetics upon which to base our understanding of the genre, comedy lacks a seminal text from which its characteristics can be drawn. Instead, our understanding of how comedy is constructed in a structural sense comes from the work of Donatus and Euanthius.

Donatus Structure of Comedy

In his text, On Comedy, Donatus points to four distinct elements that combine to create the comic genre.1. The Prologue – ‘the first speech’

2. The Protasis – ‘the first action of the story, where the plot of the story is explained, although some is held back from the audience to arouse suspense among the audience.

3. The Epitasis – ‘the complication of the story, by excellence of which its elements are intertwined.

4. The Catastrophe – ‘the unravelling of the story through which the outcome is demonstrated’

- On Comedy: 47-48.

Euanthius’ Refinement of Donatus’ Structure

In On Drama, Euanthius develops the structural foundations of ‘comedy’ as offered by Donatus.1. The Prologue – ‘a kind of preface to the drama’

2. Epistasis – ‘the development and the enlargement of the conflict and, as it were, the knot of all error’

3. Catastrophe – ‘the resolution of the course of events so that there is a happy ending which is made evident to all by the recognition of past events. On Drama: 45.

By the time we arrive at Euanthius refinement, a template exists against which we can identify the central structural elements of the ‘comedy’ in terms of genre. Indeed, the few ideas that Aristotle offers in Poetics, are here superseded. In addition, as with all generic conventions, the structure is open to subversion at the playwrights will.

Comedy: Morality & Conflict

Comedy, as demonstrated by the critical theories of Donatus and Euanthius, enjoys a long and complex history. However, its cultural position has often been questioned and threatened. The central tensions at the core of this history are questions of morality and laughter. In The Republic, Plato identifies:

in comic representations, or for that matter in private talk, you take an intense pleasure from buffooneries that you would blush to practice yourself, and do not detest them yourself.

Inherent in Plato’s reading of comedy is the notion that what man find’s amusing in artifice is precisely that which he abhors in reality. In turn a moral conflict arises: Plato, it would appear seems to question the moral validity of laughter in a societal sense when its object is precisely that which society should repudiate. Consequently, the place of laughter in society is problematised.

Central to this problem is that critics of theatre feared the social effects of presenting behaviours that are counter-intuitive to society. This illuminates the reader – or playgoer – of comedy to two important things: first, that which is humorous is often counter to the virtuous aspirations of society; second, that when we laugh at this we derive a pleasure from it which in turn perpetuates representations of this type. In turn, the fears of the critics begin to materialise: that which is at first artifice becomes the norm. That is, the gradual increase in entertainments which are funny in this way become more common and the inherent behaviours become almost acceptable.

The tension, therefore, becomes clear: many of comedy’s early audiences – and critics – were absorbed by a tension between what is ‘funny’ and what it was morally acceptable to be amused by. Philip Sydney, in The Defence of Poetry, supposes a problem inherent in the comic genre. In a way similar to Plato, Sydney argues that contemporary dramatists defile decorum and generic form. However, though it may appear that Sydney locates the argument in generic terms, his concern is centrally a moral one. Sydney writes :

all their plays be neither right tragedies, nor right comedies, mingling kings and clowns, not because the matter so carrieth it…so as neither the admiration and commiseration, nor the right sportfulness, is by their mongrel tragic-comedy obstainde.

The Defence of Poetry: 67.

Thus the debate moves forward: while initially the tensions concerned ‘the comic’ and its societal implications, now the focus moves to the issue of genre. There still remains, however, a relationship between society, genre and the comic: the blend of kings and clowns is a replication of the barriers the critics consider to have been defiled by the comic genre.

Beneath the surface of Sydney’s complaint about the interconnectedness between kings and clowns is an argument similar to Plato’s: comedy supposes situations that counter the organising principles and codes upon which society operates. In turn, comedy represents a threat to the established orders of the societies in which it is performed. Shakespeare – one such playwright whose plays were ‘neither right tragedies, nor right comedies’ – exercises the same dramatic abandonment with social class as Sydney finds distasteful. His plays juxtapose the rich and the poor; the virtuous and the dishonourable, and the king with the clown. What the critics of the time appear to find so dangerous is two fold: first, that such polarised groups might be seen to fraternise in drama; second, that through the fictional events of these interactions an audience might derive humour, for example.

Much Ado About NothingCharacter Analysis

TASK Create a timeline of events and quotes for your character on A3 paper.

(So annotate the timeline with at least ten key character quotes and all relevant events)

Consider and comment on how the character develops throughout the duration of the play.

Comment on their role within the comedy.

TASK 2Make notes on the following in relation to your character:

o Languageo Prose or verse?o Word play?

o Physicalityo Fashion/dress?o Looks?o Gesture and movement?

o Stagingo Internal or vocal?o Are they on stage alone or always with other characters?o Use of monologue and aside?o Stage presence?

25

How far do you agree that the presentation of Beatrice challenges gender roles?

Planning

Agree Language - Beatrice is opinionated and outspoken her words covey

her intellect and wit.- Act 1 Scene 1 – the ‘merry war’ - Opening line - ‘I pray you, is Signor Mountanto returned from the wars

or no?’ (A1.S1) - forthright questioning – sarcastically calls him the ‘flashy swordsman’.

Beatrice influences other female characters in the play – she asks Hero to defy her father and the other men in the play therefore challenging gender roles.- Look at language used by Beatrice and Hero in this scene – what does

Leonarto say to counteract Beatrice’s opinion?

She questions the men in the play – questioning the discrepancy between presentation and performance. (She asks Benedick to challenge Claudio).- Marriage scene – what Beatrice says about the men in the play? Wishes

she was a man – limitations of her sex frustrate her.

Rejects marriage - Again, look at marriage scene and possibly Act 1 (Scene 1).

Disagree Despite her initial rejection, she does comply and gets married at

the end of the play. Shakespeare does not make it clear how happy Beatrice is with the

final marriage. Benedick is misogynistic. Beatrice is tricked into marriage with him

26

Ideas About Comedy - Mini QuotationsThe quotations below show the range of ideas critics, playwrights and philosophers have had about dramatic comedy. Use the mini-quotations to help you explore issues and debates about the genre of dramatic comedy. You could use them with the plays you are studying.

We might say that comedy traces the movement from distress to happiness, from ‘bad’ to ‘good’. The University of Vermont http://www.uvm.edu/~lschnell/engs135/comedy.htm

As a dramatic form, comedy can exist without laughter, but most of the plays that we consider comedies are engines of laughter, and one of the great pleasures of comic theatre is the feeling of exhilaration and release that laughter provides. Edward Berry: The Cambridge Companion to Shakespearean Comedy (2001)

The basic formula for comedy has had more to do with conventions and expectations of plot and character than with a requirement for lewd jokes or cartoonish pratfalls. Depaul University, Chicago

The Tragic and the Comic fade into each other by almost insensible gradations. Denton Jaques Snider: The System of Shakespeare’s Dramas (1887)

Comedy involves men of middling estate; its perils are small-scale, its outcomes peaceful. Susan Snyder: The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (2001)

Comedy, beginning in turmoil but ending in harmony, celebrates life. Susan Snyder: The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare (2001)

Mikhail Bakhitin (1895-1975) and the CarnivalesqueIn the 1930s Bakhitin formulated some of his ideas based on the French novelist Francois Rabelais (1494-1553), which was eventually published in English as Rebelais and his World in 1968. In the book Rebelais makes observations on the contrast between the official culture of the state and religious organisations and the culture of the market place and people.Within this he notices that carnival is a significant celebration because it allowed freedom for the people away from the official culture. Carnival allowed both indulgence on food and sexual activity, as well as any kind of misrule. Misrule permitted temporary suspension of the normal rules. In Catholic countries this happened during Mardi Gras before the restrictions of lent. In this way, some bad and comic behaviour was tolerated. Like a carnival or feast, dramatic comedy may be away of the official society and church tolerating dissent and discontentment. Some people might say that in order to prevent riotous or revolutionary behaviour, the ruling authorities have allowed working-class people the opportunity for a kind of controlled misrule. Comedy therefore has an extremely important social function. Bakhtin’s theories tell us much about the issues of control and freedom in the genre of dramatic comedy.

Mikhail Bakhitin (1895-1975) and the CarnivalesqueIn the 1930s Bakhitin formulated some of his ideas based on the French novelist Francois Rabelais (1494-1553), which was eventually published in English as Rebelais and his World in 1968. In the book Rebelais makes observations on the contrast between the official culture of the state and religious organisations and the culture of the market place and people.

27

Within this he notices that carnival is a significant celebration because it allowed freedom for the people away from the official culture. Carnival allowed both indulgence on food and sexual activity, as well as any kind of misrule. Misrule permitted temporary suspension of the normal rules. In Catholic countries this happened during Mardi Gras before the restrictions of lent. In this way, some bad and comic behaviour was tolerated. Like a carnival or feast, dramatic comedy may be away of the official society and church tolerating dissent and discontentment. Some people might say that in order to prevent riotous or revolutionary behaviour, the ruling authorities have allowed working-class people the opportunity for a kind of controlled misrule. Comedy therefore has an extremely important social function. Bakhtin’s theories tell us much about the issues of control and freedom in the genre of dramatic comedy.

Donatus & Euanthius

Aristotle’s Poetics gives us a detailed and decisive text upon which to base our understanding of the tragic genre. However, Aristotle did not write about the comic genre in detail. Instead, much of understanding of how comedy is constructed in a structural sense comes from the

work of Donatus and Euanthius.

In his text, On Comedy, Donatus points to four distinct elements that combine to create the comic genre. Euanthius then develops the structural foundations of ‘comedy’ as for

drama.

\

...so Donatus & Euanthius gave us a template against which we can identify the central structural elements of the ‘comedy’ in terms of genre. In addition, as with all generic

conventions, the structure is open to subversion at the playwrights will.

TASK: Can you identify the four elements of ‘comedy’ in Much Ado About Nothing

1. The Prologue – ‘the first speech’, ‘a kind of preface to the drama’

2. The Protasis – ‘the first action of the story, where the plot of the story is explained, although some is held back from the audience to arouse suspense among the audience.

3. The Epitasis – ‘the complication of the story, by excellence of which its elements are intertwined

4. The Catastrophe – ‘the unravelling’ and then ‘the resolution of the course of events so that there is a happy ending which is made evident to all by the recognition of past events’.

28

29