Chapter one

 

General considerations on William Shakespeare and his comedies

 

 In 1964, Robert Graves noted that “the remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he is really very good - in spite of all the people who say that he is very good.”1 This remark gives but a glimpse of the great influence that Shakespeare exerted over a large proportion of the world’s population. Never before, nor after, did a secular imaginative writer has had such success and has wakened such admiration among his contemporaries and later generations. William Shakespeare is looked upon as a universal genius that outshone all his contemporaries and managed to outshine every writer every since. His genius is to be found in the freshness of his verse, in his capacity of pleasing theatre goers today, as he has done for the past four hundred years, in his ability and his luck (for want of a better word) of writing about subjects that were and still are even today, universal subjects, that are interesting today as they were at the time he wrote about them. Every representation of his works brings forth new themes, new ideas, new ways of looking at things. Shakespeare draws his power from each and every one of the representations of his works, from the light in which each and every one of us sees these works, because each time we think about the genius behind the wonders we are beholding, we reinvent Shakespeare. And we always get to the same conclusion. That he is really very good, in spite of all these who say he is very good.

What do we really know about Shakespeare? One unfounded myth claims that what we know about his life could be written on the back of a postage stamp2. In fact, we know a lot about some of the less exciting aspects of Shakespeare’s life, such as business deals and tax debts, but this is not the object of the present work. What we are interested in is Shakespeare’s literary production, which, although not extremely extensive, stands, as we have said before, as the best and the most important one in the whole history of literature.

Shakespeare wrote thirty-eight plays, a sequence of 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems and various short poems. But nothing is as simple as it seems with any of the things concerning Shakespeare. Even this simple enumeration becomes complicated, when we take into consideration that at least two of the plays were co-authored with fellow playwright John Fletcher, that another couple of plays attributed to Shakespeare never really reached us, that Shakespeare wrote passages for an play and that we do not have an accurate catalogue of the shorter poetry.3 But verifying the authenticity of Shakespeare’s plays is not our purpose. The purpose of this work goes further than a simple enumeration of comedies, tragedies, histories (the subgenres which Shakespearian plays have been divided into), sonnets, long poems, collaborations, etc.

Our main interest and the theme of this work, as we have already said in the introduction, is the comedy, and specifically those elements that make a Shakespearian play a comedy. We will try to identify those elements and analyze them in the following chapters, as well as trying to observe whether there is a recurring pattern, whether those elements appear in more than one play, or whether they are peculiar if given a certain comedy. But before we get to that, let us look at what we understand by the term comedy.

“Comedy” has a classical meaning (comical theatre) and a popular one (the use of humor with an intent to provoke laughter in general). In the theatre, its Western origins are in ancient Greece, like tragedy, a genre characterized a grave fall from grace by a protagonist having a high social standing. Comedy, in contrast, portrays a conflict between a young hero and an older authority, a confrontation described by Northrop Frye as a struggle between a society of youth and a society of the old.

Humor being subjective, one may or may not find something humorous because it is either too offensive or not offensive enough. Comedy is judged according to a person’s taste. Some enjoy cerebral fare as irony or black comedy; others may prefer scatological humor (e.g. the “fart joke”) or slapstick.4

In Shakespeare’s time, comedy was considered a lower genre than tragedy, just as tragedy was considered a lower genre than epic. This consideration was due to the fact that many writers followed Aristotle’s Poetics, a work focused on tragedy, so there existed no theory of comedy. A common definition of comedy at that time was given by George Whetstone in the prologue to Promos and Cassandra (1578) and it reads:

“grave old men should instruct; young men should show the imperfections of youth; strumpets should be lascivious; boys unhappy; and clowns should speak disorderly; intermingling all these actions, in such sort, as the grave matter may instruct and the pleasant delight”5.

Nevertheless, many playwrights, and Shakespeare foremost, ignored the boundaries between the playful and serious, blurring the supposed lines between the two main genres of the age, tragedy and comedy, and introducing comic elements into the tragedies and also (increasingly after 1600) tragic elements into comedies.

So, if we know that comedies have tragic elements and tragedies comic elements, then the natural question arises: is there any difference between comedy and tragedy? The answer is, of course affirmative. A simplified contrast of tragedy and comedy will say that comedy begins with disorder and ends in order, while with tragedy is the other way round. All plots involve threats and danger, in tragedies these threats are fulfilled, but in comedies they are evaded. All of Shakespeare’s characters face alienation, abandonment, death, but in comedies there is some kind of “evitability” that breaks the chain of misfortune and leads the situation towards a happy ending, towards life, because comedy celebrates life, the promise of life, whereas tragedy ends with death, with dead bodies that litter the stage

To give another definition of comedy, we could say that comedy refers to a literary structure, be it drama, novel or film, that moves towards a happy ending and implies a positive understanding of human experience. Comedy is usually funny, but that is not a prerequisite. A comedy must always end happily, a happy ending involves marriage, or at least some kind of union or reunion that resolves the conflict and brings the characters together, in a state of harmony. In other words, a comedy moves “from confusion to order, from ignorance to understanding, from law to liberty, from unhappiness to satisfaction, from separation to union, from bareness to fertility, from singleness to marriage.”6

So far, from the definitions we have given, we can easily encounter a few of the elements that are essential to a comedy, that make a given play a comedy (namely, happy ending, marriage or the promise of marriage, obstacles that we shall later describe, etc). In the following chapters we shall deal with all these elements, trying to explain them, trying to see why they are important in the whole of the text and how they have helped to create the atmosphere of the comedy, why the audience expects to encounter these elements in a comedy and so on.