Antipholus vs. Benedick
_________________________________________________
In this paper I will try to compare the male characters of two different comedies written by William Shakespeare: Antipholus of Syracuse – from ‘The Comedy of Errors – and Benedick, from ‘Much Ado About Nothing’.
INTRODUCTION
First of all, I will give a brief introduction to set the plays.
‘The Comedy of Errors’, according to Stanley Wells, “may have been written for the occasion[1], or at least have been new in 1594” (285). It is one of the first comedies that William Shakespeare wrote.
‘Much Ado About Nothing’ “was likely first performed in the winter of 1598-1599,[1] and it remains one of Shakespeare's most enduring plays on stage” (Wikipedia). “It is believed that the script was first printed in 1600. As William Shakespeare clearly did not want his work published details of the play would have therefore been noted and often pirated without his consent, following a performance” (Alchin).
The first comedy deals with the problem of identity meanwhile, in my opinion, the second one – Much Ado About Nothing – shows us the different ways to confront love, marriage and honour and the several problems of falling in love.
ANALYSIS OF THE CHARACTERS:
COMPARISON
To begin with, in order to compare the characters I will give a sort description of each one separately.
Antipholus of Syracuse, as I mentioned in my previous paper on this character, “We can say that [...] is presented as a weak-minded man who seems to carry a great sorrow inside him because “in quest of them, unhappy, lose myself” (40); a man who some critics have interpreted as a ‘mad man’”.
The second character here, Benedick, is introduced as “a soldier returning from war. He is from Padua, a city in northern Italy and part of the Republic of Venice during the Italian Renaissance. He is the main male character in the play, even though his marriage is not the initial focus of the plot. Throughout the play, he displays his quick wit, loyalty, honourable nature, and his periodic lack of self-knowledge”(e-Notes.com).
So now I can start saying that, at first sight, they seem to be completely opposing characters and, even though I found many differences between them I also came across the idea that, in a way, they had some features in common.
As differences are much more remarkable, I’ll start discussing on them.
What most drew my attention to the second character, compared with the first, was his attitude towards life.
In ‘The Comedy of Errors’ we see Antipholus of Syracuse behave as a ‘drop’ that the sea takes away with the tide; since the first moment he appears on stage, he declares to the audience that he is looking for “a mother and a brother” (1.2. 39); but due to circumstances, he does not even start his searching. He ends up finding his family, but not because of his efforts or of his courage but, as I said in my previous paper, quoting Gibbons, “it is ‘man's subjection to the power of Fortune’. It is just the Fate”. So I consider him as a ‘passive’ character rather than an ‘active’ one, in the sense of shelf motivated activity in his life.
On the other hand, Benedick is much more active. Starting with the reason that he is a soldier and that he comes back from a battle – as Leonato and the messenger explain in 1.1. 6-11 and also a few lines below, when Beatrice asks the messenger for ‘Signor Montanto’, in her first spoken sentence (1.1. 29-30) –. He is a ‘real man’ that “hath done good service” (1.1. 46) and who is “a lord to a lord, a man to a man, stuffed with all honourables virtues” (1.1. 54-55). Thus I consider him more active than Antipholus of Syracuse.
A prove of this activity and passiveness is to be found in their respective speeches.
From the very first moment in which Benedick opens his mouth – in 1.1. 101 – when he comes in the dialogue with a funny comment, we know that he is going to be a quick-witted man. What’s more, the presence of Beatrice in the conversation enlivens Benedick’s tongue for the rest of the play - we can see it in his speeches in 2.1. 224-244, in 2.3. 6-35 and so on -, and this man will only retain the liveliness of his tongue during Hero’s false death (4.1.) in the moment when, confessing Beatrice that he loves her, she asks him to “Kill Claudio” (4.1. 290).
All the images and metaphors that Shakespeare puts in Benedick’s mouth in ‘Much Ado About Nothing’ seem to disappear in Antipholus of Syracuse speeches. This could be due to the date of creation of the comedies; ‘The Comedy of Errors’ is older than ‘Much Ado About Nothing’. During the three years of distance between the writing of these plays, William Shakespeare obviously improved his writing. But, as I said in the team paper, “although Shakespeare does not fill Antipholus of Syracuse with long speeches – a more common feature of tragedies -, he shows his education through his vocabulary, especially in his soliloquy of 1.2. 33-40, and when he is showing Luciana that he loves her in 3.2. 60-64”.
But what makes these men behave in such ways or speak like that? The motive for each of them is very different.
On one hand, Antipholus of Syracuse is looking for something, for his family and/or for ‘himself’. What takes him to Ephesus is the need to solve the inner struggle he endures. He really does not know who he is, and this is a philosophical problem, in some way.
This is what drives him into another land but also what gets him into ‘Adriana’s world’. Being a passive character – ‘passive’ understood as I explained before – he just follows Adriana and puts him into a dream – or a nightmare. But this situation seems to ‘awake’ him to reality and makes him start doing something for himself – he wants to get out of that island and sends Dromio for a ship – at the end of 3.2. It is Adriana’s confusion and ‘persecution’ what ‘gives life’ to Antipholus and all this is reflected in his speeches.
All this features mixed up make him speak in a way or another and behave according to the circumstances surrounding him.
On the other hand we have Benedick. The motives for this character are very different. He is a man of whom we know nothing about his family, too. But here this is not much important, because being a soldier, his family is the Arm, and his closer relatives are the Prince Don Pedro and Count Claudio.
This character does not suffer from ‘ignorance’ of self identity but seems to know his-self very well; “I will live a bachelor” (1.1. 230) he points out talking about love and marriage, as if he knew quite well what he wants in life. And what he wants in life seems to be joy itself, as he only talks about all these things from a cynical, theoretical point of view, even making fun of them.
But again we find that a woman, like in the case of Antypholus, will change his mind.
Although it is not Beatrice who directly changes him (at least at first time) – as it happens with Adriana and Antipholus –, through Don Pedro, Count Claudio and Leonato Benedick ‘falls in love’ with Beatrice, and this makes him still use his witty language in favour of love, in order to ‘well behave’ with Beatrice. However, once Beatrice and Benedick declare themselves they love each other (4.1) and she asks him to kill his friend Claudio, we see Benedick language change to a more serious one – as in act5 scene1 -, again due to circumstances.
CONCLUSION
Finally I would like to say that these a priori so different characters may have some good things in common a posteriori, and I also consider them as an example of W. Shakespeare’s evolution in the creation of male characters in comedies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wells, Stanley and Taylor, Gary eds. et al. Introduction to “The Comedy of Errors.” The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press 2005.
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Much Ado About Nothing. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 12 – May – 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing
Alchin, L.K.
William Shakespeare info (the Complete Works online). “Much Ado About Nothing
Play By Shakespeare. Date first Printed”. 12 / May / 2007
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/shakespeare-play-much-ado-about-nothing.htm
"Much Ado about Nothing: Benedick (Character Analysis)." Shakespeare for Students. Ed. Marie Rose Napierkowski. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 1998. eNotes.com. January 2006. 12 May 2007. http://www.enotes.com/muchado/36288
Gibbons, Brian. “Doubles and Likenesses-with-difference: The Comedy of Errors and The Winter's Tale” © Connotations 6.1 (1996-97): 19-40 (13 / May / 2007) editors@connotations.de.
[1] “On the night of 28 December 1594, the Christmas revels at Gray’s Inn – one of London’s law schools” (285).