After Frye A Review-Article On The Interpretation of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance

After Frye: A Review-Article on the Interpretation of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance
Author(s): Wayne A. Rebhorn

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Texas Studies in Literature and Language, Vol. 21, No. 4, An Issue Devoted to
Shakespeare and the English Renaissance (WINTER 1979), pp. 553-582
Published by: University of Texas Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40754590 .
Accessed: 09/01/2013 04:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Texas Studies
in Literature and Language.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Wed, 9 Jan 2013 04:24:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WayneA. Rebhorn
AfterFrye:A Review-Articleon theInterpreta-
tionofShakespeareanComedyand Romance
Since1957,whenNorthrop Frye'sAnatomy of Criticism andJohn

RussellBrown'sShakespeare and His Comediesbothappeared,
Shakespearean comedyhascomeintoitsown.Onlya handful of
booksand articleshad beendevotedto thesubjectbeforethen;
sincethattime,overthirty-five booksandmanyarticles havepoured
forth, filling vacuumin Shakespeare
a realcritical studies.Onerea-
sonforthisdelugehasbeentheriseofgenrecriticism inthisperiod;
forcomedy, becauseofitshighly conventional plotsandcharacters,
is particularlysuitedto thatcriticalmode.The lasttwodecades
havealsoseena growth ofinterest in "popularculture," andthe
newrespectability grantedpopular genres,such as science-fiction
andthedetective story,hasreinforced critics'interestin Shake-
speare'scomediesandtheirpositiveevaluation oftheworthofthis
"low" genre.
In thismassofmaterial, Northrop Frye'sworkstandsoutabove
therest.1Whileitwouldnotbe accurateto callhima genrecritic,
ifonlybecausehisnotionofthe"mythos" ofcomedyis pregeneric,
henevertheless hasprovided genre criticism
withmanyusefultools.
Whatis more,he has spearheaded theréévaluation of the"low"
of and
subjects comedy romance, aiding thus the efforts ofstudents
ofpopularculture.Implicitly intheAnatomy, wherecomedyand
tragedy getequalbilling, andexplicitly inA NaturalPerspective,
Fryedefends theseriousvalueofcomedybecauseofitsparticular
closeness to myth, andhe speaksoutagainstmodernprejudice:
Weliveinan ironicage,andwe tendto think,in Freudian
terms, of "wishfulfillment"
as confined
to dreams,a help-
lessandshadowycounterpart ofa "reality
principle."In
watching tragedywe areimpressed
bytherealityofthe
illusion... .In watching comedywe areimpressed
romantic
TexasStudiesin Literature
and Language,Vol. 21, No. 4, Winter
1979
©1979 bytheUniversity ofTexasPress 0040-4691/79/040553-30$02.35

· 554
WayneA. Rebhorn
bytheillusionofthereality.... In theactionofa Shake-

speareancomedy, however, thekindofforceassociatedwith
"wishfulfillment"is nothelplessorpurelya matterof
dreams.It is,inthefirstplace,a poweras deeplyrootedin
natureandrealityas itsopponent; in thesecondplace,itis
a powerthatwe see,as thecomedyproceeds, takingoverand
informingthepredictable world.
(A NaturalPerspective,
p. 123)
ForFrye,comedyhasas muchdignity as theperennially favored
tragedy.
Thepurposeofthisreview- articleis to surveythebooksandgen-
eralarticles
on Shakespearean comedyandromancethathavebeen
written sincetheearly1960s.Itwillattempt to determine justhow
greatan impacthas been made by Frye's workand, to a lesserex-
tent,bythatof C. L. Barber, whocomplements himinso many
ways.Thealmostpredictable conclusion is,ofcourse,thatthatim-
pacthasbeenimmense. A secondpurposeis to determine andeval-
uateotherapproaches to thecomediesthatcritics havebeenable
toevolveindependent ofFrye.Thefinalpurpose is to decidewheth-
eranyprogress hasoccurred intheinterpretation ofShakespearean
comedyandromance sinceA NaturalPerspective appearedin 1965.
Needlessto say,inthehugeoutpouring ofbooksandarticles there
ismuchrepetition; manybooksarearticles suffering fromelephan-
tiasis;somethingsshouldneverhavebeenprinted. Before evaluating
them,however, it is necessary to sketchbriefly themainoutline
of Frye'stheory, thereasonsforitscentrality inmodern criticism
ofthecomedies, anditsrelationship to Barber's views.
I. WhyFrye?
Fryeand Barberare clearlythestarting pointsformoderncrit-

icismofShakespearean comedyandromance. Earlierstudies,such
as thosebyH. B. Charlton andJ.DoverWilson, havebeeneffec-
tivelyconsigned to oblivion;J.R. Brown'sbookscarcely a
receives
nodofrecognition; andBertrand Evans'sShakespeare's Comedies
(Oxford:OxfordUniv.Press,1960),thoughmentioned withsome
frequency, is reallycentralto no subsequent critic'sthought.
On
theotherhand,practically all recentbooksbuildupon,struggle
against,ordesperately tryto ignoreFryeandBarber.Allhaveac-
ceptedmostof Frye'skeyconcepts:(1) Comedyhasa three-part
structure:itmovesfrom a lowerworldofillusion, characterizedby
restraint, and
inhibition, tyrannical law,througha stateofconfusion
andnaturalrelease,to a finalfestivity, a higher
worldofreality in-

· 555
AfterFrye:A Review-Article
volving theestablishment of harmony through marriage and the

creation ofa newsociety.(2) Comedy'sdriveto itshappyending
is a triumph forFreud'spleasureprinciple, forEros,andforwish-
fulfillment. (3) Comedy reliesonconventions morethando tragedy
andhistory plays,anditismoreself-conscious andartificialthanits
sister-genres. (4) Comedyimpliesa benevolent natureor cosmos
largely responsible foritshappyend.It would,ofcourse,be false
to claimthatFryeandBarberaretheonlyinfluences on modern
thinking aboutthecomedies. Threecenturies ofShakespearean crit-
icismhavehadtheireffect, andtheworksofKnight, Pettet,Till-
yard,Mack,andRighter, to nameonlya few,havesignificantly af-
fected thedirections ofthatthought. Nevertheless, Frye'sapproach
to thecomediesis theinevitable starting pointforall subsequent
criticism whichamountsto anything at all.
Frye's theories have proven attractive beca se theyarecompre-
hensive andsystematic, encouraging criticsto ee individual com-
ediesnotas isolatedcollections ofimagesorcharacters, butas uni-
fiedactions,entailing certainkindsofcharacters andimages, that
arerelatedto other,similar actionsconstituting onesegment, the
"mythos"of comedy,in a coherent universe of literature.Frye
givesprimacy to thestructure ofcomedy,to itsplotor action;in
fact,he givesitontological primacy, reducing everything else,in-
cluding character, to merefunctions ofplot,although he acknowl-
edgesinA Natural Perspective thatcharacters inhighly convention-
alizedgenres sometimes growbeyondtheirplaceintheplot(p. 45).
Frye'smostdetailedpresentation ofthosecomiccharacters occurs
in theAnatomywherehe arranges themin twocomplementary
pairs:witty, ironicheroesandheroines arejuxtaposedto blocking
figures, villainswhoarepretenders toqualitiestheydo nothaveand
whoarereducedto theirpropersizebytheendoftheplay;and
clownsandbuffoons, whoheighten themerriment, arepairedwith
thosewhorefuseorqualifythefestivity. Moreover, as characters
area function ofplot,so aretoneandmood,whichmayrangefrom
bitter ironyina playwheretheherofailstobring abouta newsoci-
ety,to realeuphoriawhentheplotshowstheheroand heroine
capableoftranscending deathandtragedy, asitdoesinShakespeare's
romances.
It is customary andproperto identify Fryeas an archetypal or
anthropological critic.Following theCambridge anthropologists
(Harrison, Cornford, andMurray), he seescomedy-infact,all lit-
erature-asa displacement fromritualandmyth, whichhe charac-
terizesprimarily intermsoftheirplotconfigurations orstructures.
In ritualandmyth, theindividual is stillconnected to andstriving
to influence thenaturalworld;inliterature thatmagicallinkhas

WayneA. Rebhorn· 556
beenbroken.Nevertheless,
saysFrye,
thebumpsandhollowsofthestorybeingtoldfollowthe
contoursofthemythbeneath,andas literature
develops
variety
greater ofexpression,
andindependence thesemyth-
thatestablish
icalshapesbecometheconventions thegeneral
framework convention
Hencetheliterary
ofnarratives. enables
thepoetto recapture ofthepureandprimitive
something
ofmyth. (A NaturalPerspective,
identity p. 61)
Becauseof themythicoriginof literary conventions, Fryecan
accountfortheirpersistence, thestrongeffecttheyhaveon even
sophisticated audiences, andtheuniversal accessibilityofmorecon-
ventional-and, hence,popular-works.Needlessto say,Frye'spen-
chantforplunging beneaththesurface ofparticular worksto bring
up thepearlsoftheirmythic structureshasbeenbotha sourceof
wonderandthecauseofmanyraisedcritical eyebrows.
C. L. Barber's Shakespeare's FestiveComedy(Princeton: Prince-
tonUniv.Press,1959) hasoftenbeenlinkedwithFrye'swork.It
alsopositsa closeconnection betweenritualanddrama:Shake-
spearean comedyrecreates theexperience ofrevelsandholidaycel-
ebrations andis shapedso thatitputs"itspersonsintheposition
offestive celebrants" (p. 6). Although itneversaysso directly, Bar-
ber'sanalysis impliesa tripartite comicstructure: characters leave
orareforcedoutoftheirnormalsocialworld;theyentera festive
worldofgames,play,andcomicconfusion, wheretheycanrelease
theenergy normally usedto maintain socialinhibitions andthrough
thatreleaseachieveclarification, a heightened awareness ofman's
linkto nature;finally, sincethelicenseofmisrule is bydefinition
temporary, theyreturn to theeveryday worldwhichis beneficially
reordered as a resultof theexperience theyhavebeenthrough.
LikeFrye,Barberalsoseesthecharacters ofthecomediesinterms
ofanopposition between thosewhoembrace natureandthosewho
areunnatural killjoysorabsurdidealists.
Thereare,however, majordifferences betweenthetwo.Where
Fryecomesat comedythrough Barbergivesprominence
structure,
to toneandmood,thefestive releasehe findsat itscenter.Thus,
Frye'scharacteristic definition focuseson theopposition between
heroandblocking figure; Barber's definitioncenters on theclown.
Moreover, Frye'sconception is dynamic andteleological: comedy
moves,and movesrelentlessly, towardsitsclose;itsmiddleis a
struggle sometimes verging onchaos,andrealfestivity onlyemerges
attheend.Barber's conception, bycontrast,isstatic;comedymoves
intothefestive worldrightat thestart,andwithin thatworldthe

· 557
emphasis is on thefunofthemoment, thespontaneous releaseof

energy, the freedom of play.For Barber,festivity comedyare
and
practicallysynonyms.
Barber'stheory, unlikeFrye's,helpsaccountforoneofthepe-
culiarfeatures ofShakespeare'scomedies, tointer-
theirwillingness
ruptplotmovement withclowning,wittybanter,songs,anddances,
oreven,as inAs YouLikeIt,to do without muchplotat all. Frye
acceptsthepresence ofclownsandclowning, butsincetheydo not
contribute to theplot-andplotis all-important- histheorymakes
thempretty irrelevant.
Nevertheless,despitethislimitation,
Frye's
workoncomedyhassimply hada muchlarger impactthanBarber's,
partlybecauseitis themorecomprehensive ofthetwo.Barberig-
noresstructure justfivecomedies,
anddiscusses leavinghisreaders
wondering justhowto apply-or ifto apply-histheoriesto the
others.Barber'stheories, by allyingthecomediesto revelsand
clowning, alsomakethemseemlessintellectually no mat-
serious,
terhowsociallyimportant, whileFrye'stheoriesgivethema serious,
almostvisionary purposein theirunveilingof newworldsthat
clearlysuitstheromantic temper ofthisage.
II. FryedintheWool:Frye-ian oftheComedies

Critics
A fairnumberof booksand articleswritten duringthelasttwo
decadesparallel, extend,or merely repeattheworkof Fryeand
Barber. Forinstance,inonearticle J.E. Siemonanalyzesthecomic
villainalongFrye'slines,andin anotherV. Y. Kantakarguesthat
comedyis a celebration oflifeoffering theaudiencea festive re-
lease.2Thereareevena fewbook-length studiessimplyelaborating
Frye'sand Barber'sideas,as, forexample:CharlesR. Lyons's
Shakespeare andtheAmbiguity ofLove'sTriumph (The Hague:
Mouton,1971),BlazeBonazza'sShakespeare's EarlyComedies:
A Structural Analysis(The Hague:Mouton,1966), and Patrick
Swinden's andmisinformed
superficial AnIntroduction toShake-
speare'sComedies (London:Macmillan, 1973).Moreover, a cursory
reviewofseveralstudiesnotspecifically concerned withthecom-
ediesshowsthattheviewsof FryeandBarberhavebecomea kind
oforthodoxy. Forexample, A. C. Hamilton'sTheEarlyShakespeare
(San Marino:TheHuntington Library, 1967) echoesthepairas
heargues thatLove'sLabor'sLostdepictsthereleasefromrestraint
ofthecomicspiritandthatA Midsummer-Night's Dreamin its
green world affirmsnature and its processes.Theodore Weiss's
TheBreathofClownsandKings:Shakespeare's Early Comedies
andHistories (NewYork:Atheneum, 1971) simplyrehearses Frye
andBarberwhenitis notrecounting plots.Similarly,inhisim-

mensely usefulTheRenaissance Discovery of Time(Cambridge,

Mass.:Harvard Univ.Press,1972), RicardoQuinonesspeaksofthe
timeless,goldenworldofthecomedies, andin TheMultiple Plotin
English Renaissance Drama (Chicago: Univ.of ChicagoPress,1971),
RichardLevin,likeBarber,seestheclownsas figures of holiday
freedom andplay.
PhilipEdwards's Shakespeare and theConfines ofArt(London:
Methuen, 1968), a fine book relying extensively Fryeforits
on
treatment ofthecomedies, deserves a fewwordsbecauseoftheat-
tractivenessofitsthesis.Edwards beginsbyclaiming thatartcreates
orderand thereby offers itsaudienceconsolation fortheincom-
pleteness andchaosofexistence. Shakespeare, he claims,wascon-
sciousofthisfunction ofartandstroveto fulfill it,butsincehe al-
so shareda Baconianskepticism aboutthevalueofartbecauseits
orderandconsolation wereillusory, hisplaysinevitably qualifythe
consolations For
theyprovide. example, whenhe analyzesthecom-
edies, Edwards argues, following Fryequiteclosely,thattheirfes-
tivepatterns provide the consolation ofa suremovement toward
happiness watched over by a benevolent providence, theyalso
but
containself-mockery orself-parody andself-consciously callatten-
tiontotheirownfictionality. Theaudienceisthusbothengaged by
a dramaproviding consolation anddetached froma self-critical
one.
ForEdwardsthissplitis identical withthewarShakespeare fought
in playafterplaybetweenthepartof theminddevotedto art's
constructs andthepartskeptical ofthem.
ThomasMcFarland 's Shakespeare's PastoralComedy(Chapel
Hill:Univ.ofNorthCarolinaPress,1972) is mostinteresting, for
it elaboratesa theoryofcomedyquitecloseto Frye'swithout ever
mentioning his name. McFarland beginsbysetting in
comedy op-
positionto tragedy. Bothgenres, he says,dealwithman'sfearof
death,theultimate formofisolation; butwhereas tragedy doesso
byelevating the hero beyondsociety, comedy turns to marriage and
immerses theindividual insociety.(Sucha definition doesnotfit
OldComedy verywell,butitwillserveforShakespeare.) Following
Bergson, McFarland arguesthatcomedyadoptstheperspective of
thesocialgroupandaimsathumbling thepretentious andridiculing
devianttypes.At thesametime,it also affirms thesocialgroup
morepositively: itsactionoftenbecomesa communal danceor
game,anditsendfocuseson an integrated community. McFarland
notesthatwhilecomedyis moreartificial thantragedy becauseit
deniesdeathfortheindividual, it alsopresents themoreuniversal
situationofman-in-society. McFarland thengoeson to definethe
pastoralsimplyas a natural landscapewiththeharmful removed,

· 559
a definition whichallowshimto stressitssimilarities to comedy.

Likecomedy,pastoralis artificial, domesticates potentially danger-
ousromantic love,andeffectively deniesdeathanyreality. Both
genres aimat creating a child'sworldofplay,freefromdeath,care,
andsuffering, andthrough theiralliance,theyachievea represen-
tationofparadiseinwhichchildhoodinnocence andthepleasure
principle arereclaimed. Thisalliance,saysMcFarland, liketheChris-
tianmessage, isa "structure ofhope" (p. 38). Atthispoint,despite
hisrelianceon contemporary Christian theologyand Romantic
psychology, McFarland 's similarity to Fryeis unavoidable:his
"structure ofhope"is Frye'swish-fulfillment; hisChristian vision
ofa recovered paradise Frye'sconception comedycreatesa
is that
newsocietywhich,likeparadise, is freeandredeemed.
IfMcFarland 'stheory ofcomedyisinteresting, hisanalyses ofplays
aresometimes incisive, sometimes erratic. Hisinterpretation ofThe
Winter's Taleasanattackonchildhood mistakes theemphasis ofthe
play;Leontes'schildren aremerely symptoms forhimofhiswife'ssup-
posedinfidelity. Becausehe seesShakespeare's pastoralcomedyas
neutralizing allevilanddiscord, heclaimsthatTheTempest triumphs
overevilbyreducing ittothelevelofthenaughtiness ofchildren. But
the"bravenewworld"attheendoftheplayismoretroubling
surely
thanthat.Andsurely theentire pastoral tradition knowsmoregloomy
bowersandmournful cavesthanMcFarland is prepared to acknowl-
edge.Nevertheless, McFarland's bookiscontinually stimulating, some-
thingthatcannotbesaidformostoftheFrye-ian criticsofthecomedies.
Finally,Leo Salingar's superbShakespeare and theTraditions of
Comedy (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press,1974)mayalsobeinclud-
edamongFrye-ian approaches tothecomedies, although thatlabelis
He
misleading. doessharewithFryeandBarber theconviction thatcom-
edyis relatedto seasonalfestivities celebrating therenewaloflife,
buthereallybaseshisanalyseson an independent studyofcomedy
fromAristophanes to Shakespeare andona vastrangeofanthropolog-
icalandotherapproaches tocomedy. Attimes,Salingar bothextends
andgently corrects FryeandBarber.Forinstance, henotesthatthe
festive
endofa comedyreallyderives from allthecharacters andnot
the
just clowns, andheclaimsthattheseendings arenotmerewish-
fulfillment,butreflections ofa lesssentimental belief:"ifmencan
fashion theirownunhappiness, theycannotmaketheirhappiness un-
aided,butdependforthatonsociety, andonsomething beyond hu-
mansocietyas well,onNatureorFortune orProvidence" (p.22). Sal-
ingaralsostresses thatFortune's unpredictable actions, whichbring
aboutthehappyendings, showthatwhattheaudiencewatches is a
matter ofartifice, a play,andnotlifeitself.

Mostofwhatfollows definition
thisbrilliant ofcomedyisan explo-
rationofthevariousbackgrounds to Shakespeare'splays.Fromthe
MiddleAges,Salingar says,Shakespeare receivedromantic from
stories;
antiquity, thenotions ofcausallyorganized plotsanddramatic irony;
andfrom theRenaissance doubleplotsanddisguises
Italians, andno-
vellasas sources.In hisfinalchapter, SalingardistinguishesShake-
spearean comedyfrom thetraditionswhichinfluenced it,andhetries
to makesenseofitsvariety bydividing theplaysintothreegroups
offouraccording to theirsources:green-world comediesderiving
from romantic traditions (TGV,LLL, MND,A YL); comediesoftrick-
eryandfarcefrom classicalandItaliansources(Err.,Shr.,Wiv.,TN);
andcomediesbasedon novellasthatareserious, urbanin setting,
andconcerned withthelaw(MV,Ado,A WW, MM).Salingar failsto
providedetailedreadings ofindividual plays,buthisbookis never-
thelessa prologomena to anyfuture studyofthem.
ed: The"Medievalists"
III. Deep-Fry
A number ofcritics,
following theleadofWillard Farnham, Bernard
Spivack, andDavidBevington, amongothers, approachRenaissance
dramathrough itsmedieval antecedents, focusingonthesurvivalof
Morality elements on Shakespeare's between
stage,thesimilarity
medieval dramaandthatofMarlowe, Shakespeare, Jonson, andothers,
andtherelationship betweenfigures liketheViceandsuchlineal
descendants as Falstaff andIago.Thisapproachwasappliedto
Shakespeare's comediesin 1950; in an influential article,Nevill
Coghillcontrasted theRenaissance NewComedyofBenJonson,
whichemphasizes realismand thecorrection of socialdeviants,
withShakespeare's medieval comedy,whichmovesfromsadnessto
happinessandemphasizes a catholictoleranceofhumanfrailty.3
Coghill's articleandtheworkofother"medievalists" haveprompt-
ed critics to producea spateofbooksandarticles inthelasttwo
decadeson thecomedies.Interestingly, whethertheyrecognize it
ornot,theconceptofcomedytheyall employis almostidentical
withFrye's,forwhiletheysee theChristian mythoffall,exile,
andredemption- themythat thebasisofmedieval theater-asthe
keyto Shakespeare's plays,Fryesees thatmyth as sharing
itself
thestructure ofcomedy("the crudest ofPlautinecomedy-formulas
hasmuchthesamestructure as thecentralChristianmythitself"
[Anatomy, p. 185] ). In other words,although the "medievalists"
explainShakespeare's comedieshistoricallyintermsofhisme-
dievalheritage andFryearguesfortheexistence ofan ahistorical

· 561
"mythos" in whichShakespearean comedyparticipates, bothview

itsstructure andtoneinthesameway.
InShakespeare andtheComedyofForgiveness (NewYork:Co-
lumbiaUniv.Press,1965),oneofthebestandearliest ofthese"me-
dieval"books,RobertG. Hunterannounces hisrelianceon Frye's
conceptofShakespeare's comicstructure rightatthestart.Heagrees
thattheplays'happyendingsare a matterof wishfulfillment
andthatthevillainis eitherconverted andincludedinthehappy
societyormadeso repulsive thathisexclusionleadstheaudience
torejoice.Hunter doesoffer onequalificationofFrye'smodel:the
audience'sdesiresarefrustrated lessoftenbya villainthanbythe
herohimself, whobehavesso badlythathe hasto be forgiven if
theplayistoendhappily. ThisqualificationleadsHunter toa more
serious,
though unacknowledged, breachwithFrye,forhe argues
thatthestructure of thesix comedieshe examines(Ado, AWW,
Cym,WT,MM,and Tmp.)is Shakespeare's secularized expression
ofthemedieval doctrine offorgiveness,nottheresult ofanahistori-
cal "mythos."
Whileall thetypesofmedieval dramainvolveforgiveness foran
erringmankind, Hunter claimsthe miracleplay as the chief influ-
enceon Elizabethan comedyandtragedy. TheMiracleteachesby
examplesand prefers to presentreallycorrupt sinners whoare
savedinthenickoftimebya finalactofrepentance. Whilethese
playsmayseemunjust,sincethesinners' crimesmeritpunishment,
theyarestructured as theyareto reassure a sinfulaudiencethat
eventheirworstcrimes arepardonable through God'sinfinite mercy.
Hunter findsthatthissamepattern ofsinfulness, repentance, and
forgivenessandthethematic oppositionbetween justiceandgrace
inform Shakespeare's repentance plays.Hunterdoes not tryto
forceall ofthecomediesintothispattern, andhe stresses thatthe
sixplaysinvolved areconcerned withhuman,notdivine,forgive-
ness.Moreover, inkeeping withthissecularization ofa medieval
religiouspattern, he alsonotesthatShakespeare generally doesnot
allowhisheroesto engageinreallyheinouscrimes, so thatitbe-
comespossibleto forgive themin simplehumanterms, andthe
audience'semotional demandforwish-fulfillment endings canbe
satisfied.
despitethecautionandtactofhisargument,
Nevertheless, Hunter
isnotalwaysconvincing. Evenheadmits hehastroublewithShake-
speare'sleastlikablehero,Bertram inAll'sWell,buthe stillargues
thatRenaissance spectators would have credited Bertram's last-
minute repentance more than Hunterhimself does.
apparently But
howcan Hunter be surethatShakespeare's audiencewouldhave

responded justlikethesimplefaithful whowatchedthemiracle

plays? Could they nothave been sufficiently distantfromthecon-
ventions involved, sufficiently and
sophisticated critical, thatthey
wouldhavebeenas dismayed the
by ending of All's Well as Hunter
is?Infact,itmight bearguedthatShakespeare usestheconventions
ofthemedieval dramainhisproblem comediesprecisely because
they do not fithis characters
realistic in order to make the audience
awareofa gapbetweenwhatit wantsandwhatitgets,betweenits
desireforan orderly, consolatory pattern anda skepticism about
thevalidity ofthatpattern.
IfHunter'sbookis generally markedbyjudiciousevaluations of
howShakespeare putmedieval patterns to work in his plays, most
recent booksandarticles by"medievalists" areneither so judicious
norso original.AlanR. Velie'sShakespeare's Repentance Plays
(Rutherford, N.J.:Fairleigh DickinsonUniv.Press,1972),forin-
stance,canbe described as an expandedfootnote to Hunterwhich
argues that Elizabethans, who knew the Anglican doctrineof re-
pentance from the homilyOfRepentance, would have beenmore
skeptical,say, of Bertram's repentance than Hunter makes them.
R. ChrisHassel,in a pairof articles, has arguedthatShakespeare
wassaturated in Christian doctrine, andhe modifies FryeandBar-
berbyidentifying thecomiccommunity established at theendof
theplaysas a Christian one unitedby communion.4 WilliamB.
in
Toole, Shakespeare's Problem s
Play (TheHague:Mouton,1966),
reduces Hamletandthethreeproblem comediesto simpleChristian
allegories.Finally,much like Velie and Toole,Charlotte Spivack,
in TheComedyofEvilon Shakespeare's Stage(Rutherford, N.J:
FairleighDickinson Univ. Press,1978),propounds the thesis- surely
nota newone,as students ofDanteorMiltonwouldaffirm- that
theassociation ofevilandcomedyintheMiddleAgesandRenais-
sancesprang from thephilosophical andtheological conviction that
evilwascomic,continually to
attempting masquerade as some-
thingmorethanit was,andridiculous whenexposedanddeflated.
In passing,SpivackreducesFalstaff and TobyBelchto morality
figures ofsensualityandgluttony andthefirst partofHenryIV to
a simpleprodigalson play.For Spivackand therest,theMiddle
Agesseemonlyto haveendedin 1616!
Finally,JohnWeld'srecentstudy,Meaning inComedy:Studies
in Elizabethan RomanticComedy(Albany:StateUniv.of New
YorkPress,1975),startsbyidentifying themeaning ofa playas
thatmeaning whichsomesignificant segment oftheplaywright's
audiencewouldhavederived fromit. In orderto determine that
meaning, then,Weldturns tothemorality play,arguing thatitpro-
videsthekeyto the Elizabethan audience'sexpectations and re-

· 563
sponses.Hismostoriginal observation is that,although Moralities

usuallyrelied on exempla,they also communicated their meanings
through dramatic metaphors, thatis,characters whoaresimilar to,
though notidentical with,abstractions (e.g.,a youngmanstruggling
witha monster is analogousto witstruggling withtediousness).
Weldemphasizes theradicaldistance herebetweenvehicle(thereal
person)andtenor(theabstract meaning), andhe findsthetheoret-
icalbasisforitinmedieval theology, particularly in Augustine's in-
to
junction allegorize the Bible and his insistence that there be a
differenceas wellasa similarity between literalandfigurative levels.
Partofthepleasure experienced bytheaudienceofa medieval play,
claimsWeld,was a "multi-consciousness" (p. 51) whichallowed
themeasilyandnaturally to laughat thedrunken Noahandto see
himsimultaneously as a similitude of Christ.
Weld'sapproachto medieval dramais stimulating, buthisbook
raisesrealdoubtswhenitturnsShakespeare intoa medievalallego-
rizer.Weldargues thatsinceShakespeare's audiencewasbrought up
on morality plays, which flourished into the 1590s,theyconse-
quentlywereprepared to findin Shakespeare's earlycomediesa
seriesofdramatic metaphors. Weld's interpretation ofTheComedy
of Errorsis characteristic: the play reveals how man is damnedby
saved
justice, bymercy, and comic in his errors. Although all the
charactersareinnocent, admits that
Weld, justprovesShakespeare's
allegoricalintent:theaudiencemustinterpret Aegeon's"guilt"as
originalsin and the errors of the twins as symptoms of thatsin!
Needlessto say,Weldmakesmuchofthestresson nativity in the
lastscene,but,ingeneral, hisanalysissimplyseemstoo farfetched
(intheliteralsenseofthatterm).Hisassumption ofa widediver-
gence between vehicle and tenor gives him such latitude ininterpre-
tationthathecouldturnplaysby Aristophanes or SartreintoChris-
tianallegories.(Onerecallsthatallegorizers intheMiddleAgestrans-
formed TheAeneidintoan allegory ofthelifeofmanandOvidin-
toanexponent ofveiledChristian doctrines!) Butwhatis mostdis-
tressingabout Weld's book is that he arrives at practicallyidentical
interpretations forall theplayshe analyzes(Err.,Shr.,MND,MV);
hismethodthusreduceswidelydivergent worksto onesimplepat-
ternandthereby impoverishes, rather thanenriches, understanding.
Themostserious reservations aboutHunter, Weld,andtheothers
involvetheirvisionoftheRenaissance andtheirapproachto artis-
ticoriginality.In thefirst place,as theypushtheMiddleAgesup
intothe Renaissance, theyignoremanydifferent features which
separateitfromthatearlierage.TheMarloweaccusedofatheism
and of celebrating the "aspiring mind"certainly seemsquitere-
movedfromChaucerandMalory, notto mention theauthors of

mystery, miracle,andmorality plays.Moreover, thereis goodrea-

sonto doubtthattheElizabethan audiencewentto seeMarlowe's
heroictragediesorJonson's andMarston's satirical,
sophisticated
comediesin orderto findsomesimplistic formula
allegorical in
them.In thesecondplace,all the"medievalists" seemguiltyofar-
guingthatonecanexplainShakespeare andhisrelationship to his
audienceonlybyreference to thedramawhichcamebeforehim.
Sucha viewcredits Shakespeare withlittleoriginalityeitherin con-
ceivinghisplaysorinshaping hisrelationship withhisaudience.
Mustoneinterpret thefantastic
elements in Shakespeare's come-
dies,likeJohnWeld,as incitements to allegory,rather than,like
PhilipEdwards, as waysofindicating thefictionality oftheplays
andthusqualifying theaudience'sinvolvement in themand the
kindsof consolation provided?Andcouldone notread Shake-
to morality
speare'sexplicitreferences playfigures inconnection
with,say,Falstaff andParolleslessas cuesfortheaudienceto re-
ducethosecharacters tomedievalabstractions, thanascomparisons
by which thedifferences,theuniqueness, of Shakespeare'scharac-
terscanbe madeall themoreapparent? In short,canonenotsee
thatShakespeare takestheelements ofhismedieval heritage and
makessomething newofthem?5
IV. NeverSayFrye:Frye'sCritics
Surprisingly,fewwriters on thecomedieshavebeenopenlyhos-
tileto Frye.Ofthese,RalphBerrywinstheprizeforvitriol. In an
articlereviewingFrye's A Natural
Perspective,6 Berry confessesa
generalskepticism about whathe calls "Platonic models" for
Shakespearean comedy;theplaysareso variedthattherecanbe
no study ofShakespearean comedy, justofShakespearean comedies.
Berry's viewis,however, simplytoo atomistic, too Crocean;byde-
nyingtheexistence of Shakespearean comedy,he implicitly denies
thatofanyliterary category whatsoever. Yet sucha denialis false
to thenormalexperience ofliterature,forpeopledo, in fact,oper-
atewithimplicit notions ofliterary
genres andsubgenres. Theyhave
evenmorepreciseexpectations wheytheygo to see a comedyby
Shakespeare. Moreover, anartistwhotitledhisfirstcomicplayThe
ComedyofErrorsandwhogaveeveryoneofhissubsequent com-
ediestitlesquitedistinctfromthoseusedforhishistories andtrag-
ediescertainlyknewhisaudiencehaddefinite expectationsabout
genresandclearlylaboredto fulfill them,albeitinhisownspecial
ways.
IfBerry'soperatingassumption is notacceptable, becauseitmakes
literatureandliterary
studychaotic, neitherarehisother criticisms

· 565
ofFrye.In hisarticle hefocuses hisattackonFrye'stripartite schema

forthestructure ofcomedy.Whilehe acceptsthemiddlephaseof
confusion andrelease,he rejectsboththeinitialphasedominated
by an anticomic societyandbytyrannical personsorlaws,andthe
finalphasewithitsdiscovery ofpersonal andsocialidentity. Berry's
arguments, forthemostpart,arewillful distortionsof Frye'sviews.
Forinstance, he claimsthatthelawat thestartofA Midsummer-
Night'sDreamis neither harshnorunreasonable becauseTheseus
acceptsitandmostof Shakespeare's audiencewouldhaveapproved
ofparents having somecontrolovertheirchildren's marriage. Yet,
Theseushimself laterintheplaysetsasidetheverylawhe seemsto
support at thestart,andhisdesireto talksomesenseintoEgeus
clearlysuggests thatat leasthe doesnotviewthisfather as being
reasonable abouthisdaughter's marriage (especiallysincethetwo
suitors forherhandareabsolutely equalineveryway).ButBerry's
realproblem is thathe distorts whatFryesaysaboutlaw.In some
plays,to be sure,theheroandheroineareopposedbytyrannical
fathers, rulers, orlaws,butitmaybea "foolish resolve"as inLove's
Labor'sLostora character's bondageto hisownobsession, such
as the"socialsnobbery thatleadsBertram to despiseHelena"(A
NaturalPerspective, p. 74). Sometimes, saysFrye,theanticomic
is
society expressed by a mood of melancholy, butwhatever form
it takes,it alwaysopposesdesireand thepleasureprinciple and
standsinthewayofthecomedy's"drivetowarda festive conclu-
sion"(p. 75). In Frye'sanalysis, then,"law"isactually a metaphor,
derived fromChristian typology, for the unfree,obsessed,erotical-
ly unsatisfied condition of thecomic hero and hissocietyat the
startoftheplay,anditis complemented the
by equallymetaphor-
ical"grace"whichidentifies thefreedom, contentment, andpsychic
andsocialwholeness oftheend.
Finally,Berry claimsthatFrye'stheorydoesnotfitironiccom-
edyat all,although infactFryedoesanalyzeMeasureforMeasure
andAll'sWellat somelengthintermsofa tensionbetweencomic
structures andseriouscharacters whodo notsuitthem,although
he doesinsist, becauseoftheprimacy ofstructure, thatbothplays
arecomedies. Berry's ownassertion, thattheconclusions of Shake-
speare'scomedies arenotclarifications orfestivities,
butprovisional
regroupings ofcharacters, situationsboundto developin quiteun-
certain ways,actually fitstheproblem comediesrather well.Never-
theless, although thoseplaysmayprompt an audienceto wonder
howAngeloandMariana, Bertram andHelena,willgetalongafter
theplayends,noaudiencewatching TheTamingof theShrew,The
Merchant of Venice,orAs You LikeIt shouldfeelcompelledto
suchdoubts.Thefactis thatShakespeare's comicendings do not

seemprovisional, butprovidea satisfying senseofclosurethatone

wouldhaveto be perverse to deny.
Berry'sreviewis onlyone smallpartofhisresponse to Frye;the
otherandlargerpartis hisbook,Shakespeare's Comedies(Prince-
ton:Princeton Univ.Press,1972),which,characteristically, rejects
theideaofconstructing a generic modelfortheplaysandempha-
sizescharacter, conceived rather
realistically, thanstructure. How-
ever,although Berry dislikes generic models, he is not above gener-
alizingaboutthecomedies.Thus,he announces he willfocushis
attention on whathe callsthe"other"play(p. 22), thatis,on the
clowns,jesters, rustics, etc.,andthewaythattheyundercut the
maincharacters andtheirconcerns. He statesthatthemaintheme
ofthecomediesis illusionandthattheromantic principals arefre-
quently deceived or self-deceived, while theirinferiors are not. How-
ever,having thus made the clowns and into
jesters spokesmen for
reality,Berry almost immediately contradicts himself. As he denies
Frye'snotionthatthecomedies endfestively ina triumph forwish-
fulfillment andthepleasureprinciple, he declaresthattheending
ofTwelfth Nightdoesnotendorse thepleasures ofSirToby,a clown
whonow,it seems,is thespokesman fortheoppositeofreality.
Onemight alsoarguethatwhiletheplaydoesnotendorseSirToby's
it
pleasures,certainly givestheaudiencea chanceto satisfy itserot-
ic longings at leastvicariously, as no fewerthanthreecouplescon-
template marriage.
BerryreadsShakespeare's playsdeliberately againstthegrain,
that are
arguing they presentationsproblems of inrealistically con-
ceivedhumanrelationships andthattheirendings do notsolvethose
problems. Oftenhisanalysesaresubtleandsuggestive, butevenin
thebestofthemthereis a lackofbalance.Forinstance, takehis
reading of The Merry Wives. While most criticsfollow Fryeandin-
the
terpret play as a version of a scapegoatritual,assuming that
Shakespeare identifies and wants hisaudience to identify the
with
good folkof Windsor, Berry turns thisupside-down. To be sure,he
doesnotlabortomakeFalstaff sympathetic, buthe doesstressthe
brutalityandsadismintheWindsorites. Sucha reading isa goodcor-
rective,butitsimplygoestoo far.As Berryhimself notes,there-
vengers themselves experience a downfallas Anneand Fenton
manageto getmarried, andtheending, whichembraces thedefeat-
ed Falstaff as wellas thenewbrideandgroom, is indeeda festive
one.Berry seesintheending merely a balanceofcontending forces,
butsurely sucha balanceisnotincompatible withfestivity, forthe
latterdoesnotmeanmindless communal joy,buta communion of
characterswhoholdincheckorlimittheirhostility andindividual-

· 567
izingtendencies fortheduration ofthecelebration. Ingeneral, then,

Berry'sbook does not The
satisfy. greatest reservation simplycon-
cernshisunderlying visionofthecomedieswhichmakesthemsom-
ber,distressing experiences. SurelyShakespeare does satirizero-
manticidealists andotherabsurdfigures, but, as countless critics
haveobserved, he viewsalmostall ofthemwithcompassion and
tolerance,not with the of a
hostility jaundicedskeptic cynic- and
likeRalphBerry!
ThelateE. M.W.Tillyard,inShakespeare's EarlyComedies (Lon-
don: ChattoandWindus, 1965), has also rejectedFryein toto.In
fact,he rejectsBarberandJanetSpens,whopioneered a folkloris-
ticapproach tothecomedies, forgoodmeasure, although Tillyard's
criticismsareevenlessconvincing thanBerry's. First,he declares
thata festivity musthavesomesortofpractical result(he doesnot
specifywhat sort)ifit is to be significant, and since Shakespeare's
playsdo nothavesuchresults, theycannotbe festive. Obviously,
Tillyardignores thepsychological releaseexperienced bythechar-
acterswithinthedramaas wellas by itsaudience,andingeneral
onewonders wherehe obtainedsucha bizarredefinition offestiv-
ityinthe firstplace.Moreover, he claims that festivities
were merely
periodicamusements whichhadbecomea minor element inEnglish
lifebythetimeShakespeare started writing hisearlycomedies. Yet
why would a Puritan such
likeStubbesrailagainst festivities in1583
iftheywerereallyaboutto fadeoutof English life?Butevenif
Tillyardwerecorrect, thatwouldnotstopShakespearean comedy
from beingstructured likefolkfestivities andembracing theirspirit;
theproofliesinthemanysignificant parallelsFrye,Barber, and
othershaveadducedbetween ritualsandfestivities andShakespeare's
plays,and-whatis evenmoreimportant- haveusedto illuminate
theirmeaning. Tillyard begin develophisowntheory,
does to a
generic of
one, Shakespearean comedy, which is largely indebted
toBergson, butsincehediedbefore hecompleted hisbook,perhaps
thereis no pointintreating it further.
V.OutoftheFrye-ing
Pan:Approaching
theComedies
without
Frye
A substantial numberof booksand articleshavebeenpublished
that, whether ignoring completelyoracknowledging onlytangen-
tiallyFrye'stheories, havemore or lessgonetheirseparateways.7
Theseworkshavenot,however, produceda definitionof Shake-
to
speareancomedy replaceFrye's,although some havetriedto do
so. Essentially,
they havedoneeitherone oftwothings:approached
thecomedies à la Bergsonthroughaudiencedistanceandthemock-

eryof socialdeviants, or approached themthrough theirthemes

and especially through their characters. Since these writers have
abandoned Frye'sgeneric model for the comedies, they tend to fall
backon chronology as thechieforganizing devicefortheirstudies.
Thustheyspeakrepeatedly aboutthedevelopment ofthecomedies,
aboutShakespeare's maturation as anartist, andaboutincreasingly
sophisticated portrayals ofcharacter orinvestigations ofa theme
likelove.Becauseall ofthesecriticseitherrelyheavilyon Bergson
orpractice a kindofBradley-ian character criticism, theirescape
fromFryeamounts to a largestepbackwards intothenineteenth
century.
William Martzelaborates hisown,independent theoryofShake-
spearean in
comedy Shakespeare's Universe of Comedy(NewYork:
DavidLewis,1971). LikeFrye,he declaresthatcomedyrevelsin
lifeand health,and invitestheaudienceto identify, not witha
character as intragedy, butwiththeauthor,andto seetheplay-
worldas spectacle, a visionofsocietymarked bypermanence and
typicality. Martz on
dependsgreatly Bergson as he that
argues the
audience, likethe author, remains relatively detached fromthe
spectacle,although he also notes that Shakespeare does create char-
acterswhoengageitsconsciousness, thusmaking eachcomedya
combination ofdetachment andengagement.8 MartzseesShake-
spearean as
comedy moving a
throughspectrum from extreme farce
involving almost complete audience detachment (e.g.,TheTaming
oftheShrew)toa kindofcomedyinvolving seriousissuesandchar-
actersandgreataudienceengagement (e.g.,Twelfth Night).Since
comedycansucceed,according toMartz, onlyiftheaudiencemain-
tainsa degreeofdetachment evenfrom verysympathetic characters,
he focuseshisanalysis on howcharacters ranging fromPetruchio
to Rosalindarehandledso as to keeptheaudiencebothinvolved
withthemanddetachedat thesametime.WhileMartz 's theory
seemssoundenough, though rather limited, the bulk of hisbook
is devotedto rather uninspired of
readings specific playsthatare
filled
withsuchstrange assertions as: thecourtparty in A Midsummer-
Night'sDreamfailsto see "Pyramus andThisbe"fortheimagina-
tiveactitis (p. 76); ClaudioinMuchAdo thinksofmarriage only
interms ofmoney(p. 109); andTobyBelchisdrowned inneurosis,
thevictim of unhealthy sexuality (pp.128-33).Martz's bookwould
havebeenbetteroffas an articletheorizing aboutengagement and
detachment in Shakespeare's comedies.
Whileseveralarticles on thecomedieshavemadetheeternal re-
turnto Bergson inrather clumsyways,9 JohnRussellBrownhas
captured theessenceofthisapproachina scanttwenty pages.10
Following Bergson, Brownarguesthatcomedyallowstheaudience

· 569
a detached, wide,tolerant viewofa stagefullofcharacters, andhe

showshowShakespeare deliberately usesmultiple plotsandshift-
ingcenters ofinterest, widelyvarying styles, andintrusivemusic
anddanceto distance it fromtheplay.He alsonotesthatthereare
moments ofintense involvement usuallywhena singlecharacter
dominates thestage,as ina soliloquy, buthe stresses thattheseare
onlymoments andthatdetachment is thenorm.
BecauseMartz,Brown,andothersfollowBergson, theirfocusis
necessarilyquitedifferent fromFrye's, although whattheysaycom-
plements morethancontradicts him.Theirapproachleadsthem
awayfromquestionsof characterization and imagery as wellas
structure,andtowards questionsofgeneric andaudienceexpecta-
tions,thepsychological effects ofsoliloquiesandparodieepisodes,
andtheresults ofdislocating audienceresponse. Suchquestions,
however, thesecritics haveonlybegunto explore.
ThemostpopularrouteawayfromFryehasledcritics backto
characterandthematic studies.Oneoftheearliest ofthesedepar-
tureswasmadebyPeterT. Phialas,inhisShakespeare's Romantic
Comedies(ChapelHill:Univ.ofNorthCarolinaPress,1966). In his
introduction, PhialasagreeswithFryethatShakespearean comedy
movestowardsocialintegration, buthe claimsthattheintegration
oftheindividual precedes thatofsocietyandthatthatshallbe his
theme.He alsonotesthattheloversin theplaysarenotopposed
so muchbyexternal forcesas byinternal ones:eithertheyirration-
allyrejecttheideaoflove,givethemselves overtosentimental ideal-
izingof it,or takea purelyphysicalview.All threeof theseper-
spectivesneedto be brought backto reasonsinceall arelimited,
andhenceinadequate, inorderthatan idealattitude towardlove
whichbalancesskepticism, idealism,andcarnality mayemerge. The
chiefstructural principle ofthecomedies, accordingto Phialas,is
thejuxtaposition of theseattitudes towardslove.11In theearly
comedies theyarelocalizedindifferent actions,as whenLucentio's
idealistic
wooingofBiancais setagainstPetruchio's down-to-earth,
antiromantic courtship ofKate.In latercomedies, theseattitudes
arecombined ina singlecharacter suchas Rosalindor Violawho
maintains themiddlegroundbetweentheirextremes. Phialasthus
seesthecomediesmoving steadilyforward andculminating inthe
complexheroines ofAs You LikeIt andTwelfth Night.
Phialas's
thesisisa usefulcorrective toJohnRussellBrown's book,
whichseesShakespeare as simplyidealizing love,buthisconception
of Shakespeare's "progress" raisesmanydoubts.Forinstance, Phi-
alasarguesthatShakespeare abandonedthelove-friendship theme
afterTheMerchant ofVenicebecausehehadhandleditsuccessfully

inthatplayafterfailing in TwoGentlemen. Whythendidhe not

stopwriting about courtship after The Tamingof theShrewor
mocking lovers infatuated with the idea of loveafter A Midsummer-
Night's Dream? Moreover, because Phialas is convinced thatthe
comediesbringsuccessive heroesandheroines to evergreater self-
and
knowledge personal integration, he will arguethat, whereas
Beatrice andBenedick achievea balancedawareness ofthecomplex
natureofloveonlyat theendofMuchAdo,Rosalind, becauseshe
istheheroine a
of latercomedy, has itfrom the start. But onemight
replythatthekindofawareness Beatrice and Benedick possessis
ofa different orderthanRosalind's, rather thanan inferior version
ofhers,andonemight alsodetectin Rosalinda muchlessbalanced
attitude at thestartofAs You LikeIt thanat theend.In short,
Phialassometimes seemsthevictim ofchronology, forcing theplays
to fita particular pattern ofdevelopment justbecausetheywere
written whenhe saystheywere-a dubiouspracticeinanycase,
considering scholarly uncertainty abouttheexactchronology of
theplays.
LikePhialas,LarryChampion, inTheEvolution ofShakespeare's
Comedies(Cambridge: Harvard Univ.Press,1970),is specifically
concerned to showthatShakespeare's "development as a comic
playwright is consistently inthedirection ofcomplexity ordepth
ofcharacterization" (p. 9). Atthesametime,he insists, following
Bergson, thatShakespeare alsokepttheaudiencedetachedfrom
thecomicaction.In theearlycomedies, wherecharacterization is
minimal, the audience is almost automatically detached, but as
Shakespeare's interest incharacter grows, he musttakepainsto
keepanincreasingly emotionally involved audienceatsomedistance
andto makeitfeelsecurethatno illwillbefallthecharacters with
whomitidentifies. Shakespeare solves his problem, according to
Champion, byparodying the main characters and theiractions, thus
making themslightly ridiculous andallowing theaudienceto move
somewhat away fromthem,and by employing whatChampion
callsa "comicpointer"(p. 11), usuallya character likeLeonatoor
Don PedroinMuchAdo,whosefunction is to assuretheaudience
thatallwillbewell.Champion arranges thecomedies intoa sequence :
comediesofsituation Err.
(e.g., , Shr. of
), identity (e.g.,MV,AYL),
ofcharacter transformation (theproblem comedies, whichfail;and
theromances, whichsucceed).On thewhole,Champion's thesisis
unconvincing: ifShakespeare's comediesshoweda steadyincrease
incomplexity anddepthofcharacterization, thenonewouldexpect
thecharacters oftheromances, say, to be more complexthanthose
oftheproblem but
plays, exactly the reverse is true.SinceCham-
pion'sanalysesofindividual playsarethinandderivative, thereis

· 571
reallylittleto recommend thisbook.

Hugh Richmond hasalso produced a bookdealingwithcharacter,
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy: A Mirror forLovers(Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1971),which, as its subtitle indicates, is a moralistic
handbook(aimedat misguided University of California students)
morethana studyof Shakespeare's plays.Richmond seesShake-
speareas educating theemotions ofhisviewers againstthedangers
ofidealizing sexuallove,whichcanleadtoabsurdity orevendisaster
(as for Romeo and Othello). He admires characters like Rosalind
whomaintain a skepticalflexibility withregardto loveand who
possessanultimately Christian acceptance oftheirownandothers'
To be
imperfection. sure, Richmond's preaching of Shakespeare's
supposed philosophy of love does fitsome of the playsheconsiders,
especiallysince the heroines so often embodymanyofthequalities
he admires.Buthisthesisalso leadshim,forexample,to reduce
RomeoandJulietto a warning againsttheidealistic exaltation of
sexualpassion,as ifRomeo'sdestruction wereduesolelyto that
cause.Richmond betrays himself fortheVictorian critiche is when
he defines art,in Arnold's phrase, as a "criticism of life"(p. 122),
anddeclaresthatthecharacters ofthecomediesshouldbe treated
as realpeople-a proposition thathasfailedto makesenseofsuch
stylized and artificial
works from themiddleofeighteenth century
to themiddleofthetwentieth!
William O. Scotthasalsoproduced yetanother studyfocusedon
character, The God ofArts (Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Publications,
1977).Scottargues thattheplaysdepicttheprocessofself-definition
amongtheircharacters, a thesiswhichsuitssomeofthecomedies
butsimplywillnotwashformostofthem.Thereis no evidence,
forinstance, forScott'scontention thatProteus's trueselfin Two
Gentlemen isinlovewithJuliaandthathisreturn to herat theend
is a returnto himself. Noris heveryconvincing withhisassertions
thatClaudiohas transformed himself in a radicalwayand that
Bertram's cryforpardonamountsto a realconversion. In fact,
Scott'sbookincludes so manysuspectpronouncements ofthissort
thatonehasdifficulty giving itanycredenceat all.
Ofall thebooksapproaching Shakespeare's comediesthrough
theircharacters, thebestis Alexander Leggatt's Shakespeare's
ComedyofLove(London:Methuen, 1973). In hisintroduction,
Leggatt joinsBerryinrenouncing anyattempt at a general defi-
nitionof Shakespearean comedy,andhe specifically rejectsthe
ideaofreducing theplaysto somearchetypal pattern. However,
alsolikeBerry, hedoesnotfeelhisatomistic approachshouldpre-
venthimfromgeneralizing. Allthecomedies, he declares, involve
a basictechnique ofcomicdislocation (p. 5) in which a speechor

actionis rendered comicbyvirtueofitsplacement inan incon-

gruous context. Thistechnique isrelated towhatLeggatt character-
izesas a consistent comicpointin Shakespeare, "thedisparity be-
tweentheory andreality, thebreakdown ofphilosophy intheface
ofexperience" (p. 6). Finally, despitehisopposition to Fryeand
Barber, Leggatt comesquitecloseto themwhenhe generalizes that
"throughout Shakespeare's comedies, loveseemsto thrive on irra-
tionalityandconfusion, andemerges fromitstrengthened, renewed
andsatisfied'' (p. 8), andwhenhe admitsthatinmostcomicend-
ingsthereisanelement ofwish-fulfillment (p. 18). Leggatt borrows
directlyfrom PhilipEdwards inhisconclusion, whereheclaimsthat
Shakespeare's constant juxtaposing oftwokindsofstylesandex-
periences alsoinvolves thejuxtaposing oftwodifferent arts,one
whichorders experience intoformal designs, creating goldenworlds,
andone,morerealistic, whichrevealsexperience as disordered and
uncontrollable. Although allofthecomedies involve bothimpulses,
intheproblem plays,Shakespeare's skepticism turnsdestructive as
heimposes theneatpatterns ofcomedyuponunromantic materials
andcreatescharacters, saysLeggatt, herespeaking thelanguage of
Frye,whoaretoo individualized forthe"impersonal rhythms that
controla purelycomicworld"(p. 258). Leggatt alsocomesto the
Frye-ian conclusionthatthelastplaysrepresent a return to the
comicform, tothepattern ofwish-fulfillment the
of early comedies.
Thus,itturnsoutthat,unwittingly, Leggatt hasactuallyreliedall
alongon an implicit theoryof Shakespearean comedyquitesimilar
to Frye's.
Leggatt's analysesof individual plays,however, compensate
amplyforhisfailureto explorehisimplicit definition. Takehis
treatment ofMuchAdo,forinstance. Likemostoftheplays,itis
builton a contrast betweenthenaturalistic idiomofBeatriceand
Benedick, and the stylized, conventionalized speechandbehavior
ofClaudioandHero.Fromtherealistic perspective ofthefirst cou-
ple,Claudio'sunthinking conventionality mustbe condemned, as it
hasbeenbymanycritics.ButLeggatt argues that the play offersa
different perspective as welland shows that conventional actions,
suchas thoseofClaudio's mourning scene,canbe theexpression
ofsincere feelingandthatatcertain timesinlife,suchas birth, mar-
and
riage, death, all men surrender their individuality to become
partsoflarger, impersonal patterns.In hismourning scene,Claudio
is thusbothconventional andat one witha naturalrhythm; here,
nature andconvention areidentified. Moreover, BeatriceandBene-
dickarecomicprecisely becausetheyarenonconformists caught
inthethroesoflove,oneofthemostconventional ofhumanex-

· 573
Thus,Leggatt
periences. concludesthatalthough MuchAdo starts
out by seemingto juxtaposetwoperspectives it
on convention,
affirms
finally that at a
life, significant is a
level, deeply conventional
Thissummary
affair. doesnot,ofcourse,do justiceto thesubtlety
withwhichLeggatt readsMuchAdo,butitshouldshowhowone
person withtalentcan stillextractbountiful harvests
fromover-
workedfields.
andBeyond:ReadingtheRomances
VI. HighFrye-ing,
The production of booksand articleson theromances has in-
creaseddramatically inrecentyears,perhapsbecauseofPhilipEd-
wards 'scalltoactionina 1958 articlereviewing thecriticism ofthe
romances.12 In general,
mostofthecriticsinvolved havedistanced
themselves fromthemythical-symbolic-religious approachto the
romances of Still,Knight, and
Bethell, Fryehimself, although one
cannothelpremarking howoftenthoseoldermodeshavea wayof
working themselves backintotheinterpretations ofwriters some-
timesmosthostileto them.Some of the recent criticshave also
triedto go beyondthegeneric explorations ofE. C. Pettet,13 main-
lybylooking morecloselyatthedistinctive formoftheplaysthem-
selves.Asa result,theyhaveproduced quiteoriginal work,especial-
lyregarding thedramaturgy ofthelastplaysandthekindofaudi-
enceresponse theyweredesigned to produce.
A number ofstudiesareunfortunately contentto repeatwhat
hasalreadybeendone.Forinstance, ThomasA. Nelson,in Shake-
speare'sComicTheory:A StudyofArtandArtifice intheLastPlays
(The Hague:Mouton,1972), offers littlemore than an elaboration
ofFrye,andDavidYoung,ina somewhat better,thoughrather
derivativebook, The Heart'sForest: A StudyofShakespeare's Pas-
toralPlays(NewHaven:Yale Univ.Press,1972),alsofollowsFrye
inanalyzing thestructureofthepastoralplaysas a three-part pat-
tern.Finally,CarolGesner's Shakespeare and theGreekRomance
(Lexington: Univ.ofKentucky Press,1970) tracesthehistory and
influence ofGreekromance up to the time of Shakespeare's plays;
a usefulworkofhistorical scholarship, itbreaksno newgroundin
interpreting theplays.
Twooftheworstbookson theromances aredistinctly antisym-
bolicandanti-Frye, andbothare,surprisingly, theworkofdistin-
guishedRenaissance scholars.In an appendixinShakespeare's Ro-
mances:A StudyofSome Waysof theImagination (San Marino:
TheHuntington Library,1972),HallettSmithlashesoutat Frye,
Knight, Still,andothersbecausetheysupposedly reducetheplays
to a seriesofunderlying motifs andignorethesurface texture and

meaning. Smith'scriticism, however, reliestoo muchon testimo-

nialsfrom othercritics whosharehisviews.Hisonlysubstantive ar-
gument isthat in
people Shakespeare's day would not have read his
playsallegorically, but this isunconvincing, since scholars have dem-
onstrated howRenaissance readersoftenallegorized works,espe-
ciallythoseinvolving mythological figures.Whenoneturnsfrom
Smith'sappendixto thebodyofhisbook,one findslittleofvalue,
formostofhisusefulinsights arederivedfromtheworksofothers.
Whatismostdistressing is thatSmithmakesalmostno effort to de-
finebasicterms ortoorganize hismaterial coherently. He flits
from
topicto topic making overlygeneral, vagueassertions anddiscov-
eringrathertenuouslinksbetweenplays. The onlyreallyuseful
partofhisbookis hisrefutation ina secondappendixofthepre-
posterous thesisthatwouldbecomethesubjectof FrancesYates's
Shakespeare's LastPlays(London:Routledge andKeganPaul,1975).
Yatesarguesthattheromances reflectcontemporary eventsand
ideas:theElizabethan revival ofJames'sreign,Renaissance hermet-
icism,andtheideasoftheRosicrucian movement. As an example
of her"proof"forthishypothesis, shearguesthatShakespeare
changedhissourcesforCymbeline so thattheold kingwouldhave
twosonsanda daughter justlikeJamesandthathe gavetheyouths
thechivalric qualitiescontemporaries admired inPrinceHenry. Even
granted thatShakespeare wasas interested andinformed as Yates
makeshim,it is difficult to believethathe wouldflatter theking's
children whileturning thekinghimself intotheirascible, dim-witted,
ratherpatheticCymbeline.
Finally,amongthelesssuccessful bookson theromances, there
isR.A. Foakes'sShakespeare, theDarkComedies totheLast Plays:
FromSatiretoCelebration (Charlottesville: Univ.of Virginia Press,
1971). Foakes triesto explain the evolution of Shakespeare's plays
during thefirst decadeoftheseventeenth century byreverting to
thegenerally discredited hypothesis that he simply followed changes
intheatrical fashion. Foakesdoesnot,however, carry hishypothesis
outtoitsconclusion andarguethattheromances reflect thefashion
thatbrought Beaumont andFletcher to prominence, perhapsbe-
the
cause,granted early date of Pericles,such a view is completely
untenable. In reading theplays,Foakesseekswhathe callstheir
"tonality" (p. 7),a qualitywhichoftenseemsrather subjective and
eccentric. Heasserts, forinstance, thatParollesandLavachesetthe
toneforAll'sWellandmakeita comedy,buthe reallyoffers no
proof for his assertion- and one wonders ifthere is anyproofin
any case. Foakes also describes how Shakespeare moved fromthe
psychologically realisticcharacters ofthegreattragedies, withwhom
theaudiencecouldidentify, through themoredistant, lessrealistic

· 575
figuresofTimon,Coriolanus, andAntonyandCleopatra, to the

reallydistantandoftenpsychologically inconsistent characters of
thelastplays.ButFoakesdependsona rather uncertain chronology
here,andifPericlescomesbeforeCoriolanus andAntonyand Cleo-
patra,as it almostsurelydoes,hisneattheoryis reducedto non-
sense.In general, Foakes'sbookmaybe safelyignored.
In Shakespearean Romance(Princeton: Princeton Univ.Press,
1972),HowardFelperin alsodeclareshimself opposedto thealle-
gorical-symbolic schoolas wellas to Frye.Felperin is an historical
genrecritic, andinan appendixhe attacksFryeforretreating from
history andformaking romancethesimplere-creation ofa myth-
icalpattern, when,infact,itisbotha re-creation anda criticism of
thatpattern.14 Nevertheless, despitehisattacks,Felperinoften
soundsverymuchlikeFrye:history is"themodeinwhichthereal-
ityprinciple commands itsfullest recognition, andromance, the
modeinwhichitreceives itsfreesttreatment" (p. 209); bothcom-
edyandromance"issuein ... a renewedandraisedsociety"(p.
58); bothmovefroma "lowerorfallenorderofnature. . . intoa
higher order"(p. 82); and"theChristian epicis thecanonicalro-
manceofmedieval andRenaissance culture"andinfluences Shake-
speare'sromances accordingly (p. 29). Moreover, forthemostpart
Felperin coversthesamegroundandarrives at manyofthesame
conclusions as Pettet'sShakespeare and theRomanceTradition,
albeithisemphasis is different.
Thatemphasis is placedon whatFelperin callstheantiromance
elements intheromances.15 He claimsthatbecauseofthoseele-
mentstheromances areactuallylessromantic thanthecomedies.
Whathe meansis thatinthecomediesthethreats posedbyfathers
ortyrants arenotthatgrave, theprotagonists do nothaveto exert
muchmoraleffort, andthefestive endings arenothardwon.By
contrast,intheromances thenaturalandsocialworldis filledwith
realevil,pain,andsuffering, andthehappyendingis nevera com-
pleterestitution. Also,a religious element is present,especially no-
ticeableinthetheophanies, thatis generally absentfromthecome-
dies.Felperin 's modelneedssomequalifications, especially since
theworlds ofatleastCymbeline andTheWinter's Taledo notseem
thateviloncetheprincipal offenders aredeadorconverted, butin
general hismodel will serve.
Moreoriginal byfarthanFelperin 's bookaretheinterpretations
oftheromances whichfocuson thewaysin whichtheplayssignal
theirownartifice, prevent theaudiencefrom involving itselfdeeply
withcharacters, andforceitto contribute to theplays'meanings.
Alloftheseinterpretations owesomething toBergson, toMaynard

Mack,andto AnneRighter's Shakespeare andtheIdea of thePlay

(London: Chatto and Windus, 1962). And all aredoubtlesscondi-
tionedbytheirauthors'experience ofthemodern theater withits
"alienation-effects," itsdeliberate distancing oftheaudience,and
itsunderscoring ofitsownartifice.
In TimeTideandTempest (SanMarino:TheHuntington Library,
1973),Douglas Peterson arguesthatwhereasShakespeare's trage-
diesinvolve viewers deeplyintheirfictional worlds, theromances,
withtheirgreater freedom ofrepresentation, keeptheaudienceat
a distancebystressing consistently they plays.UsingPeri-
that are
clesas hismodel,Peterson defines thefundamental traitofthero-
mancesas theuse of sceneswhichare "speakingpictures," that
is,dramatic emblems (p. 11). These emblems reveal truths about
thebenevolent forcesgoverning thecosmos,andan idealaudience
wouldrespond tothemwithmuchthesamereceptivity as thecele-
brantsofa ritualrespondto it.Although theotherthreeromances
arelessemblematic andmoremimetic thanPericles, Peterson can
nevertheless finddramatic emblems throughout them. Through
thoseemblems Peterson thenconstructs hisfairly interestingread-
ingsoftheplays.Itisnoteworthy, however, thatalthough he starts
outbyrejecting allegorical criticism oftheromances, hisownmeth-
od ofreading the"truths" contained inemblems approximates the
allegorical.
Bycontrast withPeterson, JoanHartwig, inShakespeare's Tragi-
comicVision(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniv.Press,1972),
triesharder to analyzetheromances as self-conscious She
artistry.
noteshowtheplaysalternately involveanddistancetheaudience,
andhowShakespeare callsattention to hisownartistry so thatthe
viewerwillmakean ethicalreassessment ofwhatartmaydo and
willrecognize thatthemethods ofrepresentation availablearein-
adequate for the values beingexpressed. SheclaimsthatShake-
speare'sromances arebetterlabeledtragicomedies andthatthey
differ fromotherplaysinthegenrebyplacingsupernatural figures
on stageandbygiving theaudience,exceptin TheWinter's Tale,
knowledge superior to thatofthecharacters intheplays.Shesays
thattheromances stresstheirartistry anddistancetheaudiencein
orderto induceitto respondto theplaysas didacticdevicesand
to seethecharacters as itsanalogues. Thus,theartistic self-con-
sciousnessoftheromances servesforHartwig thesamepurposeit
didforPeterson, andlikehimshedevotesmostofherbookto an
exploration ofthelessonstaughtbytheplays.Forinstance, her
interpretation ofCymbeline stresses whatshecallsthelife-from-
deaththemewhichis centered on Posthumus andImogen, bothof
whomarereducedto nothing inthefirst halfoftheplayandthen

· 577
rebuildtheirselvesin thesecondhalf.Thus,muchlikePeterson,
Hartwig finally failsto useherinsights intothedramaturgy ofthe
romances in orderto evolvea radically newinterpretation oftheir
meaning, butretreats tothesaferposition ofdeciphering theirsym-
boliclessons.
RobertEgan'sDramawithin Drama(NewYork:Columbia Univ.
Press,1972) is notreallyconcerned withtheproblem ofdefining
theromances, butitsreadings ofTheWinter's TaleandTheTempest
doattempt toincorporate Shakespeare's dramatic self-consciousness
intothemeaning oftheplays,rather thansee itas a precondition
fortheperception ofthatmeaning. In KingLearandthetworo-
mances, Egancontends, various characters createlittleplayswithin
theplayspecifically to controlorshapereality within theplay-
world.Shakespeare doesthisso thatthetheater audiencewillsee
an analogousrelationship betweentheplayitis watching andthe
realworld.EganthusagreeswithPeterson andHartwig thatShake-
spearehasa didacticpurpose, butheargues thattheaudiencelearns
itslessonnotfromemblemsor analogieswithcharacters, but
through comprehending therelationship betweenartandlifewith-
intheplayandthenusingthatknowledge tojudgetherelationship
between theartoftheplayandtheworldinwhichtheaudience
lives.
Perhaps thebestwayto clarify Egan'sthesisis to followhimas
he interprets a play.In hisreading of TheWinter's Talehe notes
thatat Camillo's urging FlorizelandPerditaputon a playforLeon-
tes,thatitsfalsity isdiscovered, thatLeontesthendecidesto trans-
form itsillusion intoreality, andthateventsfinally enableCamillo's
artistic
illusionactuallyto becomereality whenPerditais revealed
as Leontes'sdaughter. Theentireplayof The Winter's Taleis,says
Egan,likeCamillo's, andtheaudienceisinmuchthesamerelation-
shiptoitas Leontesisto theoneputon forhim.Atthestart,Leon-
tesdestroyed theharmonious relationship betweenmanandnature
whenhe lostfaiththattheworldwasorderedandgood.Camillo's
play,andPaulina'slater,similar one,constitute efforts to restore
thislostnaturalcondition, butthesuccessoftheirartifice depends
on theresponse oftheiraudience.Specifically, Leontesmustgo
frompassively perceiving illusionto actively attempting to convey
itintotheworldas reality ifanyrestoration is to takeplace.Leon-
tes'sresponses thusprovidea modelfortheaudience:it,too,must
choosetocreditthetruthoflife-giving illusions liketheplayitsees;
itmustbelieve, likethecourtiers inthesecondsceneofActV, that
old talescancometrue.Iftheaudiencewerecapableofsuchabso-
lutefaith, thentheplayholdsoutthehopethattheoriginal order
ofnaturemight be restored.

Thereareplaceswhereone feelsuncomfortable withEgan'sin-

terpretation. Foronething, he ignoresthepresence ofAutolycus
whois also a fabricator of illusions,whoseaudienceof gullible
clownsbelievesinthemabsolutely, butwhoseillusions do notbe-
comerealities orleadto nature's restoration.Moreover, Egan'sem-
phasisonrestoration inTheWinter's Taleoverlooks theirreparable
losses--two deathsanda sixteen-year separation forLeontes's fam-
ily.Still,whatis so stimulating abouthisargument is hisabilityto
relatetheartistic self-consciousness oftheplaydirectly tothemean-
ingwhichtheaudienceis to construct fromit.
Last,butnotleast,isBarbaraMowat'swonderful TheDramaturgy
ofShakespeare's Romances (Athens: Univ.of Georgia Press,1976),
whichgoesbeyondEganandtheothers asitshowsexplicitly howthe
techniques oftheromances maketheaudienceanactiveparticipant
inthecreation oftheirmeaning. Mowatpresents heranalysis inthree
longchapters. Inthefirst, sheargues, muchlikeHartwig andothers,
thattheplaysoscillateconstantly betweentragicinvolvement and
comicdetachment andthatthetragic partsareludicrously overstated
whilethecomiconesinvolve realpain.Thus,theaudience's reaction
isalwaysdoubleasitiscalledontorespond witha mixture ofsen-
timental naiveteandsophisticated awareness ofirony.
Thesecondchaptershowshowtheplaysyokedisparate theat-
ricalstylestogether, so thattheycontinually createillusions of
realitythatarecontinually broken.In otherwords,theromances
arebothpresentational, liketheearlyplays,andrepresentational,
likethegreattragedies. Although theythuscanbe seenas marking
a return to Shakespeare's earliestdramaturgy, theydo so self-con-
sciouslyandstresstheartificial qualityofpresentational devices
suchas informational soliloquies.As a result, theaudienceis put
inthepositionofexamining therelationship betweenartifice and
reality,theplay-world and therealworld,and of realizing how
problematical thatrelationship is.Justas thecharacters inthero-
manceshavetroublekeeping illusionandreality apart,so doesthe
audience.
Mowat'sthirdchapterexaminestheplotstructures ofthero-
mancesandobserves howalllacka mid-play climax,undermine the
normalcurveofexpectation andfulfillment, andincludenarrative
devicesthatmakethemtalesas wellasplays.Forinstance, shenotes
thatin Cymbeline a totallynewplot (BelariusandCymbeline's
sons)beginsin themiddle,andthatTheWinter's Talepractically
splitsintotwo equallylongplays. The centers ofthe romances do
notsharetheintense dramaofthoseinKingLearorHamlet,nordo
theyprovidecluesto themainsignificance oftheplay.In general,
theorderofevents intheromances seemswhimsical, fullofsurprises ;

· 579
thereis no senseof a growing pattern,of logicaldevelopment.

Mowatargues thattheyachieveunitythrough rather
narrative, than
dramatic, means,forShakespeare fillstheplayswithnarrated pas-
sageswhichsupplycontinuity. Thosepassagesalsobreakthedra-
maticillusion ofreality,andtheyservea third, evenmoreimportant,
function^heyforcetheaudienceto bodyforthcharacters and
events,thusmaking itthepartialcreator oftheplayithasseen.
Although MowatdoesnottreatPericlesindetailbecauseofits
dubiousauthorship, shenotesthatitembodiesthecharacteristics
shehasfoundintheotherplays.So, sheclaims,do manyother
dramatic works, including Aristophanes' comedies,Jacobeancourt
masques,andBrecht's epictheater,all ofwhichavoidmimesis and
causallyconnected action,abandongeneric conventions,andshatter
dramatic illusion.In general, theyaimat breaking up normalpat-
ternsofexpectation, andas a result,forcetheaudience,placedat
a distancefromtheplay- world,to makethedramaithasseeninto
a coherent,meaningful statement. Sucha taskisdifficult,
according
to Mowat,forShakespeare's romances, becausetheaudiencecan
neverbesurewhatisreality andwhat,illusion.Theromances frus-
tratereasonandchallenge itspowers tosolveproblems unlessassisted
by magic.Mowatthenendsherbook witha mosttentative con-
clusionconcerning themeaning oftheplays.Shakespeare mayhave
wantedto saysomething in them:about"man'srelationship with
a mysterious supernatural world,an unconcerned naturalworld,
man'sownpassions, andhisfunctions insociety"(p. 118); about
illusionandreality andtherelationship ofstoryanddrama;and
aboutthegenreshe had formerly cultivated andwhichcouldno
longerencompass themeaning hewishedto express.Mowat's book
disappoints in onlyoneregard:itdoesnotgo farenough, doesnot
offerdetailedreadings ofthefourromances to showjusthowtheir
meanings arecontingent on theirdramaturgy. Thatremains oneof
thetasksforfuture critics.
AfterFrye?
VII. Conclusion:
The mostobviousconclusionfromthisreviewof recentworkon
Shakespeareancomedyand romanceis thatFrye'sideasabout
thecomedies-orsimilar ideasgleanedfromothersources-arethe
point
starting for almostall ofthecritics.Manyofthemhavebeen
contentsimply to manipulate Frye'sconceptsrathermechanically;
some,likeLeo have
Salingar, qualified anddeepenedthoseconcepts;
a fewhaverejectedthem,butalwayswithquiteunconvincing argu-
ments.Moreover, allhavelumpedFryeandBarbertogether, label-
ingthem anthropological without
critics, that
realizing in termsof

one of themostimportant facetsof comedy,itsstructure, they

arediametrically opposed.ForFrye,comedyis characterized by
a dynamic, teleological structure, whileforBarber itisequatedwith
festiveclowning andthusis staticandself-contained. if
Logically,
Fryeisright, thenBarber iswrong, andifBarberis right, thenFrye
is wrong-andyetone'sexperience ofthecomediesinthetheater
suggests that,insomestrange way,botharecorrect. Howthatcan
be,howonecanreconcilethesetwoviewsofcomicstructure, re-
mainsa major,unsolvedproblem forcriticsofthecomedies.
Glancing overall thebooksandarticles written aboutthecom-
edies,onecannothelpnoticing howmanyarepartialstudies.One
criticconfines himself to justtheromantic comedies;another, to
theearlycomedies;yetanother, to theproblem comedies.Some
writers havelookedformorenovelwaysto divideup theplaysby
treating generic conventions (e.g.,thepastoral comedies)orthemes
(e.g.,theambiguity oflove).To someextent, suchpluralism is
healthy, forwitheach regrouping of theplays,features maybe
highlighted thatwereobscuredbythemoretraditional, chronolog-
icalarrangement. Still,whatismissing inall thisis a workproviding
a comprehensive definition ofall thecomedies.Manycriticsare
clearlydissatisfied withFrye'ssynthesis, buttheyhavenotbeen
ableto offera replacement forit.In rejecting Frye,theyhaveusu-
allyjustreturned to character andthematic studiesandthusim-
plicitlyorexplicitly abandonedthechallenge to defineShakespear-
eancomedyat all. Sucha definition, then,is stillto be fashioned.
It will,assuredly, haveto startfromFryeandBarber, nowsupple-
mentedby Salingar, anditwillhaveto takeintoaccountthework
thata fewcritics havestarted to do withthequestionofaudience
reaction to thecomedies.
Finally, itseemsthattheromances havenowbeendefinitively
separated fromthecomediesinthemindsofmostcritics, a sepa-
rationwhichalmosteveryscholar writing onthemhasbeenatpains
tostress andwhichhasbeenenshrined inat leastthePelicanedition
oftheplays.EvenFryehimself, whogroupedthecomediesand
romances together inA NaturalPerspective andtheAnatomy, has
quiterecently acceptedthedivisionbetweenthemin an article
whichviewsthecomediesas a development of NewComedyand
theromances as beingrelated tothemasqueandto Old Comedy. 16
Actually, all these critics are a
reallyjustmaking subgeneric dis-
tinction, forall ofthemconfessthelargefamily re-
(i.e.,generic)
semblances betweencomedyandromance, butinsistthatthedif-
ferences aremoreimportant thanthesimilarities. Butarethey?
Might not a study of the of the
dramaturgy comedies, forinstance,
revealthatmanyoftheirtechniques anddevicesarequitecompa-

· 581
rabieto whatMowatandothershavefoundintheromances? After

all,thecomedies,likethelastplays,oftenavoidmid-play climaxes;
callattention
self-consciously to theirownartifice;breakdramatic
oftenwithnarrative
illusion, devices;andalternate betweendistanc-
ingandengaging theaudience.Perhaps studiesofsuchmatters will
notleadcriticsto abandonthedivision theyhavemadebetween
thecomediesandtheromances, butit should,at least,forcethem
to makeitina subtler andmoresophisticated way.
TheUniversity
of Texasat Austin
Notes
1. JohnRussell Brown surveyedthe earliercriticismof the comedies,but
stopped just as Frye's influencebegan to be felt;see his "The Interpretation
of Shakespeare'sComedies: 1 900-1 953, " ShakespeareSurvey,8 (1955), 1-13.
Two morerecentarticleson the criticismof the comedies have quite properly
stressedFrye'sinfluence,but theiremphasisand scope are quite different from
my own; see JeanneA. Roberts, "American Criticismof Shakespeare's Com-
edies," ShakespeareStudies, 9(1976), l-10;and RobertMerrill,"The Generic
Approach in Recent Criticismof Shakespeare's Comedies and Romances: A
Review-Essay,"TSLL, 20 (1978), 474-87.
My statementsconcerningFrye are based on his "The Argumentof Com-
edy," in EnglishInstituteEssays, 1948 (New York: Columbia Univ. Press,
1949), pp. 58-7 3 ; Anatomy of Criticism(Princeton: PrincetonUniv. Press,
1957); and A NaturalPerspective:The Developmentof ShakespeareanComedy
and Romance (New York: Harcourt,Brace, and World,1965). Frye has writ-
tenotherworkson Shakespeareancomedyand romance,but hismaininfluence
on contemporarycriticsstemsfromthe threetitleslisted above.
Referencesto books and articleswill,wheneverpossible,be placed in the
text,as will page numbers.
2. JamesE. Siemon,"The CankerWithin:Some Observationson the Role
of the Villainin Three ShakespeareanComedies," Shakespeare Quarterly,23
(1972), 435-43; and V. Y. Kantak, "An Approach to ShakespeareanComedy,"
ShakespeareSurvey,22 (1969), 7-14.
3. NevillCoghill,"The Basis of ShakespeareanComedy," Essays and
Studies, n.s. 3 (1950), 1-28.
4. R. ChrisHassel, "Saint Paul and Shakespeare's Romantic Comedies,"
Thought,46 (1971), 371-88; and "Shakespeare's Comic Epilogues: Invitation
to FestiveCommunion,"Jahrbuchder deutschenShakespeare-Gesellschaft
West(1970), pp. 160-69.
5. See the excellentdiscussionof Shakespeare's Renaissance sense of time
in the historyplays in Ricardo Quinones, The Renaissance Discoveryof Time
(Cambridge,Mass: HarvardUniv. Press,1972), pp. 290-300, 346-51.
6. Ralph Berry,"Shakespearean Comedy and NorthropFrye," Essays in
Criticism,22 (1972), 33-40.
7. 1 omit fromconsiderationhere fourbooks, two on dream in Shake-
speare and two on Shakespeareas a Neoplatonist: JohnArthos,Shakespeare's
Use of Dream and Vision (London: Bowes and Bowes, 1977); MarjorieB.
Garber,Dreamin Shakespeare (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press,1974); John
Arthos,Shakespeare: The Early Writings (London: Bowes and Bowes, 1972);

and RichardCody,The Landscape oftheMind:Pastoralismand Platonic Theory

in Tasso's "Aminta" and Shakespeare's Early Comedies (Oxford: Clarendon
Press,1969). Arthos'sand Cody's books on Shakespeare'sNeoplatonismare
filled with unsupportedassertions,and neitherthey nor the two books on
dreamin Shakespeareprovidea viablemodel of Shakespeareancomedy. Ar-
thos's two volumes attemptto reveala deeply learned Shakespeare,but their
styleis so opaque thatall theyproduce is a murkyone. Cody's book is at least
clear,althoughpreposterousin some of its claims (e.g., Proteus'svacillations
are the resultof his passion fortruebeauty). Garber'sbook is the best of the
lot, but she diminishesits usefulnessby stretchingthe termdreamuntil it can
mean daydream,subjectivepsychologicalstate,the total imaginativelifeof a
character,metaphoricallanguage,and even entireplays. By the time she is
done, "dream" means everything, and, hence, almost nothingat all.
8. Martzis also influencedhere by MaynardMack's "Engagementand De-
tachmentin Shakespeare'sPlays," in Essays on Shakespeareand Elizabethan
Drama in Honor of Hardin Craig,ed. Richard Hosley (Columbia: Univ. of
MissouriPress,1962), pp. 275-96. It should be noted that Frye approaches,
but does not quite arriveat, similarconclusions in A NaturalPerspective,pp.
98-104.
9. JohnW. Sider, "The Serious Elementsof Shakespeare'sComedies,"
Shakespeare Quarterly,24 (1973), 1-11; and HerbertS. Weil,Jr.,"Comic
Structureand Tonal Manipulationin Shakespeareand Some ModernPlays,"
ShakespeareSurvey,22 (1969), 27-33.
10. John Russell Brown, "The Presentationof Comedy: The First Ten
Plays," in ShakespearianComedy, Stratford-upon-Avon Studies, 14 (1972),
9-30.
11. Phialas's concept of "structure"here is worldsapart fromFrye's. For
the former,the structureof a play is a relationshipamong its themesor ideas
and its characters;forthe latter,structureis a matterof plot movementcon-
sideredabstractly.
12. Philip Edwards,"Shakespeare's Romances: 1900-1957," Shakespeare
Survey,11 (1958), 1-18. See also Norman Sanders,"An Overviewof Critical
Approachesto the Romances," in Shakespeare's Romances Reconsidered,ed.
Carol M. Kay and HenryE. Jacobs (Lincoln: Univ. of NebraskaPress,1978),
pp. 1-10.
13. E. C. Pettet,Shakespeareand theRomance Tradition(London: Staples
Press,1949).
14. Felperinalso opposes Frye'sconceptionof romancein an articleon The
Tempestwhicharguesthat the play's recuperationof primitivemythicshape
is deliberatelyincompleteand problematic; see his "Romance and Romanti-
cism: Some Reflectionson The Tempest and Heart of Darkness,Or When Is
Romance No Longer Romance?" in Shakespeare's Romances Reconsidered,
pp. 60-76.
15. Felperinhas been anticipatedin thisregardby StanleyWells,"Shake-
speare and Romance," in Later Shakespeare,Stratford-upon-Avon Studies, 8
(1967), 49-76. Felperinmakes no referenceto Wells's article,even thoughit
appeared fiveyearsbeforehis book did.
16. NorthropFrye,"Romance as Masque," in Shakespeare's Romances
Reconsidered,pp. 11-39.


After Frye A Review-Article On The Interpretation of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

After Frye A Review-Article On The Interpretation of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

After Frye: A Review-Article on the Interpretation of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance

Author(s): Wayne A. Rebhorn

This content downloaded on Wed, 9 Jan 2013 04:24:20 AM